RAZD
Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
Message 1 of 2 (351899)
09-24-2006 8:21 PM
|
|
|
There is a lot of talk about allowing and encouraging the use of critical thinking in education. Critical thinking is based on a few fundamental pricipals.
Clarity - being clear, being distinct, using correct definitions for terms etc.
Rationality - considering all the evidence in a rational manner
Logic - being able to construct proper logical arguments and support conclusions with valid precepts. Definitions Ultimately definitions are what make debate possible:
quote:
definition -noun
1. the act of defining or making definite, distinct, or clear.
2. the formal statement of the meaning or significance of a word, phrase, etc.
3. the condition of being definite, distinct, or clearly outlined.
4. Optics. sharpness of the image formed by an optical system.
5. Radio and Television. the accuracy of sound or picture reproduction.
Standard definitions are available for every word in the language. Usually there are multiple definitions available for a given word, and it is critical for clarity of thought, presentation and debate to delineate the one being used. For the purpose of this topic we will use definition 2 to accomplish definition 1. This is particularly critical when we are discussing a science topic, as the science will often use a technical definition, and if people are not using that same definition in their arguments they are not talking about the science anymore but something else. Daffynitions Creationists have a tendency to use non-standard definitions to make their arguments, and this gets into the issue of logical fallacies (strawman, equivocation, etc) that will be discussed later, but for now we will address the basic validity of such definitions. An example is the definition of transitional fossil on A Critique of the "Evolution Essay" A GREAT DEBATE S1WC and anglagard ONLY S1WC writes: Message 29... I think we forgot one IMPORTANT step,that is defining what we mean when we speak of "transitional fossils". I'll start with mine: What I would consider a transitional fossil, a real one that would mean anything to macroevolution, is a fossil that has evolving parts, like a scale/feather fossil, or bones that are evolving from one kind to another, more complex kind, partially evolving body parts, that look almost deformed, because they aren't complete, etc. This is what would be a real transitional fossil. anglagard hits the nail on the head when he responds:
Message 31If we are forced to use your definition of transitional fossil, which is closer to chimera than transitional fossil in normal English, then I would say you are most likely correct, there are no transitional fossils.
In order to criticize evolution as false, you must use the definitions used by life scientists and geoscientists, not your own made-up definitions. If you use your own definitions concerning terms used in evolution, then all you have done is criticize as false your misunderstanding of evolution, not evolution as commonly understood. (color mine for emPHAsis) We'll call what S1WC presented a 'daffynition' - some statement that does not relate to the terms as used in the science (no matter which science) but some 'daffy' misrepresentation instead (it is also known as a logical fallacy -- the straw man argument). If you are addressing the validity of a science then you use the terms as defined in the science. If you don't use the terms as defined in the science then you are not addressing the science. anglagard goes on to present a fairly standard definition of transitional fossil:
(same msg) Can we use a somewhat neutral definition such as the first hit in Google such as:
quote:
A transitional fossil is the fossil remains of a creature that exhibits primitive traits in comparison with the more derived life-forms it is related to. According to evolutionary theory, a transitional form represents an evolutionary stage.
In effect saying "let's look up the proper definition and use that" but S1WC protests:
Message 31Sorry, won't do. That first and only hit on Google define for "transitional fossil" is from a biased source, Wikepedia. Wikepedia is completely in favor of evolution, so we cannot use this if I, as a Creationist, am to debate fairly. This is a completely ludicrous position and logically false. Wikipedia is "biased" if anything, to providing the proper usage of terms, and properly gives the definition of transitional fossil as used in evolution: and to use some other usage will not address evolution. This isn't 'bias,' and this is not debating creationist false portrayals of evolution, but addressing the truth of what the science of evolution says. It is either true or not, and if you think it is not true, then (a) show that the definition was false and (2) provide the definition from a credible source that is correct. A similar situation has occurred with murkeywaters in our Basic Fundamentals of THE Debate (now open to anyone) regarding the definition of evolution, where he takes issue with my definition, proceeds to give several other examples of the definition of evolution that still show that evolution is about "change in species over time" and then concludes:
Message 8Finally, even if were to agree that “Science” defines evolution as “change in species over time”, that doesn’t make it correct or any less misleading and it would still remain a valid point of debate. Perhaps part of the problem is that the definition we should be discussing is for a comprehensive theory of evolution, not simply the mechanism of evolution. That is what will allow us to compare and debate creation theory and evolution theory on an equal basis. Still trying to make it into something it is not, still trying to change the definition from what is used in the science (nor is the "doesn’t make it correct or any less misleading" clarified or substantiated with any further discussion - yet). Definition: common usage, clearly set out and easily verified by some credible source or other (dictionary, encyclopedia, etc) Daffynition: not common (daffy) usage, not verified by any credible source, usually false or misleading or just plain irrlevant. Delusions Let me start here with the definition of faith:
quote:
faith -noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.
”Idiom
9. in faith, in truth; indeed: In faith, he is a fine lad.
The one I want to use here is #2 - faith: belief that is not based on proof. If you have proof of the truth, then it is not faith. If you have invalidation, evidence that proves a belief to be false, then this belief is also not faith, as there is evidence that proves the truth, but something else.
quote:
delusion -noun
1. an act or instance of deluding.
2. the state of being deluded.
3. a false belief or opinion: delusions of grandeur.
4. Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion
Belief in something in spite of evidence to the contrary is delusion. One can be deluded by others, however when one is confronted with the facts, the evidence, the truth, of the matter and still holds a belief in denial of the {facts\evidence\truth}, then one is psychologically deluded - living in a state of delusion about the reality of the world. Regarding the definition of transitional fossils above, S1WC refuses to accept the true definition of the term as used in the science of evolution and then concludes:
Message 42Point "Can't get anywhere": Since we couldn't agree upon a definition of "transitional fossils", this point can't be argued properly at the moment. S1WC is deluded that his failure to accept the true scientific definition has any validity and that anything is accomplished by it other than providing evidence of his state of delusion. What is true is that he can't argue the point properly at the moment, anglagard does not have the problem. The earth orbits the sun. This is observed fact, and belief to the contrary is not faith but delusion. Denial of the evidence is delusional. The earth is old. This is observed fact, and belief to the contrary is not faith but delusion. Denial of the evidence is delusional. Life has evolved. This is observed fact, and belief to the contrary is not faith but delusion. Denial of the evidence is delusional. There are transitional fossils. This is observed fact, and belief to the contrary is not faith but delusion. Denial of the evidence is delusional. When confronted with the evidence of transitional elements between reptiles and birds that is presented by archaeopteryx S1WC comments:
Message 43Like I have said, there are 3 possibilities to this, archaeopteryx could be a real bird, a real reptile, or a fraud, but NOT a transitional. I hold to the fraud part, but I have said it COULD be a real bird or a real reptile. But AIG is not the only source of info out there, I have read 'Darwin's Conspiracy' and have reason to say archaeopteryx is MOST LIKELY a fraud, yet I do not totally ignore that it could be a bird or reptile. Notably missing is a 4th possiblity - the harsh true reality - that it truly is a transitional and belief to the contrary is delusional. Denial does not make the truth go away. Logic Logic is the base of rational thought. The usual form is Premise {A}
Premise {B}
Conclusion {C} If premise {A} is true, and if premise {B} is true, and if conclusion {C} follows from {A} and {B}, then it is true. If either premise is false or the construction is invalid then the conclusion will be invalid. Logical fallacies employ one or more invalid formations.
quote:
logic -noun
1. the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.
2. a particular method of reasoning or argumentation: We were unable to follow his logic.
3. the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study.
4. reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions: There wasn't much logic in her move.
5. convincing forcefulness; inexorable truth or persuasiveness: the irresistible logic of the facts.
6. Computers. logic circuit.
There are several valid sources for the definitions of various logical fallacies:
http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/toc.htm
http://usabig.com/autonomist/fallacies.html
even Formal fallacy - Wikipedia some common ones are Straw Man
quote:
A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact misleading, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.
Argument from Ignorance or Incredulity
quote:
The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or argument by lack of imagination, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or that a premise is false only because it has not been proven true. The argument from personal incredulity, also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction, refers to an assertion that because one personally finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, the premise can be assumed not to be true, or alternately that another preferred but unproven premise is true instead.
Equivocation
quote:
Equivocation is a logical fallacy. It is committed when someone uses the same word in different meanings in an argument, implying that the word means the same each time around. For example:A feather is light.
What is light cannot be dark.
Therefore, a feather cannot be dark.
The above argument commits this fallacy: The word "light" is used in the sense of "having little weight" the first time, but of "bright" the second time.
An example of the first one (straw man) can be described as Premise {A} {a transitional fossil is a "hopeful monster" (see S1WC above)} == false definition
Premise {B} {there are no fossils of hopeful monsters} == possibly true statement
Conclusion {C} {there is no fossil evidence for macroevolution} == invalid because premise {A} is false. Thus the validity of evolution is not addressed by this argument. Another example of equivocation is a little more subtle, but common on both sides: the problem is that there are two "evolutions" - from Message 98 (1) is the mechanism - (micro\macro)evolution, the change is species over time, (mechanism)evolution or {"M/E"} and (2) is the science - the study of evolution (the mechanism), AND the experiments, AND the observations, AND the results, AND the theories of natural (survival\sexual) selection, common descent, punkeek, etc etc etc, (science)evolution or {"S/E"}. It is fairly common to have the logical arguments flip from one of these evolutions to the other. Conclusion False definitions, poorly constructed logical arguments and invalid conclusions are not elements of critical thinking. They don't represent the truth, they don't represent the science and they don't represent things that should be included in education. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : forum: Education and Creation/Evolution please. Edited by RAZD, : .
Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
|
™ Version 4.2