Re: Is this a fallacy?

Acme Diagnostics wrote:
> shepherdmoon@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >Acme Diagnostics wrote:
> >> shepherdmoon@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >>>
> >>>I asserted that a leader is being theocratic if he asserts that
his
> >>>policy decisions are based on his consultation with God. <snip>
> >>>I also asserted that this increases the potential for passing
> >>>theocratic legislation. My opponent replied:
> >>>> <snip> know what it is like to lack freedom live in 80% of
> >>>> the rewmainder of the world. You'll find out fast.
> >> Yes it is the fallacy of changing the subject. It could be
> >> characterized in different ways (red herring, straw man,
> >
> >Thank you so much for your feedback.
>
> You're welcome. I felt very superior for a change when answering
> your post! Usually people talk about mathematical logic here and
> I'm the dunce.
>

Hello Larry,

Thanks again for your reply.

Well, I posted my reply to the creationist debater using your advice. I
am done debating with him -- I am not even going to see whatever reply
he makes, although I may continue to debate some other threads I am in.
By the way, the group is TrueOrigin, a group in Yahoo! Groups.

It's strange -- I didn't get upset when William called my sentence
"incoherent." I don't think it is incoherent, although I do agree that
it's a bit long. I was not nearly as upset as I get in the creationist
group. I am a decent writer, grammatically if not stylistically, so I
don't get worked up about criticism of my mechanics. Most writing can
be made better, even if it is only by shortening the sentences.
(Ironically, last year I saw an article comparing the sentence lengths
of John Kerry and George Bush, so in that sense William has a point --
Bush's short, punchy sentences with a low ratio of Latinate words
enable people to quickly get his meaning.)

Arguing about logic does not, for me, raise issues that are as personal
as the ones in debating creation/evolution. Also, since I am not a
scientists by trade, I can easily be put in a spot where I am not sure
what the science or math is. Very tough to argue something at that
point.

However, what most upsets me is that the members of TrueOrigin
frequently use insults such as "Don't you know English?" or "Read the
English language." I'll admit that part of me is (naturally) upset to
be talked to so disrespectfully. But more of my frustration comes from
knowing that the real purpose of those insults is to avoid
acknowledging the legitimate differences in perceived meanings that
sometimes arise. And they are allowed to get away with this behavior
because they are surrounded by supporters.

Sadly, some of the same happens in groups run by evolutionists too, so
I am not placing one-sided blame. Perhaps if I spend some time learning
about logic, as you suggest below, and learning more science, I can at
least debate well enough not to get bullied.

Although it would help a lot to be able to challenge some of these
people in a neutral group with fair rules. Such neutrality is hard to
find when it comes to creation/evolution debates, but it would be nice.


> >For a bit of background: I'm in a creationist debate group, and if
you
> >are at all familiar with such groups, then you will know how hostile
> >they are. I am agnostic but joined the group out of my concern for
what
> >I see as a growing danger to democracy with the religious right in
the
> >USA. In particular, I see a lot of bigotry and a lot of sympathy for
> >regressive, right-wing arguments that seem (not coincidentally) to
be
> >used by people who want creationism taught as science in schools.
>
> Keep in mind, though, that right-wing arguments exist that have
> not been defeated (to the best of my knowledge, anyway). That
> doesn't mean they are correct or that they can defeat your
> arguments. It's just not cut-and-dried. Personally, I don't favor
> those arguments and wouldn't argue them by choice, but I respect
> them. A really tough argument to beat is one that starts off
> "Nuclear bombs fall into the hands of smaller and smaller groups,
> and there is no sufficient detection technology in the
> foreseeable future." Depending on the consequences and time frame
> one guesses, those two true statements can be worked into
> justifying just about any means including media for mind-control,
> phoney elections, looking the other way when a nice politically
> advantageous terrorist event seems likely, dogmatic religion
> including religion in schools, corruption of science, testing for
> 'mental illness" and "The Bell Curve" racist IQ dogma (another
> thing right out of the Nazi playbook) figureheads for presidents
> (Like Imperial Japs), invasions, absurd income ratios and other
> more direct satisfaction of greed, you name it. Again, I don't
> favor that argument as I think democratic solutions would be just
> as ineffective, but I can't defeat it either. Seems awfully
> self-serving to me though, which doesn't prove anything.
>

Yes, that is true. I do listen to some right-wing arguments and think,
"Well, he is right about that," or "She's got a point there." Usually,
it is part of the argument I agree with more than the whole thing. To
use your example, I would agree that WMDs are a real terrorist threat,
but that we cannot abandon all standards of evidence when confronting
the threat.

So, although I nodded as Bush spoke about how bad WMDs and Saddam
Hussein were, I shook my head when he claimed definitive proof of
Iraq's having WMDs. And it wasn't so much the claim itself but rather
the term he used -- "gathering threat." That term is so open-ended that
there is really no way to demand evidence for it. Perhaps it is a
variant of
moving the goalposts. Even though some Congresspeople had legitimate
concerns, they were probably afraid of pointing out a problem only to
be hit with something like:

"No terrorist is going to leave easy tracks to follow. Why is
politician A resisting our effort to go after gathering threats? Does
he want to wait until we see the mushroom cloud over one of our cities
to agree that the threat was real?"

This kind of response can be used to deflect any criticisms ranging
from a satellite image maybe not being what it appears all the way down
to a complete lack of evidence.

Although I am routinely derided as a liberal extremist in TrueOrigin, I
am closer to left-of-center. Naturally, though, being in a hostile
setting such as TrueOrigin for me or talk.origins for creationists will
tend to make opposition debaters more reactionary. Perhaps that is
another thing I need to work on with regard to my debating skills.



> >I'm not a great debater but I think I raise good points and
> >occasionally present strong ones.
>
> Your argument seems pretty strong to me. I'd paraphrase:
>
> IF assert policy decisions based consultation god, THEN
> theocratic.
> IF Theocratic, THEN probability for theocratic legislation
> increases.
>
> Logically, one could attack the 2nd premise by saying there is no
> evidence that the probability increases. For instance, maybe
> legislators would give that negative weight to avoid the
> theocratic label. But with only a little context it is obvious
> that the probability is indeed increased. I think it's a pretty
> sound argument. Anyway, I'd choose to argue it.
>

Yes, that sums it up correctly. I have other assumptions in my
argument, such as that as acceptance of theocratic legislation
increases, it becomes harder to stop further increase in theocratic
legislation, and I also argue that the immediate risk of US theocracy
comes from Christian fundamentalists. This last point, even if true,
though, may be irrelevant if other Christian denominations speak up and
oppose theocracy. So I'd be willing to discuss those potential weak
points in a civil manner. In TrueOrigin, I would simply be denounced as
an anti-Christian.


> >However, since I am in the minority
> >in the group and since several of the debaters rely so much on
> >belittling and abuse, it is sometimes difficult for me to slog back
> >into a given thread. So a large part of my thanks to you is to see
> >someone respond in a thoughtful and civil manner.
>
> Likewise, I appreciate the way your presented an unusually
> well-formed question and that it is a subject of interest (I mean
> the debating part).
>

Thanks. I do think it is interesting, and I fantasize about discussing
it in a group with people who don't set out to hurl abuse in each
response.

> >Because the bulk of
> >my debating time is in that group, I have almost forgotten what
civil
> >discourse is like, although I think I have done a great job in not
> >stooping to their level.
>
> Good. My specialty is flaming pretentious dorks, which I don't
> think you ever could be, and which comprise less than 4% of
> posters by my rough count, but it doesn't win me any friends or
> influence any people.
>

Another issue is more general, something I see in various types of
debates. I think some people like to debate even though they know no
one is going to change their basic positions. It is not as if either
side in the creation/evolution debate is going to wake up one day and
say, "You know what, I've been wrong all along!" From time to time I
come up for air and realize that, and it makes me feel like those
debates are a total waste of time.


> >I am following your advice and responding to the above point along
the
> >lines of: "Yeah, and I'd like to keep it that way."
>
> I still think that's best. Puts you right back on the offensive.
> Consider the fallacy as a "small advantage" and keep it in your
> pocket. Once you accumulate five or more similar advantages,
> you'll be in a position at any time to defeat your opponent with
> an ad hominem (perfectly justified on Usenet btw). You can list
> the five in a row with links to the posts and say something like
> "I can't be bothered to argue further with such a lightweight
> thinker." (I.e. the overwhelming force, and not that debating
> skill really equates to thinking ability).
>

I will definitely aim for the "small advantages" method with other
threads, but in the current case, I have indicated that I won't debate
that member anymore.


> >And that is the
> >last time I am entering into a debate with this member. Of course, I
> >think that this will happen again and again with others until there
> >will be no point in being in the group.
>
> I think the best group for you to post this in is
> alt.philosophy.debate.
> It is on-topic there, plenty of religious folks and some posters
> went to better high schools. <g>
>

Great, thanks for the tip.

> The first thing I do to decide if I will engage in dialog with
> someone is to determine if they are a True Believer, of which
> there are several types including "in one's opinions." You could
> ask, "Could you be wrong?" If the answer were no, you'd have a
> True Believer. But it's usually easy enough to tell in one quick
> reading of a post. I won't argue in context with a True Believer
> (meaning I might flame, etc., if they are offensive). There are
> probably lots of True Believers in a creationism group. Anyway,
> it's a fruitless waste of time arguing with a True Believer of
> any type.
>
> Then again, there are typically more lurkers than posters in a
> given group. At least 2-1 and some say as high as 20-1. These
> lurkers should be your imagined debate jury, and it's a pretty
> safe bet that some can be influenced by good sound arguments.
> If you keep that in mind, easier to remain cool. If a jerk is
> bothering you, can use the post as a template to post to the
> imagined lurkers. Don't get carried away with that, or you could
> obtain the "kook" label (i.e. not being responsive and
> explanatory). All depends on how obvious the jerk is and how
> disciplined your argument is.
>

They (meaning the majority of the members who post) are definitely True

Believers. They believe the Bible literally and hold it to be inerrant.

This leads to their defense of these positions (I will omit full
argument details unless you're curious):

1. The universe is not 15 billion years old but about 6,000 years old,
to match the Bible.
Arguments:
- The speed of light (c) was once far greater so it traveled great
distances in a short time.
- Radiometric dating is all wrong and mistakenly gives dates that are
too old.

2. AIDS is a "behavioral disease," to match Bible verses condemning
homosexuality.
Arguments:
- It started among homosexuals.
- There is no heterosexual AIDS epidemic.
- HIV does not cause AIDS.

3. The earth does not rotate or revolve around the sun.
Arguments:
- The theory of general relativity states that all reference frames are

equal, so a static earth is a valid frame.
- The whole universe rotates around the earth once per day -- all of
space, thereby allowing objects to seem as if they are moving faster
than
light.
- The Ptolemaic and Copernican models are "physically equivalent"
(quoting Fred Hoyle).
- Evidence of other planets and moons orbiting the sun doesn't mean
that the earth is orbiting the sun too.
- The principle that the center of mass is closer to the more massive
body doesn't apply to the earth-sun center of mass because the earth is

a "special case."

4. Creationism should be taught in schools.
Arguments:
- Evidence for creationism is stronger than evidence for evolution.
- Evolution (or rather philosophical naturalism) is a religion too, so
it violates the First Amendment Establishment Clause to teach
evolution.
- It also violates the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause not to
allow creationism to be taught.

(Side note: I have read that the last argument in 4 is common among
Christian fundamentalists -- that they invariable portray themselves as
a
persecuted minority even when they are in the majority.)

I could go on, but that is just off the top of my head. As you can see,

in addition to being abusive, they are also well versed in their
arguments. So I'm sure I don't make a dent in what they think. But at
least I have succeeded, if it can be called success, in forcing them to
put out more than one argument, or in some cases abandon some
arguments, by showing how the initial ones don't suffice.


> >Just curious -- do you think there is any point in my staying there?
>
> Only to develop good flaming skills. <g>
>
> More seriously, a creationist group is (I think) by definition a
> religious group. These people have the right to indulge their
> hobby of "faith" just like we here indulge our hobby of "logic."
> Even though I understand that the most frequent word in religious
> debates is "logic" - that's just window-dressing. In every last
> rigorous debate arguing to conclusion I've ever seen ('scuse my
> "argument from ignorance") between a qualified religious person
> and logician/scientist, the point was reached where the religious
> arguer denied logic. At the highest philosophical level of
> description, you can't promote logic over faith. In the end,
> logic is a religion too. Though I don't really know the
> particulars of your creationist group, you don't want to be like
> the person who drives around on Sunday interrupting church
> services because they aren't logical, should that be the true
> circumstance in that group.
>
> >Are there reference books for how to remain cool when debating such
> >abusive people?
>
> "How to win friends and influence people." <g>
>
> Seriously (for the second time in one post!!), the best debating
> book with a focus on remaining cool that I know of is Jerry
> Spence's book. It's on amazon.com. I try to imitate his
> country-bumpkin sandbagging technique. Easy for a country-bumpkin
> like me.
>
> More generally, if you seek to become a better debater I'd
> recommend that you become more invested in the process than the
> issues. I.e. spend time with any "how-to" debating book or just
> google sites on formal and informal fallacies. The more time you
> spend, regardless of quality, the more invested you become. The
> more invested, the cooler you'll be. When the process becomes
> more important than the issue, and you do a bunch of other
> things, you can become much more objective which is the most
> important trick in political, religious, etc., reasoning by far.
>
> I think you might like this short bullet list of the bunch of
> other things that I I update now and then:
> http://tinyurl.com/6fzjv
>
> Think of anything to add?

Thanks!

I also found these books:

Logic Made Easy: How to Know When Language Deceives You
by Deborah J. Bennett

A Rulebook for Arguments
by Anthony Weston

Informal Logic: A Handbook for Critical Argumentation
by Douglas N. Walton.

If you have other suggestions, I'd be happy to hear them.


>
> Do you play chess? I've recently coauthored an article listing
> about 15 ways chess can help program a reasoning/debating skill
> hierarchy, but only if approached in a unique way. Well, in case
> you don't know, the hotheads in chess are sometimes called "board
> smashers" as they smash the board with a hand when they realize
> they've lost. For some reason "board smashers" are a lot more
> annoying and taken more seriously on Usenet. But it shouldn't
> bother you. After all, they are annoucing that they've lost their
> argument with you!
>
> Larry

I love chess! I haven't played over the board in years, but I play my
computer a lot. Where can I find your article? I have read about the
benefits of chess before, but not in the specific context of debating.

Thanks again for all of your help!

Regards,
Shepherdmoon

.

Relevant Pages

  • Dear Big Duck
    ... This whole anti-IGS bag you're into reminds me of nothing so much as the so-called "debate" over evolution and creationism. ... I liken your postings here to "Intelligent Design", no facts, no analysis, no method... ...
    (rec.games.go)
  • Re: Debates & Debating (2)
    ... On Debating ... Evidence: Quoting an authority is not evidence. ... attacks on your opponent are an admission of intellectual bankruptcy. ... conservative position was preferrable in a political debate. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Debates & Debating (2)
    ... chew on in the debate class. ... You contradict yourself here because the debating class teaches the student to ... > individual members of the group. ... >> summarize the negative case and the opposing case, ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Sarah Palin- creationist VP candidate?
    ... debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools. ... subject -- creationism and evolution. ... the rednecks who hate them. ... and more concerned with the day to day events of South Florida, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Sarah Palin- creationist VP candidate?
    ... debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools. ... subject -- creationism and evolution. ... insinuating a connection between Palin and some group or movement ... McCain got a hurricane. ...
    (talk.origins)
Quantcast