|
Author
|
Topic: A proper understanding of logical fallacies will improve the quality of debate
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10038 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.3
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: An appeal to authority
What is the proper response if you are accused of an appeal to authority? The proper response is to present the evidence that allowed the authority to reach their conclusion. An appeal to authority is a logical fallacy because it does not address the evidence. It is a way to avoid the burden of proof.
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10038 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.3
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Reply to DWIII
Also, your use of "quote-miner" is not appropriate. People can quote without being a quote-miner. The assumption of guilt here is just ridiculous. If you are going to make a charge that someone is using a quote out of context and changing the meaning of the quote, you had better have some evidence to back up the charge. Otherwise you are just poisoning the well of civil discourse. The problem is that ID/creationists very rarely use quotes that they find themselves. Instead, they regurgitate quotes they find on their website of choice. This leads to serious problems because they do not understand the context of the quote. My advice is to only use quotes that you find yourself instead of copy pasta from ID/creationist sites.
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10038 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.3
|
Re: Another source
In many cases, the goal is just to show that a particular position is a reasonable position to hold. Then you should point to the evidence that supports the position. This is how all debates should work. You can quote 10 experts and you will still only cover less than 0.01% of experts in a given field. Quoting multiple experts does not guarantee that you are pointing to the consensus opinion, nor the most reasonable conclusion.
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10038 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.3
|
Re: Appeal to authority
If we say peer reviewed research aren't we still appealing to the authority of the peers? No. We are appealing to the methodologies and results described in the paper. Passing peer review only guarantees that the paper is of better quality than something made up on the spot. The conclusions and the quality of the results can still be argued even if it passes peer review.
If one rejects research because it isn't peer reviewed or done by someone with credentials, does that fall under this fallacy or is there another name for it? There is nothing in the rules of logic that require something to be peer reviewed in order to be valid. We could look at the RATE study on helium diffusion as an example. That paper was never peer reviewed, but people still engaged the paper on its own merits.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 53 by purpledawn, posted 11-15-2011 5:31 AM | | purpledawn has seen this message but not replied |
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10038 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.3
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
|
Message 63 of 344 (641027)
11-15-2011 3:24 PM
|
|
|
Burden of Proof
The burden of proof is often shifted in debates on fora like this one. Burden of proof fallacy: 1. Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B. 2. Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X. Page not found - Nizkor Examples: Claim: Irreducibly complex structures can not evolve in a step wise manner. It is argued that this claim is true because no one has been able to point to an IC system that has evolved in a step wise manner. This fallacy is tied closely to the Argument from False Dichotomy fallacy and the Argument from Incredulity.
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10038 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.3
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 64 of 344 (641028)
11-15-2011 3:28 PM
|
|
|
Argument from Incredulity
quote:
The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that essentially relies on a lack of imagination in the audience. The general form of the argument is as follows. Major premise: One can't imagine (or has not imagined) how P could be so.
Minor premise (unstated): If P were so, one could imagine (or would have imagined) how.
Conclusion: Not-P.
Argument from incredulity - RationalWiki
As noted previously, Behe not being able to imagine how an IC system could evolve in a stepwise manner does not mean that an IC system could not evolve in a stepwise manner. The same fallacy applies to not being able to imagine a universe without a designer. If you start an argument with "I can't believe . . . " then stop writing, erase what you have written, and start over.
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10038 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.3
|
|
|
Message 68 of 344 (641088)
11-16-2011 11:27 AM
|
|
|
Affirming the Consequent
Another popular fallacy used by ID/Creationists is Affirming the Consequent, or more commonly called "Begging the Question":
quote:
1. If P then Q.
2. Q.
3. Therefore, P. The argument is built like this: 1. If God reveals himself in the Bible, the Bible will be preserved despite its critics.
2. The Bible is preserved despite its critics.
3. Therefore, God reveals himself in the Bible. But obviously this does not follow. Affirming the consequent of an If then statement cannot not prove the ‘if’ part. Rather, affirming the ‘if’ (antecedent) part of an If then statement can prove the ‘then’ part. Such an argument would look like this: 1. If Socrates is a man, then Socrates is mortal.
2. Socrates is a man.
3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
Luke Muehlhauser
As it is used by ID/Creationists: 1. If something is designed then it will have coded information. 2. Life has coded information. 3. Therefore, life is designed. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10038 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.3
|
|
|
Message 69 of 344 (641090)
11-16-2011 11:33 AM
|
|
|
Texas Sharpshooter
Another very common fallacy is called the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy, or the Bridge Hand Fallacy:
quote:
The Texas sharpshooter fallacy is using the same data to both construct and test a hypothesis. Its name comes from a parable where a Texan fires his gun at the side of a barn, then paints a target around the shots and claims to be a sharpshooter. A hypothesis must be constructed before data is collected based on that hypothesis. If one data set is used to construct a hypothesis, then a new data set must be generated (ideally, in a different way, based on predictions made by the hypothesis) to test it. Texas sharpshooter fallacy - RationalWiki
The Fine Tuning argument is based on this fallacy. It is argued that the odds of the universe having these exact characteristics are so high that it had to be designed. Behe is also guilty of using this argument when he argues for the improbability of multiple mutations producing a specific phenotype. In both cases, this is painting the bull's eye around the bullet hole.
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10038 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.3
|
Re: Affirming the Consequent
If something has information, it has been put there by something mindful, an intelligent agency. (which self-evidently follows)
It doesn't follow. It is begging the question. This is exactly the fallacy I am pointing to.
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10038 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.3
|
Re: more references
If balls are round we will find round balls.
This is a tautology since balls are defined as being round.
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10038 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.3
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Affirming the Consequent
The only things we find with information in them are designed, which is not begging the question. That is the perfect example of begging the question. Your premise is your conclusion. You are trying to find out if everything with information was designed. You can't start out with the premise that everything with information was designed.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 74 by mike the wiz, posted 11-16-2011 12:55 PM | | mike the wiz has not replied |
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10038 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.3
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
Re: more references
By the way, the distraction did not work, you said that we are arguing that if something is designed it has information, and therefore I would be stating that a sculpture has coded information. I am arguing that you are committing a logical fallacy, which you are. The topic of this thread is logical fallacies and examples of them in the evo v. creo debate. You have supplied numerous examples thus far.
You have changed the goal posts, because I shown that the argument from information does not have the form you stated it had. Yes, it does. 1. If life is designed then it will have information. 2. Life has information. 3. Therefore, life is designed. That is Affirming the Consequent. If you want to rearrange the the first premise, then you have to actually support the premise. "If something has information, then it is designed" We would rightly challenge this premise and require you to support it. Simply claiming that it is self evidence in no way settles the dispute. In fact, "It is self evident" is a fallacy unto its own, namely the Appeal to Common Sense: Appeal to tradition - Wikipedia
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10038 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.3
|
Re: more references
To state that if something has information then it requires a designer, is what must be stated in order to prove it.
You don't prove something by simply stating that it is true. The point of a logical argument is to show that the conclusion follows from the premises. You can't do that if you insert your conclusion in the premises. It defeats the whole purpose.
I am not assuming there is design, we are observing the information which abundantly allows us to infer design. It is assumed in the premises when you state that everything with information is designed.
Your fallacy was one of composition. You stated something about Creationists/IDists generally that you not even proved in the first place, as you have not SHOWN that a creationist or IDist has said that sculptures have coded information. Where did I mention sculptures in any of my posts?
I used reductio ad absurdum upon your original statement, because if your form of argument about information was true, then I could be able to find Creationists and IDists that state that if there is design, there is coded-information, such as a sculpture having coded information. As long as IDers do not use the argument as I detailed above then they are fine. If they reparse the argument so that they are affirming the antecedent, which is allowable, then their premise is open to challenge. Take your pick.
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10038 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.3
|
Re: more references
You are saying that Creationists argue P, which they don't, I have shown they argue Y, and now you want me to say that I am changing the argument P we never argued and I am going to create a new argument which is argument Y which involves altering the argument we never argued. "Many special sciences have already developed such methods for drawing this distinction -- notably forensic science, cryptography, archeology, random number generation, and the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence. Whenever these methods detect intelligent causation, the underlying entity they uncover is a type of information known alternately as specified complexity or complex specified information. . . Only intelligent causation gives rise to specified complexity."--Detecting Design in the Natural Sciences, William A. Dembski CSI is not limited to biology, and Dembski himself ascribes it to archaeology which includes jars, statues, etc.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 90 by mike the wiz, posted 11-16-2011 4:06 PM | | mike the wiz has not replied |
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10038 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.3
|
Re: Affirming the Consequent
I defend creationists because I know and have heard them speak, I regularly study their work. Of course I am going to defend what we are saying, and oppose a strawman of what we are not saying, but you are basically handcuffing me and putting me in a corner, and shouting, "NOW ANSWER FOR CREO' CLAIMS of information".
You opened yourself up for that when you asked for a quote from an IDer who sees information in sculptures. Be careful what you ask for. If you don't think that these logical fallacies apply to your specific arguments then make that argument. I thought you did a fine job of that in previous posts. Let's not get bogged down by who is right or wrong. Let's just try to figure out which arguments are constructed properly. As an olive branch, the following argument is constructed properly: 1. All complex specified information is the product of intelligent causation. 2. Life has CSI. 3. Therefore, life is designed. The fly in the ointment is the accuracy of the first premise, but the form of the argument is correct.
|
™ Version 4.2