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

quote:

---

Definition: The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as "contextomy" or "quote mining", is a logical fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning. Quoting out of context - Wikipedia

---

Sounds like a good definition. The key is that the meaning of the original passage is distorted, either intentionally or unintentionally. This frequently occurs on discussion and debate forums when someone pulls something from a collection of quotes without reading the quote in its original context.But I've also seen incorrect accusations of quote-mining here at EvC Forum as well. Sometimes when someone doesn't like the gist of a quote or the position of a poster, in a knee-jerk reaction they will accuse the poster of quote-mining without checking the context themself, either. Use of a quote to support a specific point of argumentation does NOT imply that the poster is in 100% agreement with all of the positions of the person quoted, but he is sometimes incorrectly accused of quote-mining in such instances.When one uses a quotation, he should make sure that he is not distorting the meaning of its originator (and if he is using it to go beyond the views of the originator, this should be made clear). And when accusing someone of quote-mining, the accuser should explain how the original meaning was distorted. If everyone tried to do this, it would greatly help in online discussions.

quote:

---

In other words you claim that an appeal to an authority is not an appeal to authority unless it explicitly claims that the expert is infallible ?

​

You are very, very wrong.

​

Firstly an appeal to authority does not need to make that claim. It is the fact that authorities are not infallible that makes the argument a logical fallacy - even if it does not explicitly claim that what the authority says must be true.

​

Secondly, obviously citing credentials is intended to set up the source as an authority. If you are appealing to what an expert - or any other supposed authority - says, rather than to the facts of the matter, you are making an appeal to authority.

​

That is not to say that an appeal to authority cannot be a GOOD argument. Sometimes - if done well - it may be the best available to us. But it is not, and never can be, a logically valid argument.

---

I suppose it is true that any quotation of an authority is an "appeal to authority". But it is not true that such an appeal to authority is always a logical fallacy. Otherwise, we could never use quotations in an argument without committing a logical fallacy. Is this what you at claiming (that any quotation of an authority is logically fallacious?)Quotations of authoritative figures are often appropriate and are not necessarily fallacious. If one is asking historical questions about the development of science, quotations are certainly appropriate. If one is asking about details of scientific theories, it is often appropriate to quote those who helped to develop the theories. In neither case is the quotation of an authority necessarily a logical fallacy.

quote:

---

Any attempt to argue by citing an authority is logically fallacious. This is a simple fact. Experts are NOT always correct.

​

If you can provide an example of a logically valid argument form authority (i.e. one where the authority cited is NECESSARILY correct) then please do so.

---

Simple. Suppose we are discussing what Darwin or Einstein actually said about religion. A quotation from Darwin or Einstein is the best way to answer this, and is logically valid.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Suppose we are discussing what Darwin or Einstein actually said about religion. A quotation from Darwin or Einstein is the best way to answer this, and is logically valid.

---

​

And that is not an appeal to authority. That is direct evidence of the topic of discussion. If instead you quoted some Einstein biographer on what Einstein believed about religion, that would be an appeal to authority.

---

If quoting Darwin or Einstein is not an "appeal to authority" in this instance, then we need to better define "appeal to authority". I agree that it is not a logical fallacy, but how is it not an "appeal to authority"?

quote:

---

I suppose because we take what a man says as the best evidence for what he thinks (unless, of course, his actions belie it) even if he is as dumb as a bag of hammers and crazy as a loon.

---

???
Sorry, but I don't understand your reply. My question was how a quote of Darwin or Einstein is not an "appeal to authority", and I don't see how you've answered this.

quote:

---

If we say Einstein demonstrated 'x' it is very different thing from Einstein claimed 'x'.

---

Agreed, but irrelevant. The scenario that I presented in Message 36 reduces to "Einstein claimed x", and I claim that though this can be considered an appeal to authority, it is not a logical fallacy in this case. Others have stated that this is not an appeal to authority, and I have asked for an explanation of why it is not.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

quote:

---

If Tipler said it, it's not entirely honest, since his blather about the Omega Point sounds about as much like Judeo-Christian theology as Alice in Wonderland.

​

According to Tipler's Omega Point cosmology, for the known laws of physics to be mutually consistent it is required that intelligent life take over all matter in the universe and eventually force the collapse of the universe. During that collapse the computational capacity of the universe diverges to infinity and environments emulated with that computational capacity last for infinite duration as the universe goes into a solitary-point cosmological singularity (with life eventually using elementary particles to directly compute on, due to the temperature's diverging to infinity), which singularity Tipler terms the Omega Point. With computational resources diverging to infinity, Tipler states that the far-future society will be able to resurrect the dead by perfectly emulating the entire multiverse from its start at the Big Bang. Tipler identifies the Omega Point final singularity as God since in his view the Omega Point has all the properties claimed for God by most of the traditional religions.
Of course this has nothing to do with the Big Bang, the subject that you were originally trying to be wrong about, since Tipler is not claiming that God created the singularity at the beginning of time, but rather that God will be created by the singularity at the end of time. I leave it to you to judge for yourself how "Judeo-Christian" this idea is.

---

I heard Tipler speak about his "omega point" ideas more than a decade ago, and had the same impression that you did. In the Q&A time I asked him if he saw a way to reconcile this impersonal omega-point idea with a personal Judaeo-Christian God, and he couldn't any more than I could.I have not yet read his "Physics of Christianity", so I don't know how his views have changed in the last decade. But they may have changed substantially, especially if he now calls himself a "Christian".

K

quote:

---

I still think that your use of this quote is an appeal to an inappropriate authority though.
...
Sure. Perhaps you would like to explain how quoting a tiny smattering of scientists in support of religious claims can be anything other than an appeal to authority.

---

I don't see DT using these quotations to argue that because a number of famous scientists believe in God, or worship Jesus Christ, that either God must exist or that Christianity must be true. I don't see him saying this either explicitly or implicitly. Hence, I don't see that he is committing a logical fallacy in his use of such quotes.Rather, I think DT is using these quotes to combat some common misconceptions that are spread by a vocal minority of atheistic scientists. Folks such as Dawkins try to convince people that religious faith is an outdated, misguided, dangerous notion that should be erradicated. They claim that religious faith is the domain of the ignorant, and is incompatible with good science. For example: Many of the atheists posting here on TWeb take a similar position.In this climate, the quotes that DT has presented simply show the error of this perception. They show by example that it is possible to be a highly intellectual, leading scientist and to have strong religious faith. They don't argue that God necessarily exists, but they do show that God and science are compatible.

quote:

---

It seems a rather blatant example to me, especially as scientists in general are rather well known to be less religious than the general populace.

---

Though it is widely thought that scientists are irreligious, this is not necessarily correct. A number of major surveys have been done regarding the religious faith of scientists. I've seen at least two which have concluded that scientists are about as religious as the general population. (I suspect the results depend on how the questions are asked.) In my experience, scientists are not nearly as antagonistic toward religion as are non-scientists who think they understand a bit of science.
Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

quote:

---

It seem pretty clear to me that he was using them to back up his claim that "Big Bang Theory Supports a Belief in the Universe Designer or Creator God". And that would be an argument from authority.

---

But in the OP of that thread, DT explained what he meant by "support". His focus was mainly on compatibility of science and religion. His quotes provided real-life examples to support this claim of compatibility. I didn't see him argue that because these famous scientists had religious faith, then God must necessarily exist.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

quote:

---

4) The truth of the matter, for good or ill, is that the majority of scientists are atheists. Finding a few famous counter examples seems to argue that we should accept the beliefs of the famous over the beliefs of the ordinary.

---

Are you sure that this is the truth? Do you have any evidence to support it? Or is this an example of the logical fallacy of "hasty generalization"? (Most of the scientists who you are familiar with are atheists, so you think that most scientists must be atheists.)A recent survey of AAAS members by the Pew Center found that half belleved in God or in some other form of "higher power". Less than half called themselves atheists. And a more recent survey of academic scientists by Ecklund concurs that atheism is in the minority.Edited by kbertsche, : Added HufPost referenceEdited by kbertsche, : Add wiki ref

quote:

---

I would suggest that the fact that 46% of Physicists and Astronomers are reported as not believing in a God or higher power as against 43% who do is rather bad news for anyone who wishes to claim that the Big Bang supports the existence of a creator.

---

How so? Why is this bad news?Unless you are appealing to the logical fallacy of "appeal to authority" or "appeal to largest minority" (not even the majority) yourself, I don't see how these opinions have any bearing on whether or not the Big Bang actually does support the existence of a creator.

quote:

---

Consider the details. If the Big Bang really supported the existence of a Creator we would expect the specialists in that area to have a stronger tendency to believe in a God.

---

No. You only expect this on the basis of a logical fallacy of an "appeal to authority" or an "appeal to the largest minority".

quote:

---

1) If the big Bang supported the existence of God then more of the experts in that field should believe in a God. (Because they have the best understanding)

---

No. This does not necessarily follow; it is a blatant appeal to authority! You are claiming that the experts are more likely to be correct. It's like saying "more doctors prescribe medication X than medication Y for a particular illness, therefore medication X is better". Are the experts in a field ALWAYS correct? Of course not.

quote:

---

2) In the survey, proportionally fewer scientists in the relevant field believed in God than those in any other field.

---

Yes, but barely.

quote:

---

3) This is strong evidence against the idea that the big Bang supports belief in a God.

---

No. Even if you were correct on points 1 and 2, this would not follow unless the Big Bang were the ONLY support for belief in a creator. Perhaps the scientists in other fields believe in a creator not because of the Big Bang, but for completely different reasons. Maybe even for stronger reasons.