Debate Fallacies & Arguments

[LadyShea]

In the last few days I have seen more examples of strawman and slippery slope fallacies and overall dishonest debate techniques than you can shake a stick at.

I am wondering if maybe some or many posters here are unfamiliar with debate terms, rules and fallacies and would like to know more about the subject (if anyone plans to debate with atheists I guarantee most of us know these by heart), or if they know they are using bad form and simply don't care (hoping to find someone who won't recognize unfair/dishonest tactics)

So, please vote and if there is enough interest in studying this topic we can start a separate thread to discuss the individual terms, fallacies, and definitions in depth.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

I'm fairly familiar with various logical fallicies (having had to look them up when others dissect debates on various subjects).

Another big problem here (besides strawman arguments) is the argument from incredulity. That is, "I can't believe it, therefore it can't be true".

 

[seebs]

I would like to recommend a couple of resources here.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm
http://gncurtis.home.texas.net/taxonomy.html

 

[Smilin]

I never knew what a 'strawman' was...until I found this forum (debate definition)

 

[FordPrefect]

I could not vote given the fallacy of the excluded middle with the first two options... I fit in between with "I know some of the rules, but I have not been formally trained, and am learning via osmosis, but I do try my best to follow the rules."

 

[LadyShea]

LOL Ford...sorry, it's early here for me, and I can't find my towel. One of the points I want to discuss as well as the terms etc is the general "good form" like citing sources, etc.

 

Oh, and I learned through osmosis too, but still tried to use common sense as many people here do...they use good form without even knowing it!

 

[Amatire]

straw men? falllacies? debating techniques??

wh..w..wha?!?!

tell me more!

 

[npetreley]

I know that creationists often use poor debating techniques, too (I'm sure I have) but here are some of the most frequent debating techniques for evolution that I've seen here... (parts in [] brackets are my additions to the page at the link)

Top Bonehead Arguments of Evolution

1. Argument by definition: "Creation is outside of science."

2. Argument by appeal to authority or intellectual snobbery: "All those scientists [from only these sources which have an a-priori commitment to methodological naturalism] can't be wrong."

3. Argument by lining up ducks in a row (homology). This is like space travelers visiting earth in year 3000 finding cars in a junkyard and creating an evolutionary sequence from them.

4. If you can't explain it, give it a scientific name [like abiogenesis, to give an absurd idea more respectability] (evolutionist fairy dust).

5. Arguing that if you have described a process, you have explained its origin. [it could have happened this way...]

6. Assuming what you want to prove (tautology).

8. Selection (eliminating features) produces new features.

9. If an evolutionist can come up with an ad-hoc argument that seems to explain something, it refutes the creationist explanation. [this is actually almost the same as #5, IMO]

11. The straw man (creating a misconception or false image of what creationists believe). "Creationists believe that the earth is flat."

14. “Creationists don’t publish in the top evolutionary science journals.” (Hmmm…I wonder why?)

http://www.rae.org/topbone.html

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by seebs
I would like to recommend a couple of resources here.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

So which type of fallacy would this be? Deductive?

1. G~d is love.
2. Love is blind.
3. Ray Charles is blind.
4. Therefore Ray Charles is god.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by npetreley

1. Argument by definition: "Creation is outside of science."

I wouldn't say necessarily that creation is outside of science (at the very least, the evidence for creation need not be outside science; the mechanism is another story). The methods used by many creationists, however, are backwards when compared to science (i.e. drawing conclusions before examining the evidence)

2. Argument by appeal to authority or intellectual snobbery: "All those scientists [from only these sources which have an a-priori commitment to methodological naturalism] can't be wrong."

Guilty as charged. However, did you ever stop to wonder why scientists are predisposed towards naturalistic explanations? (Hint: think about what science deals with.)

3. Argument by lining up ducks in a row (homology). This is like space travelers visiting earth in year 3000 finding cars in a junkyard and creating an evolutionary sequence from them.

Actually, I'm willing to bet such a thing could very well happen.

4. If you can't explain it, give it a scientific name [like abiogenesis, to give an absurd idea more respectability] (evolutionist fairy dust).

Unfortunately, the definition of "scientific name" would be naming something to refer to something scientific. So no matter what name somebody gave something scientific, you could use the same argument (not that science doesn't have it's share of boneheaded names -- The Big Bang, for one)

5. Arguing that if you have described a process, you have explained its origin. [it could have happened this way...]

Duh. Nobody (from the scientific perspective) will ever say you have 100% definitive truth about anything. The whole world could be an illusion for all we know, but that's irrelevant to the nature of science.

6. Assuming what you want to prove (tautology).

Thing is, science doesn't work like this. Science is about drawing conclusions from available evidence, not the other way around.

8. Selection (eliminating features) produces new features.

Genetic variation produces new features. Selection merely determines which ones are kept.

11. The straw man (creating a misconception or false image of what creationists believe). "Creationists believe that the earth is flat."

Some creationists (not many, but some) do believe that. But applying that to all creationists would be illogical.

14. “Creationists don’t publish in the top evolutionary science journals.” (Hmmm…I wonder why?)

Hmmm... I also wonder why?

http://www.rae.org/topbone.html

That list is a riot. Too bad it falls under the very same logic it seems to be trying to argue against.

 

[Morat]

So which type of fallacy would this be? Deductive?

1. G~d is love.
2. Love is blind.
3. Ray Charles is blind.
4. Therefore Ray Charles is god.

  It's affirming the consequent. Basically, "If A, then B" does not prove that "If B, then A".

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Top False Fallacies Claimed by Boneheads When Arguing Against Evolution

1. Argument by definition: "Creation is outside of science."

Bonehead is confusing the conclusion of an argument with the argument itself. Usually happens when bonehead fails to read any arguments placed before him/her.

2. Argument by appeal to authority or intellectual snobbery: "All those scientists [from only these sources which have an a-priori commitment to methodological naturalism] can't be wrong."

Only a problem for boneheads who think all scientists are stupid liars.

3. Argument by lining up ducks in a row (homology). This is like space travelers visiting earth in year 3000 finding cars in a junkyard and creating an evolutionary sequence from them.

Apparently said bonehead, if shown ten photos of a child taken at 1-year intervals, would have a problem with the claim that they are the same person.

4. If you can't explain it, give it a scientific name [like abiogenesis, to give an absurd idea more respectability] (evolutionist fairy dust).

More boneheaded: "If you can't explain it, goddidit."

5. Arguing that if you have described a process, you have explained its origin. [it could have happened this way...]

Only a problem if bonehead ignores evidence that such process really happened.

6. Assuming what you want to prove (tautology).

Like that the Earth is 6,000 years old, right?

8. Selection (eliminating features) produces new features.

Only a bonehead would think that the above bears any resemblance to evolution.

9. If an evolutionist can come up with an ad-hoc argument that seems to explain something, it refutes the creationist explanation. [this is actually almost the same as #5, IMO]

Same boneheaded mistake at #5.

11. The straw man (creating a misconception or false image of what creationists believe). "Creationists believe that the earth is flat."

Boneheads can't complain about this if they are going to continue making their own boneheaded straw men like #8.

14. “Creationists don’t publish in the top evolutionary science journals.” (Hmmm…I wonder why?)

Bonehead ignores the fact that creationists don't publish in ANY top science journals.

 

[jon1101]

So which type of fallacy would this be? Deductive?

1. G~d is love.
2. Love is blind.
3. Ray Charles is blind.
4. Therefore Ray Charles is god.

There's also a hasty generalization in line two, and equivocation between lines two and three. I believe that fun little argument is designed to be an example of several falacies strung together to prove the deity of Ray Charles.

-jon

 

[FordPrefect]

Lady, I am sorry for you that you cannot find your towel. Perhaps the Great Arkleseizure (sp) will help you before the coming of the Great Hankerchief.

In regards to the use of cites, I think that they are an important tool to provide clarity into the source of the argument, but beyond that they can become meaningless quickly. It is quite obvious from this forum that one can find a cite for pretty much any viewpoint. Then the debate degrades into a battle of validating the cite source, rather than the debate point.

 

[Morat]

  Although, as someone pointed out on another thread, it's occasionally very amusing to find out that some respected personage (Let's say, just for grins, Humphries) had sorta accidentally added a "minus" sign to a temperature reading from a paper, and proceed to write a piece explaining how this was proof positive for a young earth.

   Only, of course, to learn why scientific journals believe in peer review. Had he submitted his work to be reviewed, his error would have been caught, and he would have avoided a great deal of embarassment (both his own, and those who later used his work).

   Cites are usefull, especially ones to primary literature. With secondary literature, more care must be taken.

 

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by FordPrefect
\Then the debate degrades into a battle of validating the cite source, rather than the debate point.

Well, I'd agree with you on this, but only if you can find support for it from sources that I, personally, would find credible.

 

[FordPrefect]

What, I am not credible enough for you?

 

[LadyShea]

Hey Ford...thanks, it was a good towel, I think it is just off galavanting and will be back soon.

Seriously, I hear what you are saying. The citation necessity comes into play when someone makes some crazy claim (oh, let's say about a matter of law) and asks you to discuss the implications. I think it is important to verify what that law states before drawing any conclusions.

"It's against the law to tie an alligator to a fire hydrant...don't you think that is wrong and we need to fight such discrimination???"....if this was said to me, then yes I expect some sort of reasonable evidence that such a law exists and under what conditions it is enforced.

When it comes to statistics...yes, two people can probably find study after study that seemingly backs up their side of the argument...darn statistics

 

[Hank]

I am learning as I go.

My biggest headache is the quote system. It does not carry both sides, and deletes to which I am answering from. Thus more then once, I got way of topic. This is not an excuse, I am simply tooooo lacy to go make sure for the exact wording.

My question how do you keep track?

 

[LadyShea]

Keep track of what Hank? I'm confused now.