| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Malcolm" |
| Date: |
07 Aug 2005 05:43:40 PM |
| Object: |
A few fallacies. |
"Evidence is proof".
If I disbelieve that Kennedy was assassinated by conspirators, I must also
disbelieve that conspiracy theorists have offered any worthwhile evidence
at all. Therefore I must deny that Oswald was shot shortly after the
assassination.
A related one
"All propositions I disgree with are of equal value".
If I disbelieve in the Loch Ness monster and in sea serpents, I must believe
that the evidence against both is of exactly the same strength.
"I agree with all arguments in my favour"
If I dislike McDonalds, I must also believe that they put worm protein in
their burgers and make contributions to the IRA.
"A convenient theory is a certainty"
Imagine I am opposed to fluoride in water because I dislike government mass
medication campaigns. Therefore research that says it delays rather than
prevents the appearnace of the caries must necessarily be true.
"An argument against makes evidence disappear".
If I disbelieve in evolution, I might mention that Fred Hoyle has argued
that Archaeoptyryx is a fake. Therefore I can argue there is no example of a
transitional form between reptiles and birds.
A related one
"Two possibilities add up to a certainty".
If I believe that Jackson is innocent, I might point out that the accusers
have a record of making false allegations, and that Jackson is an eccentric
who might well sleep harmlessly in the same bed as a child. Therefore I have
two pieces of evidence and my argument is twice as strong as it would be if
I offered only one a argument.
(Maybe I need to spell this one out. The argument is not fallacious, but it
is weak because it relies on both Jackson being an eccentric and the
accusers being money-motivated).
These are some I've spotted doing the rounds. Anyone got any more?
.
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: A few fallacies. |
11 Aug 2005 01:12:01 PM |
|
|
"Malcolm" <regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote
"Evidence is proof".
If I disbelieve that Kennedy was assassinated by conspirators, I
must also disbelieve that conspiracy theorists have offered any
worthwhile evidence at all.
This does not logically follow.
At issue is the conclusions. Often times the evidence can support
more than one conclusion. Sometimes the facts -- the "evidence" --
simply does not support a given conclusion.
An example in the JFK case is the rifle used. This rifle is "Evidence."
Many have claimed that given the particular rifle -- and the fact that
Oswald would have to operate the bolt & re-aquire the target between
shots -- there simply had to be more than one gunman.
Although this conclusion (more than one gunman) is supposed to
be based on hard evidence (the gun itself), it is clearly wrong.
As early as the 1970s one of the television networks (I forget which
one) demonstrated, on camera, that one man could indeed fire all
the shots AND hit a moving target.
I won't even bother with your other assertions, as you very quickly
go from "Wrong" to "Retarded."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: A few fallacies. |
11 Aug 2005 03:11:49 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
"Malcolm" <regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote
"Evidence is proof".
If I disbelieve that Kennedy was assassinated by conspirators, I
must also disbelieve that conspiracy theorists have offered any
worthwhile evidence at all.
This does not logically follow.
<snip>
I won't even bother with your other assertions, as you very quickly
go from "Wrong" to "Retarded."
I think the writer may have gained a few more Loki points with your reply.
It's so hard to tell.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: A few fallacies. |
11 Aug 2005 09:58:25 PM |
|
|
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote
I think the writer may have gained a few more Loki points with
your reply.
It's so hard to tell.
Now that's going out on the limb. You're displaying all the
courage of a Donald Rumsfeld.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Katt" |
|
| Title: Re: A few fallacies. |
07 Aug 2005 06:28:51 PM |
|
|
"Malcolm" <regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:dd62qr$9fq$8@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
"Evidence is proof".
If I disbelieve that Kennedy was assassinated by conspirators, I must also
disbelieve that conspiracy theorists have offered any worthwhile evidence
at all. Therefore I must deny that Oswald was shot shortly after the
assassination.
A related one
"All propositions I disgree with are of equal value".
If I disbelieve in the Loch Ness monster and in sea serpents, I must
believe that the evidence against both is of exactly the same strength.
"I agree with all arguments in my favour"
If I dislike McDonalds, I must also believe that they put worm protein in
their burgers and make contributions to the IRA.
"A convenient theory is a certainty"
Imagine I am opposed to fluoride in water because I dislike government
mass medication campaigns. Therefore research that says it delays rather
than prevents the appearnace of the caries must necessarily be true.
"An argument against makes evidence disappear".
If I disbelieve in evolution, I might mention that Fred Hoyle has argued
that Archaeoptyryx is a fake. Therefore I can argue there is no example of
a transitional form between reptiles and birds.
A related one
"Two possibilities add up to a certainty".
If I believe that Jackson is innocent, I might point out that the accusers
have a record of making false allegations, and that Jackson is an
eccentric who might well sleep harmlessly in the same bed as a child.
Therefore I have two pieces of evidence and my argument is twice as strong
as it would be if I offered only one a argument.
(Maybe I need to spell this one out. The argument is not fallacious, but
it is weak because it relies on both Jackson being an eccentric and the
accusers being money-motivated).
These are some I've spotted doing the rounds. Anyone got any more?
Demented.
Katt
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
