I like what Iron Chariots says about this argument: It is a form of non sequitur, since the hand of God is posited without proof and often with complete disregard to other possible explanations. In a nutshell, this is an argument from ignorance. But ignorance is never an argument for something. It just means we don’t yet know the cause of something.
This is Part 11 in a series about Logical Fallacies. We are going through one fallacy at a time. There are many types of fallacious arguments. I’m going to try to explain them with examples then find ways to help you refute those arguments when they occur. Please comment or email if there’s a particular fallacy you want me to tackle, or if you have success with refuting an argument using a good technique you can share.
I want to share this video of a talk by Neil deGrasse Tyson from 2006 is about 38 minutes long. He talks about the god of the gaps throughout scientific history, intelligent design and then about Stupid Design. Highly recommended watching:
The logical fallacy known as The Slippery Slope wrongly assumes that one thing must lead to another, and another and before you know it you get to something awful. Therefore you can’t do the first thing. This is a very common fallacy. It’s also known as the Fallacy of the Beard.
In an argument, it is the situation where acceptance of a minor detail of the opposing position will greatly weaken your position.
This is Part 10 in a series about Logical Fallacies. We are going through one fallacy at a time. There are many types of fallacious arguments. I’m going to try to explain them with examples then find ways to help you refute those arguments when they occur. Please comment or email if there’s a particular fallacy you want me to tackle, or if you have success with refuting an argument using a good technique you can share.
Formula:
If A happens, B will happen. If B happens, C, D, E, … Z will happen! (oh noes!)
We don’t want Z to happen.
Therefore A can’t happen.
Example 1:
If I take aspirin, I’ll start taking Oxycontin for headaches. If I take Oxycontin, I’ll start buying it on the street. If I do that, I’ll start looking for heroine to shoot up. If I start shooting up heroine, I’ll get a dirty needle and get HIV, then die of AIDS….
I don’t want to do heroine and die of AIDS.
Therefore I can’t take anything for my headaches.
Of course this is not logical. For most people we have the ability to moderate and restrain ourselves to some degree. It is possible to stop after the first step and not go down the slippery slope. Read the rest of this entry »
I really wanted to share part of chapter 17 with you. Mr. Gula lists the most important principles to be gleaned from the rest of the book. I highly recommend getting the book and reading it. It has really helped me think more logically. The other thing it’s helped me with is to realize when someone has used a logical fallacy on me. I might not remember the name, but I remember that it is nonsense. It sort of gives me a red flag when someone uses bad logic in an argument. I think that’s pretty invaluable.
Almost all of us argue or have discussions. But there’s actually a right way and lots of wrong ways to go about it. As an ethical person, I don’t really want to do it wrong because that’s being dishonest and unfair. I am definitely not a debater, which is where people actually use logical fallacies on purpose to win an argument. I don’t really care for debates because they seem forced to me. It’s about winning, not about finding out the truth. I think the main reason I hate arguing is because most people fight dirty. I am sure I’ve done it too, mainly out of ignorance. Now, with the following information, we can argue more logically.
Yesterday while being domestic, I was listening to podcasts. The following one was so cool, I actually decided to transcribe it for you because it was both concise and chock full of good information.
Here is a pretty close transcript to this podcast episode. It’s not exact, so you can listen to it to get everything I left out, which was where someone started a sentence or a thought and didn’t finish it, stuff like that. I also turned it into more of an article and less of a conversation. So really, it’s a companion to listening to the podcast (which is about 6 minutes) and for your convenience.
Argumentum verbosium is also known as Proof by Intimidation, or Proof by Verbosity. It refers to an argument that is so complex, so long-winded and so poorly presented by the arguer that you are obliged to accept it, simply to avoid being forced to sift through its minute details.
This fallacy is epitomized by this lovely statement, “If you can’t dazzle them with your brilliance, then baffle them with your bullshit.”
This is Part 6 in a series I introduced awhile ago about Logical Fallacies, Misconceptions, False Beliefs. We are going through one fallacy at a time. There are many types of fallacies. I’m going to try to explain them with examples then find ways to help you refute those arguments when they occur. Please comment or email if there’s a particular fallacy you want me to tackle, or if you have success with refuting an argument using a good technique you can share. Read the rest of this entry »
Thanksgiving is just around the corner. I’m a bit bummed out that I don’t have a great outfit to wear to dinner on Thursday. Like one of the 30 or so anti-religious shirts my husband Butch I have created on Zazzle and Cafepress with maybe some nice black cargo pants. I just don’t think I could get one shipped to me in time. Maybe if I order soon, I can have something festive for baby jesus’ birthday.
Oh if I only had the nerve. Maybe it’s not nerve but respect for the people who throw the family get-togethers – Butch’s aunt and uncle. She’s a bit on the religious side, so I wouldn’t want to upset or offend her. She’s the kind of christian that I don’t mind at all. I know she’s a christian because she goes to church every Sunday, but we’ve never talked religion and she’s never tried to push her faith on me. She is a good person, one of the few christians I know that I truly respect, because she walks the walk without talking the talk, if you know what I mean.
Her mother, on the other hand, she’s nasty. The typical fundie moron that is unbearable and full of lies and hatred for anyone who actually thinks for themselves. As a schoolteacher, I just wish she wouldn’t be so ignorant about simple facts like oh, I dunno, maybe that we’re not a christian nation, and that the founding fathers created a separation of church and state very deliberately. Read the rest of this entry »
(also called Appeal to Authority) Stating a claim is true because a person or group of perceived authority says it’s true. The claimant emphasizes the many years of experience and/or formal degrees held by the person or organization making the claim.
This argument is the opposite of the Ad Hominem Argument because the arguer appeals to positive characteristics of the source to support their argument, such as its perceived authority. If an advertisement shows someone wearing a white labcoat or a stern business suit, that is an appeal to authority.
This is Part 5 in a series I introduced the other day about Logical Fallacies, Misconceptions, False Beliefs. We’re going to go through one fallacy at a time. There are about 20 main fallacies altogether. I’m going to try to explain them with examples then find ways to help you refute those arguments when they occur.
While it’s reasonable to take into account the proper background of education and credentials, or to be suspicious of someone without such expertise, it must inevitably come down to logic and evidence to support the claim, not the person promoting it.
A good authority supports a position because there is evidence or other justifiable reasons that the argument merits, not the other way around. So, good scientists do not attach significance to their own authority. The theory needs to stand on its own and be peer reviewed. There is no need for an appeal to authority. Read the rest of this entry »
“I can’t understand this so God did it.”
by Robert J. Gula.
