Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Wikipedia Always A Reliable Source?
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 5 of 15 (803685)
04-03-2017 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
04-02-2017 1:06 PM


However, wiki then goes on to mistakenly give examples of a modus ponen rather than an appeal to consequences by arguing that the following argument is an appeal to consequences;
"Evolution must be false: if it were true then human beings would be no better than animals, since we would be descended from them."
And so it is. It is arguing that evolution is false because if it were true then the consequence would be that we are no better than animals. Which, the implication goes, is not to be desired.
so the examples they give may be correct because if evolution was true certain circumstances may be reasonably expected, such as humans basically being no better than animals or to expect more than one type of animal like a human, out of all of the millions.
Things which are logically fallacious reasoning can in fact be correct.
The logical fallacious reasoning is not that 'if evolution were true, we'd be no better than animals' but 'evolution must be false or we'd be no better than animals'.
The fallaciousness is the pointing at the consequence 'we'd be be no better than animals' as the REASON evolution must be false. Whether or not evolution actually is false, is not relevant to whether or not this reasoning is logical, which it isn't.
A better way to present that example would be as a modus ponen
Changing the argument to a logically valid argument and presenting that would be a shit example of a logically fallacious 'appeal to consequences' though wouldn't it?
make me wonder why they chose two examples, one being something to do with freewill, which is essentially theistic, and an argument against evolution which is essentially theistic.
Appeal to consequences - Wikipedia
Gives three examples:
quote:
1. "Free will must exist: if it didn't, we would all be machines."
2. "Evolution must be false: if it were true then human beings would be no better than animals, since we would be descended from them." (This is also a false dilemma.)
3. "If the six men win, it will mean that the police are guilty of perjury, that they are guilty of violence and threats, that the confessions were invented and improperly admitted in evidence and the convictions were erroneous... This is such an appalling vista that every sensible person in the land would say that it cannot be right that these actions should go any further." Lord Denning in his judgment on the Birmingham Six.
my point is it isn't an appeal to consequences, it is the expectation of certain facts if a proposal is true.
Even if your rewording is not an appeal to consequences, the original argument that appealed to the consequence 'we be no better than animals' as the reason why evolution is false is an appeal to consequences.
There is truth and there is validity.
'I can't have cancer because I have to finish writing my book therefore I don't have cancer' is logically invalid - even if the conclusion 'I don't have cancer' is true.
It doesn't matter that one could construct a logically valid argument as to why I don't have cancer, the above argument is still logically invalid.
Dr Sarfati PHD also says that it may be reasonable to refute the auxiliary hypothesis rather than the hypothesis itself.
Irrelevant as to whether or not the original argument was logically constructed or not. It wasn't, it was an appeal to consequences.
I am not sure wiki's examples are very good, because if a consequent clearly does follow an antecedent then this is not the same as a desirable consequence because it does not matter if a desirable consequence follows an antecedent but it does matter that certain facts follow an antecedent, in determining the truth-value of that proposal.
The point remains, if evolution is false it is not so because it being true would make us 'no better than animals' even if it were true that it would make us no better than animals. Even if it were true that having cancer would inhibit my finishing my book, this is is not a good reason to suppose that I don't have cancer.
In both examples, the examples given are actually better examples of modus ponens, where the tollens can be used, rather than desirable things for certain facts about the world aren't merely desired outcomes but are realities, so the examples they give may be correct because if evolution was true certain circumstances may be reasonably expected, such as humans basically being no better than animals or to expect more than one type of animal like a human, out of all of the millions.
I'll just repeat it - the fact that evolution's truth would mean we are not better than humans is not a reason to suppose its falsehood. The argument thus made merely appeals to people's desire to be better than animals by pointing out the conclusion that if they accept evolution they are accepting this is not true. This might be persuasive, but it is certainly not logical.
I have a suspicion that atheists write a lot of the content on these sites
Who cares? The fact remains that the examples are indeed appeals to consequences remains.
Whether or not you agree or disagree they are wrong, it seems to me that wikipidia only presents theistic arguments as examples.
Here are the examples it gives
quote:
"Free will must exist: if it didn't, we would all be machines."
This is not about theism it is about free will. It is possible (and in fact empirically confirmable) that some atheists believe in free will and some theists do not.
quote:
"Evolution must be false: if it were true then human beings would be no better than animals, since we would be descended from them."
Nothing to do with theism but about a scientific conclusion. Plenty of theists accept evolution. There is no reason to suppose an atheist must accept evolution. It is nothing to do with theism.
I get the impression that you are confusing these points with theism because your theistic beliefs are tied up in them, but that's a different matter entirely.
Then finally:
quote:
"If the six men win, it will mean that the police are guilty of perjury, that they are guilty of violence and threats, that the confessions were invented and improperly admitted in evidence and the convictions were erroneous... This is such an appalling vista that every sensible person in the land would say that it cannot be right that these actions should go any further.
Which is about police corruption. Nothing to do with theism even by your standards, but strangely omitted from your post. Just to be clear, this example has been present in this article since 2010
"the examples are only theistic because only theistic arguments are fallacious"
No, that's not my response. My response is that these are real life examples of contemporary arguments on subjects that someone interested in philosophy and logic are likely to have run into.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 04-02-2017 1:06 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by NoNukes, posted 04-06-2017 8:15 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied
 Message 9 by NoNukes, posted 04-06-2017 8:19 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024