Identify the Logical Fallacies

[jwalker1960]

I’ve only been blogging on skeptical issues for about a week or so, but I’ve already gotten my first taste of controversy and poorly argued points of view. It was a consequence of an entry I recently wrote on my blog stating my belief that knowledge of evolution should be part of graduation requirements for secondary school students. This was in reference to an article on MSNBC’s web site reporting that top home-school textbooks dismiss evolution
You can read my blog entry at jwalker1960.wordpress.com
I posted a link to this blog entry on Facebook and what a firestorm ensued!

Here are some of the responses it.

"Well, this thread is already painfully long, but just the same, I will pray for you. Good luck." (reply to a skeptic)

"I do not believe that teaching evolution has anything to do with children being successful in science. My sons are doing exceptionally well in science, and they do not study evolution. There are so many things that children need to learn - being compassionate, fair, honest, non-judgmental, non-racist, etc etc. The schools do not teach all of these within their walls. We can see this through the number of children in detention centers and among failing families. As I work with children in the church, we do many scientific activities as well as human relational activities. Science is science. Creation is creation. (By the way - God created Science) lol "

"Jesus is the rock. I used to hate God, but then I realized that He really knows me and loves me for who I am. He created me for specific purposes and I'm realizing how events of the past have formed me for those purposes. I know what I have felt in my heart and heard from His voice. Nothing can weaken my faith, because I have seen too many miracles in my life. It is never a waste of time to pray for someone. Nothing is impossible for Jesus. He still loves you." (reply to a skeptic who happens to be Jewish).

"And while I'm at it, my friend, there was a time in history when the popular beliefs were that blacks were not really humans and did not deserve freedom, respect, or dignity. Does that mean that when they taught that in schools, that it was correct and true? Just because something is a popular belief, that does not make it correct or a necessity to teach all the children. Good night "

“…you were just funny lecturing me on the scientific method. I just finished reading an article/interview on Human Evolution II: Recent Evolution. These are evolution proponents speaking about a new Nova series. Let me give you a rundown on what passes for the scientific method for dogmatic evolutionists. Here's some of the lingo: "estimate, about (4x), potential differences, seems to be (3x), looks like (2x), might be, may be (3x), every 5 or 10 years the whole landscape shifts as new discoveries comes, our response to climate change was to grow bigger brains (too bad, environmentalists, science is now claiming it's a good thing!), we have no way of knowing (my personal favorite), suddenly along comes this species (really?), we imagine, they colonized the whole planet, interesting ideas about the origin of fire," and last but not least, "we made characters and they really tell us stories." “

There are so many logical fallacies here that I don’t even know where to begin. Maybe some of you here can dissect these responses and identify the different fallacies exhibited here.

[Twiler]

"Well, this thread is already painfully long, but just the same, I will pray for you. Good luck." (reply to a skeptic)
I can't think of a specific fallacy, but this is more of a dismissal than an argument.

"I do not believe that teaching evolution has anything to do with children being successful in science. My sons are doing exceptionally well in science, and they do not study evolution. There are so many things that children need to learn - being compassionate, fair, honest, non-judgmental, non-racist, etc etc. The schools do not teach all of these within their walls. We can see this through the number of children in detention centers and among failing families. As I work with children in the church, we do many scientific activities as well as human relational activities. Science is science. Creation is creation. (By the way - God created Science) lol "

Trying to distort the issue (no-one was advocating teaching evolution instead of all those things), and making an unsupported statement.

"Jesus is the rock. I used to hate God, but then I realized that He really knows me and loves me for who I am. He created me for specific purposes and I'm realizing how events of the past have formed me for those purposes. I know what I have felt in my heart and heard from His voice. Nothing can weaken my faith, because I have seen too many miracles in my life. It is never a waste of time to pray for someone. Nothing is impossible for Jesus. He still loves you." (reply to a skeptic who happens to be Jewish).

Refuge in gibberish.

"And while I'm at it, my friend, there was a time in history when the popular beliefs were that blacks were not really humans and did not deserve freedom, respect, or dignity. Does that mean that when they taught that in schools, that it was correct and true? Just because something is a popular belief, that does not make it correct or a necessity to teach all the children. Good night "
Conflating popular belief with scientific belief.

“…you were just funny lecturing me on the scientific method. I just finished reading an article/interview on Human Evolution II: Recent Evolution. These are evolution proponents speaking about a new Nova series. Let me give you a rundown on what passes for the scientific method for dogmatic evolutionists. Here's some of the lingo: "estimate, about (4x), potential differences, seems to be (3x), looks like (2x), might be, may be (3x), every 5 or 10 years the whole landscape shifts as new discoveries comes, our response to climate change was to grow bigger brains (too bad, environmentalists, science is now claiming it's a good thing!), we have no way of knowing (my personal favorite), suddenly along comes this species (really?), we imagine, they colonized the whole planet, interesting ideas about the origin of fire," and last but not least, "we made characters and they really tell us stories." “
[/B]
'If I don't understand this then it's stupid.'

[Pure Argent]

Twiler beat me to it. :(

[cwalner]

Trying to distort the issue (no-one was advocating teaching evolution instead of all those things)
To get a clear name, I think this is typically referred to as a false dilemma.

[Safe-Keeper]

Identify the Logical FallaciesWhere do I begin?

[themusicteacher]

How about simply a complete lack of logic. This persons (the voice sounds like that of a woman) rambling nonsense is long-hand for "Science is contrary to my world-view so I choose to reject it and replace it with my own system of belief." I'd be interested to hear what sort of "science" they do at home and by what standard her children are "good at science."

Now, tell me again why we shouldn't have some sort of test to take before you can have children, infect them with ignorance then foist them upon the world? Homeschooling does have it's success stories but I think this is more the rule than the exception when it comes to what mommy/daddy-teacher are inflicting upon their poor, defenseless spawn.

[Ashles]

"Well, this thread is already painfully long, but just the same, I will pray for you. Good luck." (reply to a skeptic)
Fallacy of "Painfully Short Attention Span" and "Standard Lazy Response" fallacy

"I do not believe that teaching evolution has anything to do with children being successful in science. My sons are doing exceptionally well in science, and they do not study evolution. There are so many things that children need to learn - being compassionate, fair, honest, non-judgmental, non-racist, etc etc. The schools do not teach all of these within their walls. We can see this through the number of children in detention centers and among failing families. As I work with children in the church, we do many scientific activities as well as human relational activities. Science is science. Creation is creation. (By the way - God created Science) lol "
Fallacy of finishing your argument with "LOL" thus completely negating anything preceding it.

"Jesus is the rock. I used to hate God, but then I realized that He really knows me and loves me for who I am. He created me for specific purposes and I'm realizing how events of the past have formed me for those purposes. I know what I have felt in my heart and heard from His voice. Nothing can weaken my faith, because I have seen too many miracles in my life. It is never a waste of time to pray for someone. Nothing is impossible for Jesus. He still loves you." (reply to a skeptic who happens to be Jewish).
Fallacy of pretending to have once had your viewpoint then learning better. Also known as "I was once a complete idiot like you but now I'm right" fallacy.
Also demonstrates "Standard Lazy Response" fallacy. (In this case the sub fallacy of "Jesus still loves you even though I clearly hate you")

"And while I'm at it, my friend, there was a time in history when the popular beliefs were that blacks were not really humans and did not deserve freedom, respect, or dignity. Does that mean that when they taught that in schools, that it was correct and true? Just because something is a popular belief, that does not make it correct or a necessity to teach all the children. Good night "
A veritable buffet of fallacies here.

Firstly the Mock Friendly Fallacy (chuck in the words "dear" or "my friend" yet somehow make it sound like a complete insult)
Then there is a fine example of "This random thing in the past was evil so therefore the completely different thing you think is also evil" fallacy. It's a Godwin variant.
And it finishes with a lovely example of "I have run out of argument and want the discussion to stop now" fallacy. Also known as Final Word fallacy.

“…you were just funny lecturing me on the scientific method. I just finished reading an article/interview on Human Evolution II: Recent Evolution. These are evolution proponents speaking about a new Nova series. Let me give you a rundown on what passes for the scientific method for dogmatic evolutionists. Here's some of the lingo: "estimate, about (4x), potential differences, seems to be (3x), looks like (2x), might be, may be (3x), every 5 or 10 years the whole landscape shifts as new discoveries comes, our response to climate change was to grow bigger brains (too bad, environmentalists, science is now claiming it's a good thing!), we have no way of knowing (my personal favorite), suddenly along comes this species (really?), we imagine, they colonized the whole planet, interesting ideas about the origin of fire," and last but not least, "we made characters and they really tell us stories." “
This is a clear example of Argumentum ad Incomprehensium. This is a very popular one these days - simply write as unclearly and incomprehensibly as possible and pretend to be making some kind of point that the the other person is failing to follow, whereas in reality you are generating your argument by creating a text message on your phone, putting some cat treats on the screen, leaving the word autocomplete function on and shouting for Tiddles.

[Manopolus]

[B]"Well, this thread is already painfully long, but just the same, I will pray for you. Good luck." (reply to a skeptic)

The first part (before the comma) suggests that he didn't even read the origional argument, and suggests an assumption that it is neither worth reading nor making any response to. It is suggestive of a strawman fallacy in a way (internally), since he didn't actually read the message. But he didn't really argue any point, and therefore the strawman is only implied.

The second part (after the comma) could be objected to in two ways. It could be considered an appeal to authority (based on the suggestion of his own benevolance). I would also say it is a Red Herring, as his praying and his good wishes have nothing to do with the actual argument.

I'll get to the others later -- sorry for doing it a bit at a time, but I'll have to break them down bit by bit to give you a full answer.

[chum]

Jesus is the rock. I used to hate God, but then I realized that He really knows me and loves me for who I am. He created me for specific purposes and I'm realizing how events of the past have formed me for those purposes. I know what I have felt in my heart and heard from His voice.

I really liked this quote — it's so out there. "Jesus is the rock?" What does the even mean?

Assertion: He created me for specific purposes
Fallacy: Argument from design

Assertion: and I'm realizing how events of the past have formed me for those purposes.
Fallacy: Post hoc ergo propter hoc

Assertion: I know what I have felt in my heart and heard from His voice.
Assertion: I used to hate God, but then I realized that He really knows me and loves me for who I am.
Mental disorder: Adult-onset schizophrenia or senile dementia

[cwalner]

I really liked this quote — it's so out there. "Jesus is the rock?" What does the even mean?
That Dwayne Johnson is the second coming of our lord and saviour?

[Manopolus]

"I do not believe that teaching evolution has anything to do with children being successful in science. My sons are doing exceptionally well in science, and they do not study evolution.

This is Begging the question -- also known as circular reasoning. If they are in a program that does not teach evolution, then not knowing about evolution will not be a factor in how well they do. It assumes that a science program that prefers to leave things out for religious reasons is adequate, and uses how well someone is doing INSIDE that program as proof of its adequacy. In other words, it assumes that its own grading system is valid and can be applied to knowledge of science overall.

There are so many things that children need to learn - being compassionate, fair, honest, non-judgmental, non-racist, etc etc. The schools do not teach all of these within their walls. We can see this through the number of children in detention centers and among failing families. As I work with children in the church, we do many scientific activities as well as human relational activities. Science is science. Creation is creation. (By the way - God created Science) lol "

The rest is a false dilemma, suggesting that we have no time to teach our children evolution because we must instead teach them morals. It is also implying a negative connotation to pure secularism, and thus is a form of dysphemism, which is a fallacy of connotation. The detention centers part performs this function, but in and of itself is a red herring.

Although not specifically nor clearly stated, the whole thing also appears to imply an appeal to consequences of a belief. Basically, we should not believe in evolution because of the moral consequences, rather than because it is not true.

"God created science" is simply a baseless assertion, or statement of faith. I think it is meant to serve as a premise after the fact, but is not one that is in any way mutually agreed upon, and can be dismissed as such. An interesting way to continue the argument would be to accept the premise, and suggest that if God gave us science, who are we to deny a piece of it?

[chum]

This is Begging the question -- also known as circular reasoning. If they are in a program that does not teach evolution, then not knowing about evolution will not be a factor in how well they do. It assumes that a science program that prefers to leave things out for religious reasons is adequate, and uses how well someone is doing INSIDE that program as proof of its adequacy.

The rest is a false dilemma, suggesting that we have no time to teach our children evolution because we must instead teach them morals. It is also implying a negative connotation to pure secularism, and thus is a form of dysphemism, which is a fallacy of connotation.

Your post brings up an interesting question, can an argument be considered fallacious if what they might be implying is a logical fallacy? I know you can say what you've implied from their argument is fallacious, but can you say their argument is fallacious?

In every example I've seen of logical fallacies, the fallacious argument is very explicitly defined — this could just be for clarity. Because of this, I try to get people to explicitly state their argument or I'll preface my response with, "If you 're implying A = B, and therefore, A = X [...]" Which prevents them from saying, "that's not what I meant", in response to calling their argument fallacious.

[Manopolus]

"Jesus is the rock. I used to hate God, but then I realized that He really knows me and loves me for who I am. He created me for specific purposes and I'm realizing how events of the past have formed me for those purposes. I know what I have felt in my heart and heard from His voice. Nothing can weaken my faith, because I have seen too many miracles in my life. It is never a waste of time to pray for someone. Nothing is impossible for Jesus. He still loves you."

There are a lot of internal fallacies here, and I think others have mentioned most of them. The primary problem overall is that this is an appeal to emotion, rather than anything that has any logic to it.

[HansMustermann]

This is Begging the question -- also known as circular reasoning. If they are in a program that does not teach evolution, then not knowing about evolution will not be a factor in how well they do. It assumes that a science program that prefers to leave things out for religious reasons is adequate, and uses how well someone is doing INSIDE that program as proof of its adequacy. In other words, it assumes that its own grading system is valid and can be applied to knowledge of science overall.

Actually, TBH, it looks to me even more like the Equivocation fallacy. They're answering to something which likely used "science" as in "the application of the scientific method" or possibly "the sum of human knowledge", but substituting the meaning of "science" to the completely different "whatever they teach and grade in 'science' class at school."

Note however that doesn't necessarily have to be malicious. Equivocation is probably the easiest mistake to make even for honest and educated people. For someone who likely doesn't even know what she's talking about (e.g., what "science" really is), that chance of doing an equivocation without even realizing only becomes a lot higher.

And it's a bitch to dismantle, since picking word meanings apart tends to come across as you're trying to BS them.

But, just for lulz, the easiest way to remember Equivocation is:

1) Alexander the Great was a great general.
2) Great generals are forewarned.
3) Forewarned is forearmed.
4) Four is an even number.
5) Four is certainly an odd number of arms for a man to have.
6) The only number that is both even and odd is infinity.

Therefore, Alexander the Great had an infinite number of arms.

The two meanings of "odd" are the most literal equivocation involved, and the wordplay "fore"/"four" is just the same via their being homophones. (The two sound the same.) Changing between meanings at the drop of a hat makes that ridiculous conclusion possible.

Or the more concise:

A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.

[Manopolus]

Your post brings up an interesting question, can an argument be considered fallacious if what they might be implying is a logical fallacy? I know you can say what you've implied from their argument is fallacious, but can you say their argument is fallacious?

In every example I've seen of logical fallacies, the fallacious argument is very explicitly defined — this could just be for clarity. Because of this, I try to get people to explicitly state their argument or I'll preface my response with, "If you 're implying A = B, and therefore, A = X [...]" Which prevents them from saying, "that's not what I meant", in response to calling their argument fallacious.

The language implies the psychology which formed it. When the point is unclear, I can still try to understand where it came from when I have no other way of asking them to clarify their point. I can also draw parallels to other arguments on which this one is likely based.

Anyway, the best way to find out for sure is to ask the person to clarify their point, I suppose. Socratic method and all that.

[Manopolus]

Actually, TBH, it looks to me even more like the Equivocation fallacy.

Yes, I agree, and it could be both, depending on how you look at it.

[HansMustermann]

Yes, I agree, and it could be both, depending on how you look at it.

Well, probably both.

[chum]

The language implies the psychology which formed it.

Yes.

When the point is unclear, I can still try to understand where it came from when I have no other way of asking them to clarify their point.

Yes.

I can also draw parallels to other arguments on which this one is likely based.

Yes.


But none of that answers my question, if something fallacious is implied (by you) from an argument, can you consider the argument fallacious?

For example:


It is also implying a negative connotation to pure secularism, and thus [I think you could get away with, "and if what i've implied is correct, this"] is a form of dysphemism, which is a fallacy of connotation.


But the way you've said it, is a non-sequitur, isn't it?

[Vanda]

...suggest that if God gave us science, who are we to deny a piece of it?


Excellent response! I'm going to start using it.

[Manopolus]

But none of that answers my question, if something fallacious is implied (by you) from an argument, can you consider the argument fallacious?

But the way you've said, is a non-sequitur, isn't it?

Fair enough. I was merely trying to clarify the origional point the poster was making.

I'd say it's a strawman if I am incorrect.

[Manopolus]

"And while I'm at it, my friend, there was a time in history when the popular beliefs were that blacks were not really humans and did not deserve freedom, respect, or dignity. Does that mean that when they taught that in schools, that it was correct and true? Just because something is a popular belief, that does not make it correct or a necessity to teach all the children. Good night "

Guilt by assosiation. This is not always a fallacy, but the association in this case is not warrented.

Also, it is suggesting that evolution is nothing more than a subjective opinion, without supporting evidence.

[Manopolus]

“…you were just funny lecturing me on the scientific method. I just finished reading an article/interview on Human Evolution II: Recent Evolution. These are evolution proponents speaking about a new Nova series. Let me give you a rundown on what passes for the scientific method for dogmatic evolutionists. Here's some of the lingo: "estimate, about (4x), potential differences, seems to be (3x), looks like (2x), might be, may be (3x), every 5 or 10 years the whole landscape shifts as new discoveries comes, our response to climate change was to grow bigger brains (too bad, environmentalists, science is now claiming it's a good thing!), we have no way of knowing (my personal favorite), suddenly along comes this species (really?), we imagine, they colonized the whole planet, interesting ideas about the origin of fire," and last but not least, "we made characters and they really tell us stories." “

The complete lack of clarity here defies reason. Perhaps it is an attempt at argumentum verbosium , but I can conclude nothing from this word salad.

[Cavemonster]

But none of that answers my question, if something fallacious is implied (by you) from an argument, can you consider the argument fallacious?


In the example above, there are three possibilities.
1) The implication is the argument.
2) There is a separate argument intended that has not been communicated clearly.
3) The statement is a non-sequitur, and contains no coherent argument.

I can only judge the argument based on #1. But reading in context makes #1 very likely.
If #2 is the case, then I can't judge an argument I haven't read. But in that case the argument is neither fallacious nor valid, since it hasn't even been coherently presented yet, it is non-existent in a functional sense.
If #3 is true, the argument is also non-existent.

So while you can't definitively say that an argument through implication is fallacious, you can say that it is at best fallacious and possibly non-existent.

A non-existent argument, presented as a rebuttal to a point isn't any more useful than a fallacious one.

[Cavemonster]

The complete lack of clarity here defies reason. Perhaps it is an attempt at argumentum verbosium , but I can conclude nothing from this word salad.

He's attempting to point to language that qualifies claims as being non-definitive as evidence that those claims, and associated ones are made with less than conclusive evidence.

[Safe-Keeper]

“…you were just funny lecturing me on the scientific method. I just finished reading an article/interview on Human Evolution II: Recent Evolution. These are evolution proponents speaking about a new Nova series. Let me give you a rundown on what passes for the scientific method for dogmatic evolutionists. Here's some of the lingo: "estimate, about (4x), potential differences, seems to be (3x), looks like (2x), might be, may be (3x), every 5 or 10 years the whole landscape shifts as new discoveries comes, our response to climate change was to grow bigger brains (too bad, environmentalists, science is now claiming it's a good thing!), we have no way of knowing (my personal favorite), suddenly along comes this species (really?), we imagine, they colonized the whole planet, interesting ideas about the origin of fire," and last but not least, "we made characters and they really tell us stories." “Whoa. It must've taken effort to squeeze so much nonsense, so many strawmen and so much ignorance into one paragraph.

[I Am The Scum]

The word "fallacy" gets thrown around far too often. Just because someone has posted information that is incoherent, false, baseless, or pointless, does not mean that there is a fallacy to be identified. It's also worth mentioning that the entire reason that fallacies have distinct identity is because they illustrate flaws in reasoning that may appear valid at a casual glance. If there is no reasoning being employed whatsoever (such as in the first example), there is no fallacy, because there is no argument.

I do not believe that teaching evolution has anything to do with children being successful in science. My sons are doing exceptionally well in science, and they do not study evolution. This is a hasty generalization. A simple counterargument could be stated thus: "People say smoking and lung cancer are related, but I smoke and do not have lung cancer." A classic case of flawed inductive reasoning.

There is no equivocation, as the poster was staying consistent on the definition of "science."

There are so many things that children need to learn - being compassionate, fair, honest, non-judgmental, non-racist, etc etc. The schools do not teach all of these within their walls. This was not a false dichotomy, as the poster did not state that you must teach one or the other, not both. It is, however, a red herring. While it may be true that schools do not teach "being compassionate, fair, etc." in class, this has nothing to do with the merits of teaching evolution.

And while I'm at it, my friend, there was a time in history when the popular beliefs were that blacks were not really humans and did not deserve freedom, respect, or dignity. Does that mean that when they taught that in schools, that it was correct and true? Just because something is a popular belief, that does not make it correct or a necessity to teach all the children.

If this poster was responding to the claim, "Evolution is true because we teach it in schools," then he has posted a perfectly valid counterargument, illustrating an argument from authority/popularity.

If this was not the case, then I really can't say. Context is required.

The remaining samples do not appear to have any point whatsoever.

[ProbeX]

"Well, this thread is already painfully long, but just the same, I will pray for you. Good luck." (reply to a skeptic)

This is an ad hominem fallacy/attack. Instead of attacking the contents of your blog, the person is singling you personally for some deficiency (in need of prayer), rather than offering a meaningful counter-argument.

"I do not believe that teaching evolution has anything to do with children being successful in science. My sons are doing exceptionally well in science, and they do not study evolution. There are so many things that children need to learn - being compassionate, fair, honest, non-judgmental, non-racist, etc etc. The schools do not teach all of these within their walls. We can see this through the number of children in detention centers and among failing families. As I work with children in the church, we do many scientific activities as well as human relational activities.Hasty generalization fallacy. She is assuming that because her sons (a small portion of the population) are doing well in science though they aren't studying evolution, that means no other kids need to study evolution in order to be successful in science. Even though her statement is fallacious, it holds some merit because there are plenty of kids who are good at science who have been taught standard science fair but were forced to hear the creationism bulls**t.

Science is science. Creation is creation. (By the way - God created Science) lol "This is an appeal to authority fallacy. The writer is invoking God as a final authority, who gets to determine what science is. Also, this "logic" assumes there is a God, which means science is a "godly" subject, which implies creationism is a legitimate subject to teach in the context of science, since it is "godly".

"Jesus is the rock. I used to hate God, but then I realized that He really knows me and loves me for who I am. He created me for specific purposes and I'm realizing how events of the past have formed me for those purposes. I know what I have felt in my heart and heard from His voice. Nothing can weaken my faith, because I have seen too many miracles in my life. It is never a waste of time to pray for someone. Nothing is impossible for Jesus. He still loves you." (reply to a skeptic who happens to be Jewish).Appeal to consequences of belief (includes wishful thinking): "I wish that X were true (wishful thinking)." There's no evidence backing up some idea that a love for Jesus brought about positive consequences. Another version of this fallacy applies: "X is true because accepting that X is true has positive consequences ... He embraced God therefore he allegedly saw miracles (unproven).

"And while I'm at it, my friend, there was a time in history when the popular beliefs were that blacks were not really humans and did not deserve freedom, respect, or dignity. Does that mean that when they taught that in schools, that it was correct and true? Just because something is a popular belief, that does not make it correct or a necessity to teach all the children. Good night " This is a straw man fallacy. The writer is taking the original issue (the validity of Creationism being taught in science classes), and comparing it to some fabled civil rights education which was never formally taught in classrooms, except maybe inadvertently, in the context of history, which is perfectly legitimate. Then they atttempt to attack standard science material in the context of this false comparison they created.

“…you were just funny lecturing me on the scientific method. I just finished reading an article/interview on Human Evolution II: Recent Evolution. These are evolution proponents speaking about a new Nova series. Let me give you a rundown on what passes for the scientific method for dogmatic evolutionists. Here's some of the lingo: "estimate, about (4x), potential differences, seems to be (3x), looks like (2x), might be, may be (3x), every 5 or 10 years the whole landscape shifts as new discoveries comes, our response to climate change was to grow bigger brains (too bad, environmentalists, science is now claiming it's a good thing!), we have no way of knowing (my personal favorite), suddenly along comes this species (really?), we imagine, they colonized the whole planet, interesting ideas about the origin of fire," and last but not least, "we made characters and they really tell us stories." Misleading Vividness fallacy. This person discounting the scientific method wholesale because they claim they can find a few isolated examples of when scientists estimations were somewhat off. I say they "claim" because they have offered absolutely no evidence or citations to back their accusations about the alleged scientific miscalculations.

[Loss Leader]

For most of them, the arguments are just irrelevant. Everything the speaker says could be true and it would not tend to prove or disprove the truth of evolution.


For example, all of this: Jesus is the rock....He still loves you. It just doesn't mean that evolution isn't fact. It has nothing to do with evolution at all.

[Cavemonster]

The word "fallacy" gets thrown around far too often. Just because someone has posted information that is incoherent, false, baseless, or pointless, does not mean that there is a fallacy to be identified. It's also worth mentioning that the entire reason that fallacies have distinct identity is because they illustrate flaws in reasoning that may appear valid at a casual glance. If there is no reasoning being employed whatsoever (such as in the first example), there is no fallacy, because there is no argument.


Any way of going from premises to conclusion that isn't logical but presents itself as so is fallacious, it doesn't need to appear deceptively coherent.

Non-sequitur is the baseline fallacy of a conclusion that does not follow from a premise, and all other fallacies are just descriptive of the bits thrown in to make it seem like it does. The vast majority are some kind of red herring, which is a way of saying that they are seductive non-sequiturs.

[HansMustermann]

The word "fallacy" gets thrown around far too often. Just because someone has posted information that is incoherent, false, baseless, or pointless, does not mean that there is a fallacy to be identified. It's also worth mentioning that the entire reason that fallacies have distinct identity is because they illustrate flaws in reasoning that may appear valid at a casual glance. If there is no reasoning being employed whatsoever (such as in the first example), there is no fallacy, because there is no argument.

It's hard to guess without more context, but if they were arguing with someone's position, I'd say there is an implied "therefore" somewhere in there. As in "therefore you're wrong" or "therefore you're right".

This is a hasty generalization. A simple counterargument could be stated thus: "People say smoking and lung cancer are related, but I smoke and do not have lung cancer." A classic case of flawed inductive reasoning.

There is no equivocation, as the poster was staying consistent on the definition of "science."

But the question is whether it's consistent with the definition of science used by the message they were answering to. Switching meanings at the start and then staying consistent, is nevertheless Equivocation.

E.g., "Women are safe from man-eating plants" is a textbook example of equivocation, although technically only one instance of "man" is present, not two with different meanings. One could argue that "women" introduces a second implied one, but equally it can just be seen as just essentially redefining the "man" from "man-eating plants". I fail to see why redefining the word "science" is something different.

E.g., my example of, "A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform" is based on an equivocation of "polar", although the word only appears once and clearly with only one meaning. It helps if you imagine it as an answer to, say, "what is a polar bear?" Essentially by introducing a different meaning of "polar", I'm changing the question I'm answering to.

[steve s]

"And while I'm at it, my friend, there was a time in history when the popular beliefs were that blacks were not really humans and did not deserve freedom, respect, or dignity. Does that mean that when they taught that in schools, that it was correct and true? Just because something is a popular belief, that does not make it correct or a necessity to teach all the children. Good night "

You could take that and throw it right back at him/her. There was a time when everyone thought creationism was true. We now know better. I just love how the fundies are always trying to make it look as though creationism is a great new idea that they've come up with and those pesky evilutionists just won't let them get their ideas across.

Steve

[Cavemonster]

You could take that and throw it right back at him/her. There was a time when everyone thought creationism was true. We now know better. I just love how the fundies are always trying to make it look as though creationism is a great new idea that they've come up with and those pesky evilutionists just won't let them get their ideas across.

Steve

Yes, but the most important point to make is that this statement makes an equivocation between scientific consensus and general popularity.

[HansMustermann]

That's not an equivocation, though, since there is no word or expression or pun to bridge from one to the other.

[Cavemonster]

That's not an equivocation, though, since there is no word or expression or pun to bridge from one to the other.

You're right, it doesn't hinge on different uses of the word "popular" but a substitution of popularity for scientific consensus.

[blutoski]

Conflating popular belief with scientific belief.

I disagree with this one.

At the time, race genetics was taught because it represented a scientific consensus (see: Stephen Jay Gould's Mismeasure of Man)

What this is is a basic red herring of the Galileo Gambit subtype.

Question: is evolution true?

Answer: Science has changed their minds about something in the past, so let's assume evolution is false without actually examining the specifics of that one issue.


There is also a poisoning the well involved, as used in the movie Expelled. "Science = racism, so shut up and go hide your shameful face."

[blutoski]

You could take that and throw it right back at him/her. There was a time when everyone thought creationism was true. We now know better. I just love how the fundies are always trying to make it look as though creationism is a great new idea that they've come up with and those pesky evilutionists just won't let them get their ideas across.

I advise against using science as an analogy for religion. For two reasons:


that's your basic tu coque fallacy
it's a rhetorical bad turn: you're opening the door to the accusation that religion and science are similar in their flawed abilities to support a truth statement