Why Rabbit-trailing is not useful

[Speedwell]

So, just say that you subscribe to an anything-goes, free-for-all form of debate instead of beating around the bush.

We will be clear that you accept no ground rules (except, most likely, in your own arguments).

~~~~~~~~~~

My Brother Always Runs Red Lights​

There are these two guys driving a car. The guy driving blows right through the red light.

"Man, you just ran that red light," the passenger said.

"Don't worry, my brother does it all the time," said the driver.

Well, they continue to drive when the guy went flying through another stop light.

"You ran ANOTHER stop light. You are going to get us killed!" exclaimed the passenger.

"Don't worry, my brother does it all the time," the driver said.

After a while they came to a green light when the guy stopped.

"Why are you stopping?"

The driver turned around and said, "I thought that I saw my brother coming the other way!"

You would rather we ignore straw-man arguments by accepting the straw man as real?

 

[Sabertooth]

You would rather we ignore straw-man arguments by accepting the straw man as real?

For the sake of argument, in specific contexts? Yes.

Treat it like, "If X is true, then Y follows." Y is the whole point of the statement.
If you cannot entertain that X might be true, you do not belong in that conversation. You don't even have to hold that X is true. You just need to entertain it for the sake of argument.

It is like seeing a plot hole in a fictional movie. You already had to suspend disbelief. But given said movie's physics, Y still could not have happened. That is the only objection you are allowed in that context.

(YECs [have to] do that all the time with evolutionists' dogma.)

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Good heavens! We've sunk to arguing about arguing.

 

[Sabertooth]

Good heavens! We've sunk to arguing about arguing.

(I believe that that was the point of the OP...)

 

[Larniavc]

Do you remember that wonderful sequence in Raiders of the Lost Ark where a big tough guy with huge sword chases Indiana Jones into blind alley? Indiana Jones is doomed because he hasn't got big sword, too, right? No, he just draws his revolver and shoots the guy.

He didn’t chase him into a blind alley: it was an open street.

Which leads us to the question of Mr Ford having a cold in such a crowded area!

What was Mr Lucas and Mr Spielberg thinking?

 

[Speedwell]

For the sake of argument, in specific contexts? Yes.

Treat it like, "If X is true, then Y follows." Y is the whole point of the statement.
If you cannot entertain that X might be true, you do not belong in that conversation. You don't even have to hold that X is true. You just need to entertain it for the sake of argument.

It is like seeing a plot hole in a fictional movie. You already had to suspend disbelief. But given said movie's physics, Y still could not have happened. That is the only objection you are allowed in that context.

(YECs [have to] do that all the time with evolutionists' dogma.)

and if Y isn't true but the logic is sound, then is it not reasonable to question the premise X?

 

[BobRyan]

He didn’t chase him into a blind alley: it was an open street.

Which leads us to the question of Mr Ford having a cold in such a crowded area!

What was Mr Lucas and Mr Spielberg thinking?

A great illustration of rabbit trailing then following that new trail to some of its interesting details.

 

[Sabertooth]

...then is it not reasonable to question the premise X?

Not in the context given. The best you can say is that Y does or does not work in the universe containing X. My take and yours are BOTH hypothetical outside of observed phenomena.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

For the sake of argument, in specific contexts? Yes.

Treat it like, "If X is true, then Y follows." Y is the whole point of the statement.
If you cannot entertain that X might be true, you do not belong in that conversation. You don't even have to hold that X is true. You just need to entertain it for the sake of argument.

But the point of a straw man is to appear to refute one argument by substituting another more easily refuted argument; so the straw man is intrinsically fallacious as a representation of the real argument, and refuting the straw man is a meaningless, sleight-of-hand, bait & switch, fallacious 'victory' because it doesn't refute the real argument. That is why it should be exposed and rejected.

But maybe I missed the point of your argument, so please don't accuse me of straw-manning it

 

[Sabertooth]

But the point of a straw man is to appear to refute one argument by substituting another more easily refuted argument; so the straw man is intrinsically fallacious as a representation of the real argument, and refuting the straw man is a meaningless, sleight-of-hand, bait & switch, fallacious 'victory' because it doesn't refute the real argument. That is why it should be exposed and rejected.

People who [think that they] have a "superior" hypothesis often deem "inferior" [to them] hypotheses to be "straw men."

It is not my responsibility nor that of my posts/threads to affirm your superiority complex. (Maybe said complex is pathological and you honestly do not realize that you are imposing such demands...

)

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

People who [think that they] have a "superior" hypothesis often deem "inferior" [to them] hypotheses to be "straw men."

Maybe so, but that just means they don't know what a straw man argument is.

It is not my responsibility nor that of my posts/threads to affirm your superiority complex. (Maybe said complex is pathological and you honestly do not realize that you are imposing such demands...

)

I'm not saying you have any responsibility. I'm just pointing out that entertaining a straw man argument is a mistake (in the context of the real argument).

The argument that is used as a straw man may be valid and sound, and acceptable in a different context, but used as a straw man it is a misrepresentation.

 

[Sabertooth]

I'm not saying you have any responsibility. I'm just pointing out that entertaining a straw man argument¹ is a mistake (in the context of the real² argument).

The argument that is used as a straw man may be valid and sound, and acceptable in a different context, but used as a straw man it is a misrepresentation.³

1. An argument that is based on a hypothesis which I have deemed to be inferior (and fantastic).
2. I will accept no proposition that is inconsistent with my superior hypotheses. You have no business proposing such in the name of reality.
3. And it is my duty to derail any such dialog that would be imposed upon "rational" society. (I take that responsibility VERY seriously!)

Me:

Zealots. (It still isn't my responsibility to appease your overblown sense of superiority.)

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

1. An argument that is based on a hypothesis which I have deemed to be inferior (and fantastic).
2. I will accept no proposition that is inconsistent with my superior hypotheses. You have no business proposing such in the name of reality.
3. And it is my duty to derail any such dialog that would be imposed upon "rational" society. (I take that responsibility VERY seriously!)

1. An argument that is not the argument I was making.
2. You can't rebut my argument by rebutting a different argument.
3. Just sayin'.

 

[Speedwell]

1. An argument that is based on a hypothesis which I have deemed to be inferior (and fantastic).
2. I will accept no proposition that is inconsistent with my superior hypotheses. You have no business proposing such in the name of reality.
3. And it is my duty to derail any such dialog that would be imposed upon "rational" society. (I take that responsibility VERY seriously!)

Me:

Zealots. (It still isn't my responsibility to appease your overblown sense of superiority.)

Still, I can see your point. Let's consider an example taken from this forum:

P1. All those who reject a literal Genesis are atheists.
P2. Evolutionists reject a literal Genesis.
C. Therefore all Evolutionists are atheists.

Despite the correctness of the logic, I can understand why you would think it unfair to have the premises questioned.

 

[Sabertooth]

Despite the correctness of the logic, I can understand why you would think it unfair to have the premises questioned.

I don't see the point that you are trying to make.

I recognize three major views here,

1. YEC,
2. Long-term evolution:
   • Theistic &
   • atheistic.

#2a & #2b will be in agreement with each other for much of their dialogue, but if #1 would like to consider the details of their own model (in its own thread), we get shouted down because it denies the shared hypothesis of #2. (It isn't expected to agree and we don't owe evolutionists that consideration, no matter how much they would demand it.)

And while platygeists are typically YECs, most YECs are NOT platygeists.

 

[Speedwell]

I don't see the point that you are trying to make.

I recognize three major views here,

1. YEC,
2. Long-term evolution:
   • Theistic &
   • atheistic.

#2a & #2b will be in agreement with each other for much of their dialogue, but if #1 would like to consider the details of their own model (in its own thread), we get shouted down because it denies the shared hypothesis of #2. (It isn't expected to agree and we don't owe evolutionists that consideration, no matter how much they would demand it.)

And while platygeists are typically YECs, most YECs are NOT platygeists.

Platygeists I(Wow! I just leaned a new word) are a minor issue. What is being "shouted down," is not YECism as such--nobody else really cares what some minority Protestant sect thinks about the Bible. It's a question of attitude. Seventh-Day Adventists think the Bible tells them not to eat meat. Do you hear anybody shouting them down? You, at least, seem to admit that a person who accepts the ToE can also be a theist--whether you think they can be a Christian is not a point I will press you on, though many of your creationist colleagues do not and they are as hostile about it as the forum moderators will allow. Just as with any other scientific theory, it is possible that the ToE is wrong; but the assertion that it is a lie of Satan and evolutionists are in league with him deserves to be shouted down, likewise false statements about the content of the theory made to create a straw man.

 

[Sabertooth]

@Speedwell, but we keep coming back to the idea that YECs cannot proceed from that hypothesis in their own threads without being met with,
"YEC isn't true, so nothing you build on it is true..."

In a YEC-based thread, it is the beginning supposition.

 

[Speedwell]

@Speedwell, but we keep coming back to the idea that YECs cannot proceed from that hypothesis in their own threads without being met with,
"YEC isn't true, so nothing you build on it is true..."

In a YEC-based thread, it is the beginning supposition.

It certainly is true that as a scientific proposition, YECism has been off the table for 200 years. So yes, if you advance it as a matter of science you will be shown why it is wrong. If your premise is that it is scientifically viable then there is no use in proceeding with the argument. But in fact that rarely happens. Most creationists understand that creationism is not science; it rests on an entirely different epistemological footing than science and even if it were to turn out that the creationists were right about our origins and science was wrong, creationism still wouldn't be science. Consequently they bend their efforts to impeaching the science, with more or less vitriol and usually wind up attacking instead one of the straw men erected for them by the various creationist ministries.

 

[Sabertooth]

It certainly is true that as a scientific proposition, YECism has been off the table for 200 years. So yes, if you advance it as a matter of science you will be shown why it is wrong. If your premise is that it is scientifically viable then there is no use in proceeding with the argument. But in fact that rarely happens. Most creationists understand that creationism is not science; it rests on an entirely different epistemological footing than science and even if it were to turn out that the creationists were right about our origins and science was wrong, creationism still wouldn't be science. Consequently they bend their efforts to impeaching the science, with more or less vitriol and usually wind up attacking instead one of the straw men erected for them by the various creationist ministries.

That is the same arrogance that I have been speaking to throughout this thread. This sub-forum is for debate and discussion. YECs need not recant their position to write to the latter.

This sub-forum is for Creation & Evolution, not just for evolution-approved dialogue.

 

[Speedwell]

That is the same arrogance that I have been speaking to throughout this thread. This sub-forum is for debate and discussion. YECs need not recant their position to write to the latter.

This sub-forum is for Creation & Evolution, not just for evolution-approved dialogue.

It's not arrogance, it's a matter of fact. There is no scientific basis for YECism. That doesn't mean you have to recant it and we can discuss it arguendo all you want, or as a matter of faith, but it is not science. There is no point in pretending otherwise.