A proper understanding of logical fallacies will improve the quality of debate

If somebody accuses you of quote-mining, why can't you refute that by producing the context yourself?Isn't the gathering of evidence the kind of checking that you yourself should do before posting a quote? Why is it someone else's responsibility to catch your errors? A good portion of the web is reporting that is either slanted or wrong, and surely you know that. Yet you apparently believe that it is somebody else's responsibility to fact check anything you drag in here. In my opinion, that approach is totally unacceptable.Don't you think being sloppy will damage your reputation just as thoroughly as deliberately quote mining? Posting a quote with reckless disregard for its context is gross negligence that is just as bad as intentional quote mining.When you're wrong about something, it does no good to complain about the harshness with which the wrong is pointed out and to put the responsibility for correcting you on others. Giving up a point gracefully goes a long way towards getting people to move the discussion along to another point, at least up until it is time to summarize.

Coyote,I and others have suggested some resources so readers like yourself can become more familiar with logical fallacies. Please take some time to read through some of this material. Just knowing the names of logical fallacies is not very useful. It is important to know why they are considered fallacies and in what situations they may considered helpful and appropriate.Your comment above was a mainly a rant against creationists. Without doubt there are creationists here who are guilty of logical fallacies, but the creationists are not the only ones. The ability to spot the faulty reasoning among those on your own side is an important part of mastering the skill of critical thinking and raising the level of the debate here. What is the best way to respond? Let me give you a hint: it is not by calling the other person a liar. Attacking the person rather than attacking his argument is itself a logical fallacy known as an ad hominem attack.

Because the burden of proof is on the person making the assertion. Unsupported assertions can and should be ignored.Edited by designtheorist, : Dang homonyms!

Any unsourced quote is an unsupported assertion.

This is not a question of unsourced quotes. It is a question of the quote being out of context or not. If someone wants to claim the quote is out of context, they have to supply some evidence or the claim is worthless.

And how would you suggest "someone" do that if the original proponent of the quote doesn't provide the source?

Due to Granny Magda providing some evidence that Arthur Eddington may have been a life-long Quaker and not an atheist as is claimed on some websites, I have edited my original post to make this clear. Please see Message 152 to see the edit.Anytime someone can convince me that a claim I make is not well-founded, I will make a similar correction.

Granny Magda was able to do it because the quote was out of historical context. In other cases, it may be more difficult. The first place to start would be to ask the person who used the quote to provide when and where the quote first appeared.

Actually GM and nearly everyone else knew instantly that you had to be wrong because Eddington's Quaker beliefs are quite well known. In fact those beliefs played a role in Eddington taking on the eclipse observations that made Einstein famous among the public. There is also the fact that Eddington died in 1944.Of course it might also have been possible to challenge your quote based on the context.When you post a quote and say it means X, you've made an assertion. A naked quote is particularly clearly just an assertion when 1) it is contrary to what we know about the person and 2) when no context is provided.It is the proponent's responsibility to back up his position if the quote is questioned. And since we always know the context of the quotes we use, because we aren't irresponsible, then our responsibility isn't much of a burden, right?A juicy sentence from Astro-Boy's web page that seems to directly support your position may seem irresistible, but if you use it, we're going to look to you and not to Astro-boy to defend it.I understand that you'll never agree and that you'll continue with your quote and see what sticks approach. So be it.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

It's considered bad form to edit a post after it's been replied to, especially if you're editing the particular bit that has been quoted and replied to.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

No he doesn't. This is something that you have fabricated out of your vast bewildered incomprehension of what he's actually talking about.You haven't actually read A Brief History Of Time, have you?

No, he said that other people used to think that it did. He himself does not think that.

quote:

---

Perhaps you did not get a chance to read my summation at Message 314 of the earlier thread. I quoted from Hawking's book A Brief History of Time and he talks about how he changed his mind regarding the big bang and now argues against it... arguing instead for a "no boundary conditions" universe.

---

You forget that there were no responses allowed to that message. In fact Hawking never turned against the Big Bang, simply the notion of an initial singularity. Which is all that your quotes say. The subtitle of A Brief History of Time is iFrom the big Bang to Black Holes[/i]. Hawking even explains that in "our time" as opposed to the "imaginary time" (called "imaginary" because it is mathematically described with "imaginary numbers", in a science based around our time) there would appear to be an initial singularity (A Brief History of Time chapter 8 p139) If Hawking rejects any aspect of the Big Bang other than the idea that it started in an actual singularity I haven't seen any reference to it.

quote:

---

According to a website I just found, Hawking's no boundary conditions universe is identified with colliding branes. I am not sure this is correct, but it may be. See Philosophy of Science Portal: S. Hawking documentary

---

The ekpyrotic theory ("colliding branes") also features a Big Bang. So I am not sure what your point is here. (the comment is also rather vague and does't make the exact relationship clear),

quote:

---

So, the best course of action when you spot an appeal to authority is to challenge the quotation on these two grounds. First, is the authority really an authority or is this an appeal to an inappropriate authority? Second, are there other authorities which disagree with the quoted authorities?

---

Looking for a disagreement is not the same as challenging the existence of a consensus. One of the reasons for looking for a consensus is to avoid giving undue prominence to fringe figures. Looking for mere disagreement would permit the use of fringe figures to undermine a good argument from authority.And this ignores other responses. One could, for instance show that the cited authority was being misrepresented.
Here is an example Message 253
The actual quote from Paul Davies, as cited in Message 49, includes the following: Finally, it is incumbent on the person making the argument to justify the assertion that the authority genuinely agrees with the assertion, that the alleged authority genuinely is an authority, and that the view represents a genuine consensus of the experts. If they fail to do so, challenging them to provide support for these claims is a valid response.

Doesn't it occur to you that it would be much more efficient for you to provide the source to begin with?