Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A proper understanding of logical fallacies will improve the quality of debate
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 344 (640814)
11-13-2011 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by designtheorist
11-13-2011 9:15 AM


designtheorist writes:
In this example, Newbie is probably not maliciously attempting to mislead, but is simply misled himself. It is very easy for someone to project their own views into a quote.
Sure. That could be what happens.
But it not what usually happens. The more usual case is that the newbie did not find the quote in the source material. Generally the newbie finds the material on some website because it was put there for the purpose of perpetrating a fraud. Maybe you made that mistake.
After having seen any number of posters make attempts to prove that Einstein was something he wasn't, most people are understandably going to be short with a newbie going down that road yet again even if the quote is not a familiar one.
If your point is that the newbie did not actually quote mine but was instead just being sloppy, well don't be sloppy. And don't start a whole new thread just to defend the mistake.
I can understand not wanting to be called a liar. I am extremely slow to make that accusation. But I noted examples of unsavory motive impugning in your own posts. Don't dish it if you cannot take it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by designtheorist, posted 11-13-2011 9:15 AM designtheorist has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 180 of 344 (641631)
11-20-2011 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by kbertsche
11-20-2011 6:17 PM


Re: Reply to Granny Magda
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 Folks such as Dawkins try to convince people that religious faith is an outdated, misguided, dangerous notion that should be erradicated.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.
I disagree. You are right that DT is not arguing that the belief of famous scientists in God implies that God Exists. But he is arguing that those scientist's beliefs imply compatibility between what science teaches and what one particular segment of Christians believe. DT asks us why we refuse to learn from those scientists. How do you interpret that question?
There are several problems with his argument.
1) At least one of the scientists he cites admits being Christian despite noting the incompatibility with science. We can cite other scientists who hold similar views.
2) It is not clear that any scientist's understanding of the compatibility between the big bang and creationism is worth a hill of beans.
3) In some cases DT is completely off base. I don't see how anybody could have any doubts about Eddington having been a Quaker long before there was any scientific evidence for the Big Bang theory. I find it amusing that DT bothers to defend a contrary position, but others may find that annoying.
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.
They show by example that it is possible to be a highly intellectual, leading scientist and to have strong religious faith.
Which is by no means the same as showing that science supports any particular religious explanation for the universe. Yes, the explanation for the big bang does include a particularly obvious place to tack on God. Is that really what we were arguing about, or was the discussion instead about a little more than that.
I don't think very many people in this forum would find the idea that scientists can have strong religious faith worth debating. I think your description of DT's arguments here are way too charitable.
Edited by NoNukes, : Fix some bad apostrophes. Yuck

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by kbertsche, posted 11-20-2011 6:17 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by kbertsche, posted 11-21-2011 1:41 PM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 192 of 344 (641663)
11-21-2011 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by Percy
11-21-2011 9:20 AM


Re: Reply to Granny Magda
I think he means Hoyle, not Hawking.
If so, then what was Hoyle's role in helping establish the Big Bang theory? In fact wasn't it Hoyle's intent to denigrate the BBT by giving it a ridiculous name?
I suggest letting DT make his own excuses.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Percy, posted 11-21-2011 9:20 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 197 of 344 (641686)
11-21-2011 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by kbertsche
11-21-2011 1:41 PM


Re: Reply to Granny Magda
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.
You got me. Sort of.
Let's be careful how we interpret the results. We could also say that nearly sixty percent of those surveyed indicated that they do not believe in God. Further a full seven percent refused to answer the questioned.
I did abuse the word atheist, but it was not because of my personal experience. I don't pal around with too many scientists. Most of the non-Asians I know are Christians.
Still, I'd suggest that the idea of a God who created the universe is not held by the majority of scientists. Yes, the spiritual people who expressly don't believe in God aren't atheists, but they sure aren't practicing Christians/Muslims/Jews either.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by kbertsche, posted 11-21-2011 1:41 PM kbertsche has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 211 of 344 (641712)
11-22-2011 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by designtheorist
11-21-2011 10:42 PM


Re: When you have the gall to blame others for your failings...
This is often called quote-mining and is rarely done on purpose. By far the best course of action is to gather some evidence showing the quote is out of context and why and then present it. The worst thing you can do is make a blatant and unsupported charge of quote-mining when you have not researched the facts yourself.
If somebody accuses you of quote-mining, why can't you refute that by producing the context yourself?
Isn't the gathering of evidence the kind of checking that you yourself should do before posting a quote? Why is it someone else's responsibility to catch your errors? A good portion of the web is reporting that is either slanted or wrong, and surely you know that. Yet you apparently believe that it is somebody else's responsibility to fact check anything you drag in here. In my opinion, that approach is totally unacceptable.
Don't you think being sloppy will damage your reputation just as thoroughly as deliberately quote mining? Posting a quote with reckless disregard for its context is gross negligence that is just as bad as intentional quote mining.
When you're wrong about something, it does no good to complain about the harshness with which the wrong is pointed out and to put the responsibility for correcting you on others. Giving up a point gracefully goes a long way towards getting people to move the discussion along to another point, at least up until it is time to summarize.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by designtheorist, posted 11-21-2011 10:42 PM designtheorist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by designtheorist, posted 11-22-2011 12:08 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 219 of 344 (641720)
11-22-2011 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by designtheorist
11-22-2011 12:36 AM


Re: When you have the gall to blame others for your failings...
Granny Magda was able to do it because the quote was out of historical context.
Actually GM and nearly everyone else knew instantly that you had to be wrong because Eddington's Quaker beliefs are quite well known. In fact those beliefs played a role in Eddington taking on the eclipse observations that made Einstein famous among the public. There is also the fact that Eddington died in 1944.
Of course it might also have been possible to challenge your quote based on the context.
When you post a quote and say it means X, you've made an assertion. A naked quote is particularly clearly just an assertion when 1) it is contrary to what we know about the person and 2) when no context is provided.
It is the proponent's responsibility to back up his position if the quote is questioned. And since we always know the context of the quotes we use, because we aren't irresponsible, then our responsibility isn't much of a burden, right?
A juicy sentence from Astro-Boy's web page that seems to directly support your position may seem irresistible, but if you use it, we're going to look to you and not to Astro-boy to defend it.
I understand that you'll never agree and that you'll continue with your quote and see what sticks approach. So be it.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by designtheorist, posted 11-22-2011 12:36 AM designtheorist has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 237 of 344 (641753)
11-22-2011 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by designtheorist
11-22-2011 5:21 AM


Re: Reply to Dr Adequate
quote:
Many people do not like the idea that time has a beginning, probably because it smacks of divine intervention.
You see that the line speaks of "Many people" and you don't bother to determine what Hawking himself says about the line of reasoning of those people even after you've been challenged. Nope. For you, the fact that the quote without context seems to say what you want is enough.
And then if someone rubs your nose in your error, your response will be to go back to prior posts and delete your mistakes? Surely you jest.
I challenge you to read chapter one of "A brief history of time" and then to come back and spout this nonsense. Much of the text is available for free on Google.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by designtheorist, posted 11-22-2011 5:21 AM designtheorist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by designtheorist, posted 11-22-2011 10:26 AM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 252 of 344 (641777)
11-22-2011 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by designtheorist
11-22-2011 10:26 AM


Re: Reply to No Nukes
I have already read the first chapter of Hawking's book. What portion of it are you referring to?
This is your homework and not mine. But in the first chapter, Hawking summarizes historical views regarding origins for the universe. If you read that chapter and understand it, you'll have a better idea of what Hawking embraces and what he distances himself from.
It seems apparent to me that Hawking has embraced this idea precisely because he can get to his goal of a universe without a beginning and without divine intervention.
To you yes.
By the way, did you not see this portion of the quote I provided
I did see your quote, and I understand how someone would be led by that quote to believe that Hawking latched onto the big bang for the reasons you give.
But you continue to mislead yourself by cherry picking sentences out of context. The quote is not Hawking's statement about his own beliefs, but instead about how some others have formed their beliefs.
What I don't see is Hawking disagreeing with the conclusion of many people that it "smacks of divine intervention." What I DO see is that Hawking has decided to change his mind about the big bang and has proposed a "universe without boundaries.
Has Hawking in fact proposed a universe in which there is no place for divine intervention? If not, then it would be pretty clear that your interpretation cannot be correct.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by designtheorist, posted 11-22-2011 10:26 AM designtheorist has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 290 of 344 (641829)
11-22-2011 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by designtheorist
11-22-2011 3:18 PM


Re: Introducing the cherry picking fallacy
However, your comment below is too high a standard:
quote:
When you have a belief (such as Eddington was an atheist who converted to a religious view because of the big bang), it is important you seek out information that may contradict this view, before presenting it as any kind of evidence.
You are not going to do well here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by designtheorist, posted 11-22-2011 3:18 PM designtheorist has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 303 of 344 (641881)
11-23-2011 8:23 AM


What was learned...plenty
I don't see anything posted in this thread that was particularly earth shattering or new on the topic of logical fallacies. Most logical fallacies can be spotted on the fly by noting that the desired conclusion is not forced by the premises. Using analogy to show the faulty logic using non-contentious facts works fairly well. Debating logical syllogisms should be akin to, and equally as pointless as debating about Algebra.
On the other hand, this thread is an excellent opportunity to learn a good deal about designtheorist and about bad debating tactics employed by his ilk. I'd recommend "pinning" this thread.
I see three lessons to be learned here.
If you start a thread to rehabilitate your position in a previous thread, don't be surprised if your nonsense from the previous thread gets rehashed.
If you say something particularly foolish and the result is a dog-pile of responses pointing that out, perhaps something other than group think is at work. Perhaps 2+2 does not equal five after all.
I think the most important lesson here is that extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary proof. Throwing up a few out of context quotes just is not going to work, when the weight of the evidence is against you.
Eddington was a Quaker who died in 1944. Hawking can be wrong and pigheaded, but he's probably not an idiot. Einstein's spirituality is not easily summed up, but he was not a closet creationist. Darwin did not recant origin of species and convent to Christianity on his deathbed. If you want to convince people otherwise, a single sentence out of context won't do it. So do your %$#@ homework.

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 306 of 344 (641962)
11-24-2011 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 301 by Trixie
11-23-2011 5:55 AM


Re: Reply to PaulK - #293
Trixie writes:
quote:
Many people do not like horses, probably because they are very big and stink of horse poo
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)
At the risk of blunting the edge of a sharp argument, I must disagree with you just a little. The sentence does hint at how you feel about horses. The words strongly invite us to speculate on exactly that point.
The sentence is a pretty obvious setup for you to tell us exactly how you feel in the following sentences. If I have reason to believe that the writer is of any sophistication at all, I'd suspect that the holder has an opinion contrary to that of many people, despite agreeing, at least in part, that horses are large and do have a characteristic horsey smell.
Of course it is also possible that I'll find in the next sentences/paragraphs/chapters that you agree with the majority opinion. But there is no question that you are inviting me to read further.
And therein lies one reason why I cannot take designtheorist seriously. Despite several invitations to look at context for the quote, designtheorist continues to make his case using only the single sentence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by Trixie, posted 11-23-2011 5:55 AM Trixie has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024