|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 08/02/2009 : 22:40:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Tipok
Everything I accused evolution of has been supported by evidence that evolutionists have hid and denied over time... |
If it's been hidden, then how do you know about it?
Oh, also:| I would think that since Creation was overrun by Atheists with Evolution, really evolutionists should be the ones supporting their claims with true evidence instead of making up evidence. And if evolutionists actually accepted all of the evidence that Creationists provide against evolution, evolution would be drove into the ground. But since Evolution still stands, it is obvious that evolutionists are still too stubborn to admit the truth so there is no reason for me to say anything because you would just claim that what I say is false or illogical, which is what evolutionists do. |
Creationists were the first ones to begin to bring Biblical literalism down, starting with the dismantling of Genesis by creationists geologists who were looking for evidence of the Flood but couldn't find it. And in their honesty, they had to admit that the geological record could not support the Bible. This began decades before Darwin's book.
So, you can blame the current state of affairs on atheist evolutionists all you want, but it will continue to be the lie that it's been since the early 19th century.
Is lying okay with your God? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 08/03/2009 : 07:59:39 [Permalink]
|
Tipoc, in order to have any credebility at all, you really need to answer Kil's questions. Thus far, you have committed the fallacy of hand-waving, so favored by politicians, and said nothing but words. We are perfectly willing to discuss these things, but discussion is a two way street.
I came to your defense in another thread; I'm beginning to wonder if it was a mistake.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2009 : 16:36:02 [Permalink]
|
Ok, back to topic:
The second installment is up and here 'tis:
Logical Fallacies: The Fallacy of Reification
by Dr. Jason Lisle, AiG–U.S.
August 3, 2009
Layman
Keywords
author-jason-lisle
logic
logical-fallacies-series
Logical Fallacies
Attributing a concrete characteristic to something that is abstract. Perhaps you have heard the old saying, “It's not nice to fool Mother Nature.” This is an example of reification because “nature” is an abstraction; it is simply the name we give to the chain of events in the universe. Nature is not a person and cannot literally be fooled, since nature does not have a mind. So, this expression would not make sense if taken literally.
Of course, not all language should be taken literally. There is nothing wrong with reification as a figure of speech. It is perfectly acceptable in poetry. Even the Bible uses reification at times in its poetic sections. For example, Proverbs 8 personifies the concept of wisdom. This is a perfectly acceptable (and poetically beautiful) use of reification.
However, when reification is used as part of a logical argument, it is a fallacy. The reason for this is that using such a poetic expression is often ambiguous and can obscure important points in a debate. It is very common for evolutionists to commit this fallacy. Let's look at some examples of the fallacy of reification as they are commonly used in evolutionary arguments.
Sometimes in an argument, an evolutionist will say something like this: “Nature has designed some amazing creatures.” This sentence commits the fallacy of reification because nature does not have a mind and cannot literally design anything. By using the fallacy of reification, the evolutionist obscures the fact that the evolution worldview really cannot account for the design of living creatures. (Keep in mind that he may be doing this unintentionally). God can design creatures because God is a person. Nature is a concept and cannot design anything.
Belaboring the Obvious, Straw Man and Appeal to Authority.
“Creationists say the world was created supernaturally, but science says otherwise.” Here the person has attributed personal, concrete attributes to the concept of science. In doing so, he or she overlooks the important fact that the scientists draw conclusions about the evidence and verbalize such conclusions—not “science.” Science is a conceptual tool that can be used properly or improperly. It says nothing. It does not take a position on issues. So, this common example of reification is logically fallacious.
Red Herring. Science is practical rather than conceptual. Research is conceptual, at least at it's beginning.
“The evidence speaks for itself.” This expression is quite common, but when used as part of an argument, it is the fallacy of reification. Evidence does not speak at all. Evidence is a concept: the name we give to a body of facts that we believe to be consistent with a particular point of view. People draw conclusions about evidence and verbalize their thoughts. But evidence itself does not have thoughts to verbalize.
I'll agree with this, at least up to a point. however, all conclusions drawn from evidence are not correct. Thus, science must correct itself whereas creationism never does.
“Evolution figured out a way around these problems.” I have a heard a number of evolutionists say something along these lines when attempting to explain some intricately designed biological system. But, of course, evolution is a concept. It has no mind and cannot figure out anything. So, this example again obscures the difficulty in accounting for design in the universe without appealing to a mind. It is a fallacious use of reification.
Straw man. Evolution does not have a goal and any “designs” are dictated by the environment a species inhabits. Sometimes it is not the most optimum design possible.
Even the phrase natural selection is an example of |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2009 : 18:29:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally quoted by filthy
Attributing a concrete characteristic to something that is abstract. Perhaps you have heard the old saying, “It's not nice to fool Mother Nature.” This is an example of reification because “nature” is an abstraction; it is simply the name we give to the chain of events in the universe. Nature is not a person and cannot literally be fooled, since nature does not have a mind. So, this expression would not make sense if taken literally. |
Especially since it's not an "old saying," it's an old advertisement.| However, when reification is used as part of a logical argument, it is a fallacy. The reason for this is that using such a poetic expression is often ambiguous and can obscure important points in a debate. It is very common for evolutionists to commit this fallacy. |
Fallacy definition fail: something isn't fallacious simply because it's ambiguous or obscuring. It becomes fallacious when the conclusion of an argument cannot be supported by the logic offered.| Let's look at some examples of the fallacy of reification as they are commonly used in evolutionary arguments. |
Yes, let's do so.| Sometimes in an argument, an evolutionist will say something like this: “Nature has designed some amazing creatures.” This sentence commits the fallacy of reification because nature does not have a mind and cannot literally design anything. By using the fallacy of reification, the evolutionist obscures the fact that the evolution worldview really cannot account for the design of living creatures. (Keep in mind that he may be doing this unintentionally). God can design creatures because God is a person. Nature is a concept and cannot design anything. |
Failure to recognize meaning. "Design" is being used in two different ways, but the creationist assumes that the evolutionist means "human design."| “Creationists say the world was created supernaturally, but science says otherwise.” Here the person has attributed personal, concrete attributes to the concept of science. In doing so, he or she overlooks the important fact that the scientists draw conclusions about the evidence and verbalize such conclusions—not “science.” Science is a conceptual tool that can be used properly or improperly. It says nothing. It does not take a position on issues. So, this common example of reification is logically fallacious. |
Once again: failure to recognize the meaning of a word. The author knows exactly what his hypothetical speaker means (he describes how the word "science" is used as a shorthand for "what scientists do"), but calls it fallacious, anyway.| “The evidence speaks for itself.” This expression is quite common, but when used as part of an argument, it is the fallacy of reification. Evidence does not speak at all. Evidence is a concept: the name we give to a body of facts that we believe to be consistent with a particular point of view. People draw conclusions about evidence and verbalize their thoughts. But evidence itself does not have thoughts to verbalize. |
The only people I've heard use that phrase as an entire argument are those who are dogmatic idiots or simply too impatient to explain the evidence. It's perfectly fine as an introduction to a clear, concise explanation of the evidence, and not fallacious when used that |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2009 : 19:36:35 [Permalink]
|
You're better at this than I, Dave.
Stay tuned for Phase Three, same time, same station. And now, back to your regular programing.
Goddammit Tipok, we just had a blurt from a fellow traveler of yours in here. Why do you have no comment?
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2009 : 20:19:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
In order for us to not waste our time, you need to tell us what evidence you've seen, what you don't like about it, and what would be an acceptable level to verify the claim. |
In order for us to not waste our time, he'd have to do all that and demonstrate a willingness to learn that what he knows right now is wrong. Without that, he could satisfy all your conditions and still hand-wave away any counter-arguments to insure his dogma is safe. Plenty of creationists have offered verification scenarios like you ask for, only to move the goalposts once those conditions have been met. It's pretty-much standard operating procedure for the worst of them.
So if, for example, someone comes in here complaining about the lack of transitional fossils, and refuses to accept that the phrase "transitional fossil" is not synonymous with the phrase "missing link," you know you're engaged in a waste of time. Bill scott (for example) ramped this up a notch by claiming (after being taught) that he understood the definition of "transitional" in use by scientists, but then almost immediately went on to assert that Archeopteryx was not a transitional fossil or a "missing link." In other words, he pretended to not be a waste of our time for a few hours, then his true colors shone through. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2009 : 20:21:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
You're better at this than I, Dave. |
Thanks, filthy! The idea that an old ad slogan was an "argument" really busted me up. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2009 : 01:17:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by filthy
You're better at this than I, Dave. |
Thanks, filthy! The idea that an old ad slogan was an "argument" really busted me up.
|
What else do they have? After all they operate from a faulty premise which colors their every action.
Fortunately, Dr. Lisle is not having to write for any but fellow followers of that same premise. I expect the next episode to be more of the same and look forward to it with both eagerness and some trepidation == he's something of a dull and predictable read. I wonder if he'll do Argumentum ad verecundiam. It would seem to be a natural, all things considered.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2009 : 02:10:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Tipok
Oh, so evolutionists don't run around saying "Creation isn't science, it's religion" or "Creationists are just a bunch of ignorant buffoons without any evidence to support their claims" or "Creationists just make up a bunch of stuff so that they can make yet another failed attempt to bring down evolution." |
Yes, we do. Because it's true.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2009 : 12:11:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
“Evolution figured out a way around these problems.” I have a heard a number of evolutionists say something along these lines when attempting to explain some intricately designed biological system. But, of course, evolution is a concept. It has no mind and cannot figure out anything. So, this example again obscures the difficulty in accounting for design in the universe without appealing to a mind. It is a fallacious use of reification.
Straw man. Evolution does not have a goal and any “designs” are dictated by the environment a species inhabits. Sometimes it is not the most optimum design possible. |
I dispute that this is a Fallacy of Reification. To me it looks like a kind of anthropomorphisation of the concept of evolution. Instead of always addressing all the various aspects of evolution we use the word "Evolution" as a shorthand. We know there's no mind behind evolution. Natural selection is squeezing out design from a bunch of mutations, but most theists (especially those of AiG) doesn't know the intricacies behind the curtain (as we do).
Anthropomorphisations abound in theistic circles, though they assign characteristics to God or other paranormal entities. It is only natural for theists to falsely think that we would do the same, assign "Evolution" a mind and place it where the theists have their God.
Here is where Jason Lisle fails when he thinks we're committing a Fallacy of Reification in regards to evolution. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2009 : 14:48:39 [Permalink]
|
Very fine, point-by-point take-down, Dave. Always a pleasure to see the results of thoughtful criticism. I appreciate the time you must have taken to compile that.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2009 : 16:20:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
While this is certainly true, I'm a bit perplexed as to how exactly he could demonstrate this. If his previous posts give you the indication that he is not really after the truth or a better understanding, then yes I agree that he needs to demonstrate that his intentions are good. |
That's what he's indicating to me.| However I also believe that we must assume good intentions until the evidence shows otherwise. I certainly wouldn't want to be treated as an asshole just because some other skeptics were assholes to Creationists in the past. |
All true. I'm willing to give anyone a fair shake. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2009 : 15:31:00 [Permalink]
|
This episode is on Equivocation, so beloved by politicians and Creationists.
I am starting to understand that none of this is going to be a serious discussion of Logical Fallacies, but an attack on the Theory of Evolution using them as a launching pad. But, anyway, here we go....
When debating on any topic, it is very important that we pay close attention to the meaning of words and how they are being used in the debate. Most words have more than one meaning, but only one of these meanings will properly fit the given context. When someone shifts from one meaning of a word to another within an argument, he or she has committed the fallacy of equivocation.
True
Here is a facetious example: “Doctors know a lot about medicine, and Dr. Lisle is a doctor. So, he must know a lot about medicine.” This short argument shifts from one meaning of the word doctor (medical doctor) to another (Ph.D.), making the argument fallacious. This use of equivocation is sometimes called a “bait and switch” fallacy because the listener is baited on one meaning of a word, and then the meaning is switched to draw a faulty conclusion.
Also True. Keep it going, Doc.
Evolutionists often commit the fallacy of equivocation on the word evolution. This word has a number of meanings. Evolution can mean “change” in a general sense, but it can also refer to the idea that organisms share a common ancestor. Either meaning is perfectly legitimate, but the two meanings should not be conflated within an argument. Many evolutionists seem to think that by demonstrating evolution in the sense of “change,” that it proves evolution in the sense of “common decent.”
Genetics and the fossil record “prove” common descent. Straw Man.
You might hear them say something like, “Creationists are wrong because we can see evolution happening all the time. Organisms are constantly changing and adapting to their environment.” But, of course, the fact that animals change does not demonstrate that they share a common ancestor. I cannot overstate how common this fallacy is in evolutionary arguments. Bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics, speciation events, changes in the size and shape of finch beaks, the development of new breeds of dog, and changes in allele frequency are all examples of change, but none of them demonstrate that the basic kinds of organisms share a common ancestor. When you hear evolutionists cite these as examples of “evolution in action,” you need to politely point out that they have committed the fallacy of equivocation.
And I, not so politely, point out that none of this has to do with common descent It is merely micro-evolution within a population of a species. Get enough of it and you will have a new species, or even a genus or Family, descending from the previous one – which descended from something else. Straw Man.
You might notice that at Answers in Genesis, we often use phrases like “particles-to-people evolution.” This may seem overly cumbersome, but we do this precisely to avoid equivocation.
Another word on which people sometimes equivocate is the word science. Science commonly refers to the procedures by which we explore the consistent and predictable behavior of the universe today—the scientific method. This is operational science. But science can also refer to a body of knowledge (e.g., the science of genetics). Furthermore, science can also refer to models regarding past events; this is origins science. Or it can refer to a specific model. When any of these meanings are switched within an argument, it is an instance of the fallacy of equivocation.
Science is not pinned down so easily. Indeed, it is something of a catch-all term for a vast body of studies covering everything from to Astronomy to the Chemistry of Sewage Treatment. The good Doctor might consider this last. Straw Man. |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Logical fallacies: this oughta be good!
