MyFursona.com

Fallacies continued: Appealing the case

I took some time to really consider why I’m writing out a collection of notable fallacies, their forms, their uses and their counters. I came to the conclusion that, as everyone knows, forewarned is forearmed. It’s a big, scary internet out there. Answers in Genesis is still around, the various creation research pages are still going, Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron are still pumping out their anti-science bile. There’s a lot of errors and simplemindedness out there. Learn to throw your opponents. By pointing out illogic, you expose weakness. An illogical argument is a shaky argument. The conclusion hangs from an unsteady framework. You will force them to backtrack and shore up their already-flimsy conclusion.

We start with a common method of illogical blunt-force trauma. Argumentum ad baculum, appeal to the stick. Quite simply, this is the mafia shakedown argument. Agree with me or my friend Cristos here will get very angry. Now, we’re not saying that something is going to happen. But, you know, sometimes people just fall into hell. You walk out to your front yard, the big boss drops a meteor on your head, totally random and boom. Eternity. On fire. It’s a tactic suited for thugs and the ignorant. Knowing that logic is useless and that appeals to anything else lack suitable weight, a seriously-involved evangelical will start talking hell. Usually with great detail. They use their high definition words. A whole big song and dance about fire and demons and rusty razor wire being used as clothing. The entire point of this exercise is to make you too afraid to oppose them. They want you flat on your face. But the argument is flimsy. They still retain the burden of proof. Positive claims require positive evidence. They have to show you numerous, empirical sources to prove absolutely and with great certainty that after you die failure to perform the specific tasks they state will result in going to the specific hell they have threatened you with. Oh, and remember: Pascal was a lousy gambler. His wager assumed just one big boss in the sky. You can’t leave the other horses out of the pack.

Next up, a pair of interacting fallacies that support one another well. The appeal to ignorance and the argument from personal incredulity. The appeal to ignorance is a call to listen to what is not known. “I don’t know, or we do not know, therefore, it is not so. Or is so.” Because one thing isn’t proven, this other thing must be right. That leaves aside the coming of new proof, or at least, new data. The first premise might be true, the offered alternative might be proven, both might somehow be true or something totally different might be true. If one idea falls, that does not instantly make your personal, pet feeling true. If, somehow, evolution were proven untrue (The odds are beyond astronomical but bear with me;) that would, in no way, make six-day young earth fundamentalist American creationism right. It’s not the only origin story, by a long shot. There are so many specific features that it’s highly unlikely to be true. The argument from personal incredulity can be offered with evidentiary backing or without. If offered without it is a simple attempt to appeal to alleged common sense. “I don’t understand it, or can’t believe it or see how it is possible. So, really, it’s not.” Usually, the disbelief is offered up with scare quotes and anti-intellectualism. Technical terms, methods and processes are ridiculed or cast in a suspicious light. It’s all science techno-babble. Therefore, it’s suspicious. In that form, the argument simply shows off raw ignorance, an unwillingness to learn or understand. When offered with evidence, it attempts to shuffle in personal incredulity AS evidence. The personal disbelief is shown off to add one more piece proof. And since personal convictions are often held as noble, it can get a pass. There is no logic to that, however, and the personal bias should be noted and excoriated.

Lastly, as this blog is running long, I present one final, rather simple one. Appeal to ridicule, reducing an argument to a misunderstood and overly simple fashion and then making fun of the comical oversimplification. Often derived from a misunderstanding (If we evolved from monkeys why are there monkeys?) it can be simply corrected by giving the expanded answer (We derived from a common ape ancestor, and selective pressures were applied to all lines of our family. We are not “descended from” modern great apes, but DNA proves we all share a common ancestor.) Occasionally, it is intentionally used maliciously with full knowledge. In which case, the expanded version is not enough. You must also counter claims that what you are saying is ridiculous. Evidence is your friend here. Only evidence, showing that a counter-intuitive thing can happen will be of any use.