Talk:Logical fallacy
Not quite sure what page to link this to -- any ideas? Ungtss 16:40, 16 December 2005 (GMT)
An argumentd from incredulity:
Why do cetaceans (whales and dolphins) have to breathe air? They do not drown, since they do not inhale underwater, but they can suffocate if they don't get to the surface in time. This is especially a problem for newborn calves, which are born underwater. Taking the first breath is triggered by the touch of air on the skin, and post mortems of dead calves sometimes show that it never got to the surface to take that first breath. So, why no gills? It's not like the intelligent designer couldn't include both gills and lungs if it saw fit, since salamanders and lungfish have both -- though it is unclear why cetaceans should have to breathe air at all. PrometheusX303 22:08, 28 December 2005 (GMT)
Why does our page have only 10 while the Evowiki page lists over 140? PrometheusX303 21:35, 8 April 2006 (GMT)
couple reasons:
- We haven't put as much effort into it, because we're not trying to come up with a comprehensive list;
- Some of their fallacies are not really fallacies at all ( e.g. Inconsistency which is not defined in its article, because it is not a logical fallacy at all but simple self-contradiction and the cutesy Fallacy Fallacy which is not a fallacy itself, but simply incorrectly arguing that something else is a fallacy).
Wanna try and improve this page? Ungtss 22:01, 8 April 2006 (GMT)
- I'll see what I can do. I can't promise much. I see that you had to make a new page for it! If you have noticed, most creationist claims pages contain the section "Fallacies contained in this claim". That shows that they are working from the a priori idea that all creationist claims must contin logical fallacies. Perhaps that's why they had to invent some? That's rreally not surprising, though, considering the introduction begins thusly :Creationists use lots of different arguments against evolution, but they still have to find one that is not fallacious. Either the arguments ignore the science entirely, or they distort the science they find, or they conclude wrong things from it using bad logic, or they invent silly stories. PrometheusX303 23:19, 8 April 2006 (GMT)
- you said it:). talk about a "gross generalization" fallacy -- they claim that every single argument, made by hundreds of thousands of creationists, is fallacious. nice:). fortunately, nobody takes them seriously but themselves:). Ungtss 23:29, 8 April 2006 (GMT)
- It seems we take them seriously enough to warrant responding to them ;-( Philip J. Rayment 00:11, 9 April 2006 (GMT)
- True that:). But I couldn't keep from laughing the whole time I was responding:). "Are you serious? You're going to call ad hominem a fallacy, and then say creationists can't be trusted because they're all charlatans on the same page?" Sometimes it's just too easy with these folks:). Ungtss 03:00, 9 April 2006 (GMT)
- It's a terrific example of inconsistency and double standards! However, I wonder if we are being just a touch too incautious. The article says, Why do evolutionists, who often have highly advanced degrees in evolutionary biology, make so many basic errors in logic?" EvoWiki's page on fallacies, for example..., yet is the EvoWiki fallacies page the work of people "with highly advanced degrees in evolutionary biology", or the work of complete amateurs? We need to keep in mind that there are complete amateurs and incompetents on both sides of this debate, and we certainly wouldn't want evolutionists to judge us by the worst of creation's supporters, and neither should we do so with them. I'm not suggesting, of course, that we ignore EvoWiki as irrelevant, but keep in mind as we criticise it that it may not be totally representative of the evolutionary camp. On the other hand, it's probably worth noting that the EvoWiki quote has been there unaltered since the article was first written in August 2004. Philip J. Rayment 07:18, 9 April 2006 (GMT)
- Good point. I softened it up a bit. What do you think? Ungtss 13:06, 9 April 2006 (GMT)
- It's a terrific example of inconsistency and double standards! However, I wonder if we are being just a touch too incautious. The article says, Why do evolutionists, who often have highly advanced degrees in evolutionary biology, make so many basic errors in logic?" EvoWiki's page on fallacies, for example..., yet is the EvoWiki fallacies page the work of people "with highly advanced degrees in evolutionary biology", or the work of complete amateurs? We need to keep in mind that there are complete amateurs and incompetents on both sides of this debate, and we certainly wouldn't want evolutionists to judge us by the worst of creation's supporters, and neither should we do so with them. I'm not suggesting, of course, that we ignore EvoWiki as irrelevant, but keep in mind as we criticise it that it may not be totally representative of the evolutionary camp. On the other hand, it's probably worth noting that the EvoWiki quote has been there unaltered since the article was first written in August 2004. Philip J. Rayment 07:18, 9 April 2006 (GMT)
- Much better, although I think the mentions of advanced degrees in biology was too narrow; logic is not limited to biology. See the changes I have made. Philip J. Rayment 14:20, 9 April 2006 (GMT)
One user [1] does claim to be a physicist. PrometheusX303 14:09, 9 April 2006 (GMT)
- Very interesting. It's a good reminder (I've had too many but still haven't learnt) to research the anti-creationists claims and don't just assume. I say this because I've found that Kettenring is not just "one user", but the author of the EvoWiki article on fallacies!!! Philip J. Rayment 14:31, 9 April 2006 (GMT)
- lol:). that's what's so funny -- the deeper you look, the better things get:). Ungtss 15:02, 9 April 2006 (GMT)
