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

Erm, I don't know how to tell you this, but Dr Adequate is correct. The quote you supplied doesn't say what you claim it says. Maybe if you read the quote in context you'd understand what Hawking was saying. Here's a link to Chapter 3 where the quote occursMy Dyn AccountAs a quick taster, here's the quote, which starts a paragraph, along with the next couple of sentences.

and You have taken the Hawking quote completely out of context. He expands on that sentence in the sentences which follow it and it is clear that he doesn't mean what you want him to mean. I've supplied the two sentences which follow the quote in question and I've linked to chapter 3 so that you can read the quote in context. I've had no response to that post, but you continue to use it in isolation to support your argument.This is a nice example of the logical fallacy known as quote mining. Does it not worry you slightly that in a thread which you started to "educate" us in what a logical fallacy actually is, you are completely incapable of recognising that you are using them time and again? Not only that, but you can't recognise them as such even when it's spelled out to you.Try this rather simplistic example There is no way that that sentence, while being true, gives any idea about how I feel about horses (I'm rather fond of them which is fortunate, given I have 3 of the blighters) so how you can take and claim it reflects the writer's view baffles me.I plugged your quote into Google and the majority of hits I got were in discussion fora and such like where the quote was used in isolation to make the very argument you're making with no regard for context or comprehension.Edited by Trixie, : I've done this as a reply to PaulK, but it should be a reply to designtheorist, sorry for the confusion.

I can only applaud your post. It touches on something that I don't think many non-scientists are aware of.When writing primary research papers, scientists are so very careful to state only what their results support. While they can ruminate on the implications of their findings in the Discussion section they make clear that it is rumination, by using phrases such as "the results suggest" or "the results indicate" and you'll always find a smattering of "probably" or "possibly". Scientists say what they mean. There is no room for interpretation, the writing is concise and precise.They are also careful that every statement they make can be backed up, either by their own data or by the primary data of others and they provide full references for readers to locate and peruse the primary data that they have taken notice of. This means that they ensure that nothing is taken out of context and if it is, the peer review process will find it and ask for it to be corrected.Scientists think like this as it becomes second nature. You're always asking yourself "Can I back up this statement with data?" or "What does this data actually demonstrate?"and the crucial question any scientist worth his/her salt asks of their own data is "Does this data support an alternative idea to mine?"The entire practice of science is not so much doing exeriments to support your pet hypothesis, but to rule out competing hypotheses. Science is all about looking for the holes. It doesn't matter how many pieces of evidence you have supporting an idea, a single piece negating it is all it takes.Without critical thinking and applying logic correctly, scientists would lead themselves up the garden path and it would become evident in their data. I think your description of a B.S. detector inherent in science and scientists is accurate.

Designtheorist, how about a response to message 301?

Finally you seem to get it! You said; So you agree that in the quote you originally supplied, which was only the first sentence of the above quote, Hawking is clearly speaking about how other people felt about the BB. Therefore using that single sentence (and that's all you used previously) to describe what Hawking thinks is a logical fallacy, i.e., it doesn't say what you initially claimed it says and you now agree that the initial sentence says absolutely nothing about how he felt. So now your evidence to support your opinion that Hawking agrees that the BB "smacks of divine intervention" is that Hawking continued his work, that he integrated quantum mechanics into the theory of gravity. There's a logical fallacy in there somewhere. As PaulK pointed out, Hawking himself says So Hawking himself states that he included a quantum theory of gravity because classical theory doesn't describe the universe in these earlier stages. Nothing in there about removing a creator. It's entirely possible that his motivation was to improve his model, rather than to remove the possibility of a creator.You are using your speculation on his motives and calling it evidence to support your speculation and there's something circular about that. You didn't just say that? The whole point of my post to you was that you selected a single quote and used it to bolster your opinion with no regard for context or comprehension!! You're the one who used a single quote! So don't go preaching to the converted. I can't find a single passage where he agrees that the BB "smacks of divine intervention". He says nothing about what he thinks of the idea. Neither can I find a single passage which tells us that the moon isn't made of green cheese, nor can I find a single passage which says the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a myth so by your logic we now know that Hawking thinks that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real and the moon is made out of out of green cheese.

That's the whole point of my argument. You originally provided a single sentence out of context and used that to make your argument and its that that I described as quote mining.It's neither here nor there what Hawking thinks in this thread. This thread is about logical fallacies. That you're now providing more quotes to try to bolster your interpretation is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that you initially provided a single sentence and that was good enough as far as you were concerned.You're now bleating about me not taking your irrelevant quotes in their totality, you've already admonished me not to just use a single quote, yet it's fine and dandy for you to do it with your single sentence out of context from Hawking. Have you heard of double standards?