Dinosaurs are fake and leads to atheism!

[ok doser]

This is called "poisoning the well." It's a fallacy for a reason.

NONE of it is relevant to this discussion.

told ya.

 

[Skeeter]

This is called "poisoning the well." It's a fallacy for a reason.

NONE of it is relevant to this discussion.

You often commit the fallacy of the fallacy list. You accept someone else's list of fallacies without understanding many of the fallacies. The most prominent example is when you call out someone for saying I do not believe as a pleading based on incredulity. Trouble is the phrase has other uses and when it is not the basis of an argument, parroting off something from your list makes you look the fool.

Here, I mention someone who claims evolution is a religion who also was convicted from tax fraud. It's not the best argument against the position, but it is a brick in the wall. It is not decisive on the issue, but it is relevant. In court you can impeach a witness if they have a reputation for deception. Get over your list and open your eyes.

 

[Stripe]

It appears he was involved in domestic violence and tax fraud. The latter is more relevant. He does not have a reputation for accuracy.

Yay. Let's pick a Darwinist with a history and pretend that his record contributes something to the discussion.

Darwinists can never allow a sensible discussion of the evidence.

 

[Idolater]

In court you can impeach a witness if they have a reputation for deception. Get over your list and open your eyes.

So would the Apostles be impeached in court then? Or not? I mean they are witnesses (not the only ones) of Christ's Resurrection. I'm not asking you if the uniform witness testimony provided by the Apostles (and other putative eye witnesses to the Resurrection ( = saw Him die and or dead + saw Him alive again)) is sufficient to prove, establish or demonstrate the Resurrection really happened. I'm just asking, Would any of the witnesses (Greek 'martyrs') be impeached in court?

 

[Skeeter]

Darwinists can never allow a sensible discussion of the evidence.

So, suggesting a little skepticism in a supposed authority based on past behavior is a fallacy, but making a sweeping generalization about an entire group based a minor point of contention with one group member is sound logic? You are a trip.

 

[Clete]

You often commit the fallacy of the fallacy list. You accept someone else's list of fallacies without understanding many of the fallacies. The most prominent example is when you call out someone for saying I do not believe as a pleading based on incredulity. Trouble is the phrase has other uses and when it is not the basis of an argument, parroting off something from your list makes you look the fool.

Here, I mention someone who claims evolution is a religion who also was convicted from tax fraud. It's not the best argument against the position, but it is a brick in the wall. It is not decisive on the issue, but it is relevant. In court you can impeach a witness if they have a reputation for deception. Get over your list and open your eyes.

Notice no explanation as to why the fallacy he's accused of doesn't apply!

That's because it does!

 

[Stripe]

You are a trip.

Great.

So when you have something of interest to contribute, let us know.

 

[Skeeter]

Notice no explanation as to why the fallacy he's accused of doesn't apply!

Impeaching a source is not a fallacy and noting a consensus is not a fallacy -- unless it is the sole means of supporting a contention. Try not to commit the fallacy of being overly literal with fallacies.

 

[Right Divider]

Impeaching a source is not a fallacy and noting a consensus is not a fallacy -- unless it is the sole means of supporting a contention. Try not to commit the fallacy of being overly literal with fallacies.

Claiming that something is TRUE because there is consensus IS a fallacy.

You are full of unsupported claims and diversions. Get to some legitimate discussion or get lost.

 

[Clete]

Impeaching a source is not a fallacy and noting a consensus is not a fallacy -- unless it is the sole means of supporting a contention. Try not to commit the fallacy of being overly literal with fallacies.

What you did was a text book example of poisoning the well fallacy and you know it.

Address the information pertinent to the argument and not the source of the information and people who are familiar with the fallacy will stop accusing you of committing it.

 

[Skeeter]

Claiming that something is TRUE because there is consensus IS a fallacy.

Peer review is a check on validity check that should not be dismissed. Just because a peripheral fact cannot be used as absolute proof DOES not mean it is unworthy of discussion. When we know the limits on particular kinds of evidence, we can include them in the analysis giving them the appropriate weight. It is fool-hearty and uninteresting to throw out all discussion unless there based on absolute logic. That in and of itself is illogical. Binars gonna bait.

BTW, this is a meta-discussion about evolution and creationism which is important.

 

[Right Divider]

Peer review is a check on validity check that should not be dismissed.

I don't "dismiss it".

Just because a peripheral fact cannot be used as absolute proof DOES not mean it is unworthy of discussion.

When we know the limits on particular kinds of evidence, we can include them in the analysis giving them the appropriate weight.

That's a great idea. Evolution fails in this regard. Evolutionists constantly extrapolate well beyond what is reasonable.

It is fool-hearty and uninteresting to throw out all discussion unless there based on absolute logic.

What is "absolute logic"?

That in and of itself is illogical. Binars gonna bait.

No clue what you're talking about.

BTW, this is a meta-discussion about evolution and creationism which is important.

So, again, those fallacies are fallacies for a reason.

 

[Clete]

Peer review is a check on validity check that should not be dismissed.

Who dismisses it?

Not me or Right Divider!

Just because a peripheral fact cannot be used as absolute proof DOES not mean it is unworthy of discussion.

No one suggested otherwise.

When we know the limits on particular kinds of evidence, we can include them in the analysis giving them the appropriate weight.

Yeah, so what?

It is fool-hearty and uninteresting to throw out all discussion unless there based on absolute logic.

The construction of this sentence is poor.
Do you mean that it's fool hearty to throw out all discussion that is not based on absolute logic or did you mean that it's fool hearty to throw out all discussion unless all of that discussion is NOT based on absolute logic? Or were you suggesting that some irrational discussion makes things wise and interesting?

If the latter, then you're an idiot. Otherwise....

No duh!

That in and of itself is illogical. Binars gonna bait.

Umm...

What?

BTW, this is a meta-discussion about evolution and creationism which is important.

Meta-discussion?

Your intent here is to have a discussion about the discussion; is that what you mean?

That is what the term "meta-discussion" means but is that what you mean? If so, I don't get it. If not, then I still don't get it. Perhaps if you restricted yourself to terms that aren't designed to make you feel smarter than everyone else in the room.

Clete

 

[Clete]

Impeaching a source is not a fallacy

Yes it is!

The only time impeaching a source is valid is if the impeachment of the source is directly pertinent to the argument being made. Otherwise, it's known as a poisoning the well fallacy.

The simple fact is that the source of a piece of information has nothing to do with whether that information is true or false (in almost all cases). The exception would be if you could establish that EVERYTHING from a particular source was ALWAYS false but such cases are rare in the extreme and simply refuting the information is usually at least as easy as establishing the unwavering falseness of that information's source.

and noting a consensus is not a fallacy

It would become a fallacy if the argument was that something is true because there is consensus on the subject. A plurality of opinion does not equate to proof and any presentation to the contrary is a fallacy. It's called an appeal to popularity.

-- unless it is the sole means of supporting a contention.

It does not have to be the sole means of support. If the argument is "The consensus is X, therefore X is true." then that is a fallacy - period. It makes no difference how many other supporting arguments accompany the fallacy.

Try not to commit the fallacy of being overly literal with fallacies.

Funny how it's only ever people who use fallacious arguments, and want to keep on using them, who ever tell people to relax when it comes to using sound reason!

Clete

 

[Skeeter]

Yes it is!

The only time impeaching a source is valid is if the impeachment of the source is directly pertinent to the argument being made. Otherwise, it's known as a poisoning the well fallacy.

The simple fact is that the source of a piece of information has nothing to do with whether that information is true or false (in almost all cases). The exception would be if you could establish that EVERYTHING from a particular source was ALWAYS false but such cases are rare in the extreme and simply refuting the information is usually at least as easy as establishing the unwavering falseness of that information's source.

You are not being logical or practical. If a random drunk at a bar claimed something and a renowned expert in a field of study claimed something else, it would make sense to regard the drunk's credibility as suspect and hold her claim up to greater scrutiny.

It would become a fallacy if the argument was that something is true because there is consensus on the subject. A plurality of opinion does not equate to proof and any presentation to the contrary is a fallacy. It's called an appeal to popularity.

While the point that consensus is not foolproof is well taken, the suggestion that the quality of the claim can be disregarded altogether does not follow.

It does not have to be the sole means of support. If the argument is "The consensus is X, therefore X is true." then that is a fallacy - period. It makes no difference how many other supporting arguments accompany the fallacy.

Absolute statements cannot be made but relative statements can be made. If a point of view is backed by a consensus than the view is more likely more accurate than a novice's claim.

Funny how it's only ever people who use fallacious arguments, and want to keep on using them, who ever tell people to relax when it comes to using sound reason!

Clete

All or none thinking clouds your understanding of logical fallacies. It is time to rethink this.

 

[Right Divider]

You are not being logical or practical. If a random drunk at a bar claimed something and a renowned expert in a field of study claimed something else, it would make sense to regard the drunk's credibility as suspect and hold her claim up to greater scrutiny.

Truth is not determined by someone's "credibility". They must provide the factual evidence.

While the point that consensus is not foolproof is well taken, the suggestion that the quality of the claim can be disregarded altogether does not follow.

The "quality of the claim" is NOT based on credentials, fame, consensus, etc. etc.

Absolute statements cannot be made but relative statements can be made.

You just made an "absolute statement".

If a point of view is backed by a consensus than the view is more likely more accurate than a novice's claim.

Nope... that is a fallacious argument.

All or none thinking clouds your understanding of logical fallacies. It is time to rethink this.

Time for YOU to rethink this.

 

[Skeeter]

Truth is not determined by someone's "credibility".

So, what? Are we to ignore obvious correlations and potentially helpful short-cuts because a method of discerning truth has limitations?

They must provide the factual evidence.

Yes. But, factual evidence can be complex and require much experience to understand. Understanding the difference between a novice and an expert is our first defense against our own bias and the Dunning-Kruger effect. At the same time we know that 5% of the scientific knowledge base is just wrong, and much of the rest could be qualified better and will be over time.

The "quality of the claim" is NOT based on credentials,

The quality of the claim is highly correlated with credentials.

fame,

The quality of a claim is poorly correlated with fame.

consensus

Consensus based on popularity is suspect; consensus based on peer review is highly correlated with quality but the correlation is still far from 1 to 1.

You just made an "absolute statement".

It seems like one , doesn't it, but in context it is not an absolute statement. I claim that absolute statements cannot be made from consensus alone, but relative but meaningful statements can be made based on consensus as part of an overall analysis.

 

[Stripe]

Darwinists love it when the argument is about the argument. They hate it when the discussion is over the evidence.

 

[Skeeter]

Darwinists love it when the argument is about the argument. They hate it when the discussion is over the evidence.

We should pivot back to evidence and see who dodges.

There is solid evidence that Chimpanzees and humans share a common ancestor:

Sharing a common ancestor

Humans did not evolve from an ape - we are apes, and our closest living relatives include chimpanzees and gorillas.

australian.museum

 

[Right Divider]

So, what? Are we to ignore obvious correlations and potentially helpful short-cuts because a method of discerning truth has limitations?

Correlations can be misleading. You need to discuss the facts.

Yes. But, factual evidence can be complex and require much experience to understand.

Too bad. That does not mean that fallacious reasoning becomes valid.

Understanding the difference between a novice and an expert is our first defense against our own bias and the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Many experts are extremely biased in their opinions.

At the same time we know that 5% of the scientific knowledge base is just wrong, and much of the rest could be qualified better and will be over time.

How do "we know that 5% of the scientific knowledge base is just wrong"? Did some expert tell you that?

The quality of the claim is highly correlated with credentials.

Again, credentials do not make someone's opinions correct.

The quality of a claim is poorly correlated with fame.

Many of the experts are also famous. Neither makes them correct.

Consensus based on popularity is suspect;

And yet we continue to get the populist fallacy used by evolutionists.

consensus based on peer review is highly correlated with quality but the correlation is still far from 1 to 1.

Consensus has no place in validating scientific facts.

It seems like one ,

That's because it is.

doesn't it, but in context it is not an absolute statement.

You're quite the juggler.

I claim that absolute statements cannot be made from consensus alone, but relative but meaningful statements can be made based on consensus as part of an overall analysis.

Consensus never proves that something is true.