Jim Parker
Member
From my observation of this debate, it is far too much based on the use of "straw man" and "red herring" arguments.
Definition of "straw man" logical fallacy:
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:
1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
Example: "Senator Jones says that we should not fund the attack submarine program. I disagree entirely. I can't understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that." That statement is a "straw man."
Not funding one program will not "leave us defenseless." It will remove one item from the defense budget.
An Evolution- Creation debate Straw Man logical fallacy: Evolution science promotes atheism.
Evolutionary scientists look at the physical evidence available and draw conclusions based on that evidence alone. Since there is no available scientific evidence to prove the existence of God, they cannot include any theological content in their research. (There are certainly logical reasons to believe in God but logical reasoning and scientific evidence are not the same thing.)
The fact that evolution scientists do not talk about God's work of creation is because they cannot demonstrate scientifically to have taken place. That is not the promotion of atheism. It is admitting that they can't directly examine God.
Definition of a "Red Herring" fallacy:
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
1. Topic A is under discussion.
2. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
3. Topic A is abandoned.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.
Example: "We admit that this measure is popular. But we also urge you to note that there are so many bond issues on this ballot that the whole thing is getting ridiculous."
The topic is the popularity of a measure.
The topic of the number of measures on the ballot in introduced to replace it as an argument against it.
(2) Science is based on theories rather than facts and is, therefore, not a reliable source for facts.
The word "science" refers to a method of inquiry as a means to discover facts.
The method of scientific inquiry includes; observation, hypothesizing, and testing of the hypothesis.
If the hypothesis (theory) is correct, the testing will prove it to be so.
If the theory is not correct, the testing will prove it to be incorrect.
If it is proven incorrect, the hypothesis (theory) will be revised to better reflect reality based on the observations of the test results.
When the hypothesis correctly and repeatedly predicts the results of testing, the scientist has arrived at a proven fact.
The red herring statement substitutes the topic "fact" for the topic 'theory."
It is also a straw man fallacy because it presents science as being a catalogue of facts when, in fact, it is a method of discovering facts.
And the statement is a Guilt By Association logical fallacy because proposes that, because scientific research has resulted in erroneous conclusions, we can safely assume that no conclusions based on science can be considered reliable. The idea being that one failure to find the right answer means that all attempts using the same methods must result in wrong answers.
If science were not a reliable method of discovering facts then we would not have x-ray and MRI machines to assist doctors in diagnoses or vaccines for polio and small pox or micro-wave ovens or telephones or computers with which to waste time on the internet endlessly arguing about nothing very important.
iakov the fool
Definition of "straw man" logical fallacy:
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:
1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
Example: "Senator Jones says that we should not fund the attack submarine program. I disagree entirely. I can't understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that." That statement is a "straw man."
Not funding one program will not "leave us defenseless." It will remove one item from the defense budget.
An Evolution- Creation debate Straw Man logical fallacy: Evolution science promotes atheism.
Evolutionary scientists look at the physical evidence available and draw conclusions based on that evidence alone. Since there is no available scientific evidence to prove the existence of God, they cannot include any theological content in their research. (There are certainly logical reasons to believe in God but logical reasoning and scientific evidence are not the same thing.)
The fact that evolution scientists do not talk about God's work of creation is because they cannot demonstrate scientifically to have taken place. That is not the promotion of atheism. It is admitting that they can't directly examine God.
Definition of a "Red Herring" fallacy:
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
1. Topic A is under discussion.
2. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
3. Topic A is abandoned.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.
Example: "We admit that this measure is popular. But we also urge you to note that there are so many bond issues on this ballot that the whole thing is getting ridiculous."
The topic is the popularity of a measure.
The topic of the number of measures on the ballot in introduced to replace it as an argument against it.
(2) Science is based on theories rather than facts and is, therefore, not a reliable source for facts.
The word "science" refers to a method of inquiry as a means to discover facts.
The method of scientific inquiry includes; observation, hypothesizing, and testing of the hypothesis.
If the hypothesis (theory) is correct, the testing will prove it to be so.
If the theory is not correct, the testing will prove it to be incorrect.
If it is proven incorrect, the hypothesis (theory) will be revised to better reflect reality based on the observations of the test results.
When the hypothesis correctly and repeatedly predicts the results of testing, the scientist has arrived at a proven fact.
The red herring statement substitutes the topic "fact" for the topic 'theory."
It is also a straw man fallacy because it presents science as being a catalogue of facts when, in fact, it is a method of discovering facts.
And the statement is a Guilt By Association logical fallacy because proposes that, because scientific research has resulted in erroneous conclusions, we can safely assume that no conclusions based on science can be considered reliable. The idea being that one failure to find the right answer means that all attempts using the same methods must result in wrong answers.
If science were not a reliable method of discovering facts then we would not have x-ray and MRI machines to assist doctors in diagnoses or vaccines for polio and small pox or micro-wave ovens or telephones or computers with which to waste time on the internet endlessly arguing about nothing very important.
iakov the fool
