Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
The "My organ is bigger than your organ" fallacy.
The Church with the biggest organ is always right. He he he ....
Finding new all the time! I almost forgot the most embarrassing fallacy to commit.
Dead End Fallacy: When an argument given is self-refuting or proves a point contradictory to the point intended by the interlocutor that made it.
This is essentially when a person drives their argument into a brick wall. A reasonable person would change stances upon committing this fallacy (if they even realized they did it), but I've seen several attempts to save an argument from a dead end fallacy that end with the interlocutor 'going down with the ship', so to speak.
Please note that this fallacy is incredibly uncommon among those who actually understand what logic is and have a reasonable grasp on how to make arguments. This fallacy is pretty much only cataloged so that logicians have something to call this rare occurrence when dealing with the mentally unequipped.
Funny how he chastises people for appealing to authority, then asks me to appeal to authority.
That's not an appeal to authority. That's an invitation for you to substantiate your position. In contrast Sheldon states that my objections are invalid because I do not know more than the " best scientific minds that the scientific world has" whatever that means.
John 61X Breezy,
By what means did you draw this mighty conclusion that atheists don't think for themselves? Have you done an extensive, scientific survey? Have you heard of the error of hasty generalization? I suspect that Sheldon was obliquely pointing out that your expertise on this matter is questionable. If that is the case, then why should we give it much weight? Isn't it absurd to treat your opinion as though it were on par with that of world-class experts? I think everyone would agree that authority is not an argument, but good authority does carry a lot of weight.
Re: " I think everyone would agree that authority is not an argument, but good authority does carry a lot of weight."
So does good oratory. Many people find the Sermon on the Mount compelling.
Expertise on any matter does not matter unless you are able to communicate it to others. So I personally don't want my arguments given any weight, based on any supposed expertise. Likewise I don't give anyone else any weight, based on their expertise. Let the arguments stand for themselves, on their own merit, not on the merit of the speaker
Also it was an intentional generalization, not a hasty one; I do that from time to time to stoke the fire a bit.
Sheldon isn't asking for substantiation lol. He wants me to win the Nobel Prize first before he considers my argument.
"Expertise on any matter does not matter unless you are able to communicate it to others."
This seems dubious to me, surely expertise by it's very nature rules out communicating it easily to most people, or you wouldn't have to be an expert to understand it in the first place. Science has the advantage that experts have to have their ideas scrutinised the same as anyone else, and falsification or even a retraction would severely harm their reputation, scientists don't indulge in hubris except when they are being misrepresented in newspaper articles and religious apologetics.
"Sheldon isn't asking for substantiation lol. He wants me to win the Nobel Prize first before he considers my argument."
That is simply a lie John, not once have I ever claimed to want any such thing. This is not a benchmark I am arbitrarily setting, it is the kind of recognition such an achievement would inevitably receive. Any claims creationists make to have valid objections to species evolution are meaningless nonsense, and to be honest I always feel a little sad for anyone so deluded, they genuinely believe they have paradigm shifting evidence that would reverse an entire field of science, and are sharing this news in an internet chatroom, I place the claims in the same category as conspiracy theorists who think we never really put men on the moon, and flat earthers. To be honest it's again a little sad you can't see how silly such claims are. Do your professors really indulge these ideas at the university you attend?
If anyone could falsify species evolution or had valid scientific objections we'd know about it, and not first hand in an internet chatroom. These crackpot claims only ever come from creationist, and the really sad thing is that even if evolution were completely reversed tomorrow, about as likely as finding out the earth is flat and the sun moves around it, creationism would still be naught but an ancient superstitious myth without a shred of evidence to support it.
An expert that cannot communicate his expertise, has isolated himself from the rest of the world. They may as well not know anything, and the world would go on just the same.
No; you haven't used it as a recognition but as a rebuttal. It is a sort of self-defense mechanism for your own inability to respond to my argument.
"It is a sort of self-defense mechanism for your own inability to respond to my argument."
You don't have an argument to respond to. Scientific facts can be amended or in extraordinary circumstances falsified, when and only when proper scientific evidence is validated that demands it.
All you've done is offer a personal opinion to some unqualified strangers in an internet chatroom, denying a scientific fact as well established as the rotundity of the earth.
It's not clear why creationists think they can claim validity for their opinions outside of proper scientific scrutiny and methods of validation, but they're laughably wrong.
How I feel about such claims is as irrelevant as the claims themselves. All I've done is try to make you aware of the level of self delusion required to believe your opinions carry any weight without proper scientific validation, and based on naught but a bias in favour of superstitious creation myths.
This all sounds like an attempt at self-defense: Its not your fault for being unqualified and uneducated, its my fault, I should know better than to come here and make you think beyond what you're qualified to think.
I agree that if one is interested in the argument then ending it with an authority quote would be inappropriate. Thus, if two people were debating the idea of a flat earth, authority quotes would be an illegal attempt to cut the debate short.
On the other hand, if one is interested in evaluating the credibility of an idea (rather than debating it) then authority quotes are important. The overwhelming consensus of relevant scientific authority, for example, suggests that we should do something about global warming. It may reasonably be assumed that such a consensus is the result of much scrutinizing of the facts and arguments.
John, you wrote, “That's not an appeal to authority. That's an invitation for you to substantiate your position. In contrast Sheldon states that my objections are invalid because I do not know more than the " best scientific minds that the scientific world has" whatever that means.”
So you ask for substantiation, eh? Well, let’s just say that’s what Sheldon is after as well. Unless, of course, you want to hold on to thinking it’s all about invalidation because it suits you better.
It means precisely what it says, and it's very sad that you have started a university education and can't see such claims for what they are, I feel genuinely sorry for anyone that deluded. The Templeton foundation, hell the Vatican, can you imagine the resources that have been wasted trying to falsify species evolution over the last 150+ years. Not in the pursuit of truth or advancing scientific knowledge, but just to avoid accepting a scientific fact that refutes their religious beliefs in an archaic creation myth, but where they and every scientific mind on the planet has failed John has succeeded, I mean don't you see how absurdly silly that is?
The real irony is evolution is falsifiable in any number of ways, yet year on year for over 150 years all the evidence supports species evolution. Denying it is like claiming the earth is really flat, and that's not hyperbole either.
Sorry to go off topic, but this is a question I have to ask.
If everything you post is so correct, as you say, then why is it I see the number of "Disagree" votes is about eight times as many "Agree" votes?
Hmmm... (and think Chimp3's avatar)
That's not a disagree button, that's a confirmation bias button. We can take this conversation to a theist thread, and guess what will happen to my Like/Dislike ratio? Hmmm.
Whereas publishing your objections to species evolution and having them validated would unequivocally prove you right, one wonders why you're holding back. can't the professors at your university spot that you have reversed the bedrock that supports the entire scientific field of biology?
If money is the issue I'm sure the Templeton foundation would throw any amount of funds at it, they love this kind of nonsense.
"The furtive fallacy is an informal fallacy of emphasis in which outcomes are asserted to have been caused by the hidden misconduct or wrongdoing by decision makers. Historian David Hackett Fischer identified it as the belief that significant facts of history are necessarily sinister, and that "history itself is a story of causes mostly insidious and results mostly invidious." It is more than a conspiracy theory in that it does not merely consider the possibility of hidden motives and deeds, but insists on them. In its extreme form, the fallacy represents general paranoia.
Fischer identifies several examples of the fallacy, particularly the works of Charles A. Beard. In each case, Fischer shows that historians provided detailed portrayals of historical figures involved in off-record meetings and exhibiting low morals, based on little or no evidence. He notes that the furtive fallacy does not necessarily imply deliberate falsification of history; it can follow from a sincere (but misguided) belief that **nothing happens by accident or mistake.
A modification of the furtive fallacy holds that when the historical record provides no evidence explaining a particular set of events, this is itself evidence of a furtive cause."
The "Ewww fallacy." Two guys kissing in the park "Ewwww that's just wrong."
Here's a fallacy that we've all come across- we get hit with it every time we're asked to tone down our expletives but I hadn't heard it named until a minute again:
Tone policing (also tone trolling, tone argument and tone fallacy) is an ad hominem and antidebate appeal based on genetic fallacy. It attempts to detract from the validity of a statement by attacking the tone in which it was presented rather than the message itself.
We have a new one. "The Hogwash Analogy." Anytime someone says something you do not understand, you just call it "Hogwash!"
Wow, the fallacies just keep rolling in.
How about the "Isobel Fallacy" "The dictionary defines belief like this, but I am not here to argue about definitions."
"How about the "Isobel Fallacy" "The dictionary defines belief like this, but I am not here to argue about definitions."
You should have put "lol" at the end, but yeah I think you nailed it.