Several creationists/hoaxests, ect. use several devices to "prove" their theories.

What are some you've seen? Here are ones that i have seen and ones listed in a textbook for one of my courses (fantastic anthropology a very fun course!)

1.Argument form authority: "my friend is a astronomer and he says...." or "i am a astronomer and you are not so i must be right because i know more."

2.appeal to ignorance: use uncertanty to prove a premise. Ex. "no evidence for u.f.o.'s landing so, we can still say they have arrived.

3.appeal to ridiclue: "that is the dumbest thing i have ever heard"

3.special pleading (A VERY BIG ONE, USED ALOT): basically my cercumstance is special. All the rules apply to all science except my theory.

4."poisining the well": attack the opposing person themselves so that you will discredit their theory even before you hear it. "they are a idiot and know nuthing." "He can't be trusted"

5.selecting observations: only use data that fts your argument

6.old is good: basically the past was smarter than us, so if they used it or did it in the past it must be correct and right.

7. false dilemma: if you are not with us you are against us. Black and white, true/false. ONly two choices on the subject. ex. creationism/evolution. If evolution is wrong, creationism must be right.

8. red herring: throw something is to throw off people. (mmm... Fish)

9. "non sequitor": basically put two things together, thik they are linked but they are nopt. ex. "i got a flat tierre on the way to work, so the tire company is corrupt"

Phew, that is alot. Anyone have any other qualities and arguments that you have seen people use?

Just remember to watch out for these as they almost always show that the person has very little or no real facts and is defending themselves andtheir reputation.


Off Topic: WOOOHHOOO!! I Made Bad Intern!!!!!! YAY!!!

Was that just the sound of one hand clapping? no, nevermind that was just my trained monkey typing away at his first volume of shakespere. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

[spelling in title]
________________
"Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia": The fear of long words
"It takes Thousands to fight a battle for a mile, Millions to hold an election for a nation, but it only takes One to change the world."

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: g99 on 2002-09-27 19:18 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: g99 on 2003-03-10 16:32 ]</font>

Quite a few of the points you bring up appear to be fallacies of arguements in general. One problem I find, but I expect that every one does this to some extent, is that they find one source that they like or fits with their views and ignore any other sources that are contrary to the viewpoint.

On 2002-09-27 19:12, g99 wrote: tO: 5:18 P.M. PST












4."poisining the well": attack the opposing person themselves so that you will discredit their theory even before you hear it. "they are a idiot and know nuthing." "He can't be trusted"

5.selecting observations: only use data that fts your argument

<a name="astrology.hu2"> line= astrology.hu2 aka astrology.hu2
http://www.4yourhoroscope.com/
http://www.Facade.COM/

http://www.mindspring.com/
http://www.rockiehoroscope.com/
http://www.artwells.com

1:
2:
3:
4:
5:
6:
7:
8:
________________9:
ill add some new ones IF i find 1

As well as the ones you mentioned I have seen these, some of which may be considered variations of the ones already mentioned.

Insistance on "proof" based on application of impractical formulai.

Overwhelming the discussion by copy/paste of large tracts of mostly irrelevant text.

Rewriting the original statement and then disprooving the rewriten statement.

Hijacking the discussion onto some other track.

Arbitrary thread locking without reasonable recourse.

Pointing to spelling or gramatical errors rather than a legitimate opposing argument.

Rejection of any speculative discussion as untrue because suportive factors are unprooven or classified.

Hmm... It appears g99 is doing a little bit of #4 himself [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img] (If I asked for examples of all those people doing these things, would someone do a #5 too?). Anyway, there are lots of people on any side of any issue who will readily use logical fallacies. If they insist on using the fallacy after you identify it to them, I'd suggest ignoring them (without a snide retreating comment), and move on to people who are more interested in discussion than advocacy.

Addendum: that is, if you're not going for advocacy as well.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: xriso on 2002-09-27 21:55 ]</font>

Don't forget their favorite tactic, quoting out-of-context.

My all-time favorite example is misquotes on supernova remnants by Keith Davies and Jonathan Sarfati which is documented in two files at The Talk.Origins Archive:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/supernova/#BM109

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/#s2-2

And even if the papers where not misquoted, they are rather too old to serve as documentation that something is currently considered a mystery.

xriso,

I agree with you in ignoring those who continue logical fallacies when thay are pointed out to them. But that points to another type of fallacy wherin fallacious statements are combined with legitimate arguments; To deal with that is so unwieldy. You have to either ignore, which is sort of an (undeserved) surrender of the field, or point out the fallacy AND the error in argument (if any).

The problem is that people tend to use basically the same logical tricks in any kind of discussion. The same unfair tactics are just as characteristic of "legitimate" scientific discussions as of any other discussions. Such is the human nature.

ahhh... Very true, we are all susecptible to falling into pits of uninformed and questionable arguments to further our pride or something we care about.

But i try to keep theses to atleast once a day. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

But then again you can never go wrong with the quote: "I am not conceited, I am perfect". Explains alot when you really think about it.

__________________
GIYUL :-)
"It takes Thousands to fight a battle for a mile, Millions to hold an election for a nation, but it only takes One to change the world." - Dan Sandler 2002

Malcolm Bowden's "Science vs Evolution" lists the 28 deceptive stratagems used by Evolutionists!

Vague phraseology, false analogies,assumptions become evidence, straw men,filtering the evidence, ad hoc theories, circular reasoning, deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning, post hoc ergo propter hoc, equivocation, fallacious appeal to authority,personalised abstractions, either...or,distraction, ad hominem, name calling, fallacy of the undistributed middle, non sequitur, sweeping statements, blinding with science, quoting out of context, special pleading, confident assertions, guilt by association, ridicule and humour, hurt feelings and appeal to be "Christ-like & loving"!

See Blind-Watchmaker Dawkins' "Tricks of the Advocate's Trade"!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Caryn on 2002-09-29 05:14 ]</font>

<a name="20020929.2:16"> POST 20020929.2:16 aka archaeo?
.1 the 486/100 now can do both time stamps [TIMEKEY.COM]
& PAGE NAMES which i will now go back to the line above
and change the word page to POST
{meaning it comes from the 486/100 &not the 386/20}
2: ok that done: now make room for archeo links
{once i get back to "MY20}
A.
B:
c?

Oh please. It's possible to find examples of bad and deceptive arguments on just about any side of any debate. It's almost unavoidable. But in this case, for every poor argument put out by the mainstream, I've seen at least ten from YE creationists. The same goes for most conspiracists and cranks. It's not a matter of one side does it and the other side doesn't. It's a matter of degree, and how strong (or weak) the underlying position is.

Pot, meet kettle.

__________________
...And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. --Sir Bedevere

That must be the book my proffesor used to give us the list in his notes. He uses those exact categories. (i had left some out and also change the names of some i put in to further enhance their readability and so i don't have to give a huge explanation for each. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

But i do agree with dave that it is not only evolutionists who use them, creationsits, and even most sceptics use them too. For dealing with the general, unscientific community, and the general uneducated or semi-educated public they are great to use. They mostly appeal to empotion and reason instead of logic and science. They appear to be valid arguments, (some have valid points dispersed with their own theories) but when they are put throught the rigors of peer testing and experiment they usually fail.

The people who solely or at least 60% of the time use these, usually do not write for scientific journals. They are the scientists who first write for newsweek, popular science and CNN before they publish anything in the journals.

Or at least that is what it seems like to me.

_________________
"Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia": The fear of long words
"It takes Thousands to fight a battle for a mile, Millions to hold an election for a nation, but it only takes One to change the world."

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: g99 on 2002-09-29 17:34 ]</font>

More to the point, is it possible to find someone on the YEC side who *isn't* guilty of these techniques? On the scientific side, you've got Asimov, Sagan, Gould, Morowitz, Quammen, etc. etc., who do *not* engage in such behaviors.

There are bad apples in just about any barrel, but when a barrel hasn't got any *good* apples, you have to start to wonder!

Silas

It's not hard to find where people make mistakes of either logic or of ignoring solid evidence. What's hard is trying to understand why.

Our brains are hardwired to filter our realities. I suspect it's a necessary mechanism of self preservation.

I think teaching critical thinking skills to kids is as important, (if not more important), than teaching them all the facts they're taught now.

I don't know how successful we can be in teaching critical thinking skills to adults. I try to address it in all my classes. Sometimes, I'll go through the whole concept of scientific evaluation of evidence vs common errors people make misinterpreting evidence. Sometimes I get responses that indicate the whole concept was discarded by a student who preferred to hold on to an existing belief despite the fact it was based on merely coincidental evidence, even in the face of research that supports the opposite conclusion.

As far as the 'Creationist' believers, they seem to be giving way to the 'intelligent design' believers. I suspect that's how people changed from the 'flat Earth' believers to the 'round Earth' believers, through a gradual process of redefining their realities.

__________________
The real news, including science news corporations may not allow on stations they own. http://www.democracynow.org/

That's what you call winning the battle by inches. Their belief in a Creator is their choice, but at least they are SLOWLY getting their facts straight.

__________________
I'm not completely heartless, the doctor who removed it told me he'd never be able to get it all.

I agree with you on all points. It is very hard to change someone who already believes in something. Also it is even harder to keep them believing in that idea and keeping them from going back to their original idea.

ahhh..So the creationists are evolving. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Intelegent design is a very hard theory to denunce since it has almost no points to denonce scientifically. But again it still deals with religion and god (even tought they never actually say "god".) So it needs to be carefully handled because the persons beliefs and reality is wound around the theory.

__________________
GIYUL :-)
"It takes Thousands to fight a battle for a mile, Millions to hold an election for a nation, but it only takes One to change the world." - Dan Sandler 2002

It's also kind of easy to avoid if you want: "That's just how history went - no explanation needed." "If it didn't go exactly that way then my exact mind at this time wouldn't exist, so it had to happen since I exist."

Then again, these are only arguments to avoid any explanation at all - natural or otherwise. I wouldn't want a homicide detective using them, that's for sure. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Oh what a clever funny comment. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif[/img]

I wish the intelligent designers would just stick to the 'I want to believe it so it is so'. Unfortunately, some of them insist on finding 'scientific' evidence that 'proves' ID. The ususal is that there hasn't been enough time for evolution to have reached the point of human animals. And one doesn't have to be a 'young Earther' to use that argument.

But it ain't so. Research at the molecular level has provided strong evidence that there has been plenty of time for evolution to result in me and others like me. I just wish the rest of the humans would hurry up and evolve to this stage as well. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

Don't get excited, I was just kidding. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

__________________
The real news, including science news corporations may not allow on stations they own. http://www.democracynow.org/

Just wondering, do you have figures for this? Someone explained me some figures that it would have taken 5000 rainforest-sized masses of peptide material to have a reasonable chance of finding just one replicable molecule of DNA and RNA in the scenario of chance evolution. The probability of yielding the right combination of reactions is 10^109. (The figures originally came from a book called Quantum Evolution - I believe it is this book .)

And just as a slight rebuttal to the first comment:

"A God too large to walk in human shoes/ Has outgrown every hope of human use./ And heavy skeptics weighted down with doubt/ Can never rise to find what God's about." - Calvin Miller

_________________
"But I can see the Covenant colors [that] the sun and the rain have woven against the blue of the sky"
- Rich Mullins, The Howling

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: nebularain on 2002-10-01 16:50 ]</font>

I find that when somebody has been fed this, they cease thinking for themselves and start parroting the so called "higher authority."

__________________
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/GM/GS/MU d- s+:+ a--- C++ U--->+++ P--->+++++ L+>+++++ E? W++ N? o? K? w+>--- O? !M V? PS !PE Y+ PGP t+(t++)>+++ 5 X+>++++ R tv+ b+>++ DI++ D+ G++>++++ e>+++ h! !r y?
------END GEEK CODE------