|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 3863 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A proper understanding of logical fallacies will improve the quality of debate | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
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: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
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: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.1
|
Hi Taq,
So, just to pick an example completely at random, if a person were to write;
It must be {x} because otherwise is inconceivable. then that would be an argument from incredulity? That's fascinating. I'm sure glad that no-one around here has written anything like that recently. Learning about logic is fun! Mutate and SurviveOn two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi Granny Magda
then that would be an argument from incredulity? That's fascinating. I'm sure glad that no-one around here has written anything like that recently. yes that would be an argument from incredulity. similar is argument from ignorance:
quote: A different explanation could already exist in our knowledge base, but the author of the argument is unaware of it (or chooses to be ignorant of it).
Learning about logic is fun Indeed, and one of the things that I have learned more about on this site. A good reference I use ishttp://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/toc.htm While it does not cover all logical fallacies (if that is conceivable), it does present them in the format of the op: definition, examples, ways to show the fallacy is not valid in the particular argument. For instance:
quote: :: Note that the "argument from hearsay" listed above is also known as the appeal to anonymous authority. Curiously, citing the fact that a paper has passed peer review means an appeal to anonymous authority (the reviewers). :: Note further that appealing to "the majority of biological scientists" as validation for the theory of evolution is also treading into the Appeal to Popularity (argumentum ad populum). The real test of validity of a conclusion lies in the evidence - objective empirical evidence - that substantiates the premises and in the proper construction of the logical deductions. If the structure is valid, then the conclusion follows from the premises, and then (and only then) the truth of the conclusion is based on the truth of the premises: if the premises are true then the conclusion is true. Normally, in science, we cannot be guaranteed that the premises are true, only that they approximate truth to the best of our (current) knowledge, and thus the conclusion/s are equally tentative as approximations of truth.
invalid vs false There is frequently confusion between invalid and false in these debates (and I think this is a large part of the issue in the proceeding debate over the appeal to authority). A logical argument that is flawed in the structure is invalid, and this is essentially the problem with logical fallacies. Invalid means that the conclusion is not properly derived from the premises, but it does not mean that the conclusion is necessarily false. Strip away the invalid structure and premises, and you are left with an unsubstantiated guess rather than a derived conclusion. If it cannot be shown that this guess is actually false (ie -- objective empirical evidence shows the earth to be billions of years old, and this falsifies any unsubstantiated guess that the earth is less than 10,000 years old), then it is possible that the guess is correct, even though there is no evidence for it. This could range from the possibility of guessing heads or tails on a flipped coin to the possibility of guessing the winning ticket to win a lottery from millions of tickets available. Enjoy. Edited by Zen Deist, : enlgisby our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined:
|
RAZD writes: I realise that you meant well, but Granny was being sarcastic (ironic?) - referring to the OP's repeated use of the word 'inconceivable' in the thread that originated this 'spin-off' thread. yes that would be an argument from incredulity. Other than that: nice post. Edited by Panda, : No reason given.If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
Another popular fallacy used by ID/Creationists is Affirming the Consequent, or more commonly called "Begging the Question":
quote: 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: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
Another very common fallacy is called the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy, or the Bridge Hand Fallacy:
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
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. That is not the form of the argument. Otherwise I would argue that a sculpture had coded information. Lol. It is as follows;
If something has information, it has been put there by something mindful, an intelligent agency. (which self-evidently follows) Life has complex, mind blowing information and info-density, therefore has been put there by an intelligent agency. If X then PZ has X therefore P. Afterall that's why the evolutionist contingency have to cast doubts upon it being information. (You should read the book, called; In the Beginning was Information By Werner Gitt, to get a better understanding of the fullness of the argument from information. Another common error evolutionists make, is to falsely accuse those of the design contingency that they are committing the God of the Gaps fallacy, but the form of the Argument-from-design is not the form of the GOTG. I explained this here;
BLOG Please read carefully. Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined:
|
Another thing to keep in mind is the value of a logical conclusion: if there is no objective evidence to support the premises being true, then the conclusion is not supported either, even when the form is valid. This becomes even more true when we move from deductive logic to inductive logic, which is essentially intentionally making a logical fallacy argument and guessing. Two relevant points. The latter showing an induction of information is "weak". It is incredibly hard to get people to believe that evidence, in particular, confirmation evidence, is astoundingly logically, WEAK, even if you have millions of confirming evidences, because unless you have 100% of the induction, then as you say, we are basically be making a fallacy. I need to read more about abductive inferene, I THINK the following might qualify; If balls are round we will find round balls. We find A round ball, therefore all balls are round. Logically, totally not sound, but ofcourse, roundness is inherent to all balls. (Good to read you again.) Hope you're doing ok.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
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: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
If balls are round we will find round balls.
This is a tautology since balls are defined as being round.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
We show the credence of the premise by showing that things with information require designers. The only things we find with information in them are designed, which is not begging the question. It is a reasonable premise given the evidence.
Even what we write is information, not because of the pixels, but because of how they are arranged. Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
That was the point. To show something could be true yet not valid in logical form.
It is because it is predetermined that there is not a non sequitur. 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. You have changed the goal posts, because I shown that the argument from information does not have the form you stated it had. I don't know if evolutionists realize this, but if you correct them, they quickly try and badger you again, ignore what you said and try and dig for another fault. I was correcting your logical error, yo were not correcting me, as I did not argue anything, you did, I responded to what you said, which was not logical therefore why should I now defend design? If anything you should defend yourself. Please answer, do you believe we state that there is coded information in sculptures? (By the way Taq, Hi! - I forgot it was you (we debated ERVs), sorry if I got a bit frustrated there, it just seems that as A creationist I get badgered, but I guess that's because we are few and you can't help but debate them when they come along. ) Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given. Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024