Re: The Strawman Defense: Use at all times - it just in case
- From: "hersheyhv" <hersheyh@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 11 Dec 2005 09:57:14 -0800
Seanpit wrote:
> BruceW wrote:
>
> > Precisely:
> >
> > 1. The ToE aligns with a model, X ("closely spaced steppingstones").
> > 2. Pitman asserts, without adequate evidence or argument, that X is
> > incorrect. He then proposes that the correct model is Y ("neutral gaps").
> > 3. Pitman then argues that, under Y, evolution cannot proceed.
> >
> > Y is a strawman. A legitimate argument would attempt to show that
> > evolution cannot under X.
>
> So, you are saying that any attack on evolution must admit that the
> proposal of closely spaced steppingstones is correct?
No. But but such an attack, in order not to be a strawman, must be
based on an attack directly on that premise, not an attack on the
implications of what would happen if that premise were not true. You
have utterly failed to present any logical or evidentiary reason for
why evolution *must* cross large neutral gaps nor have you refuted the
many examples of evolution at very high levels of complexity that can
potentially happen with crossings as small as a single mutational
event.
> What happens if
> someone wants to challenge this notion that the steppingstones really
> are closely spaced? Oh, that is not allowed because it would be a
> strawman attack?
Of course. But you cannot use the *then* part of the "*if* my
unwarranted assertion about the *necessary* size of the gaps is true,
*then*..." as an argument against evolution *until* you actually
demonstrate that the *if* part is true, either logically or by
empirical evidence. You have done neither. That means you are saying
nothing more than "if the size of selectively neutral gaps
*necessarily* increases with some measure of *functional complexity*
(that can actually be measured, which we have yet to see), then
evolution, which requires small gaps, could not happen." If you are
pretending that such an argument is a serious argument *against* what
evolution actually proposes, then you are self-deluded. You have not
presented the crucial evidence that would make the *if* clause a
*because* clause. As it stands, it is as much an argument against
evolution as the argument that "*if* animal-making fairies exist, then
animals could have been their work." Such an argument would be an
argument against evolution *if* you had evidence that animal-making
fairies exist. Until you do, the argument is a strawman if you claim
that it disproves evolution.
> That's ridiculous! Come on now. A strawman attack would be to
> mischaracterize what evolutionists say about evolution and then attack
> that false model. That's a strawman attack. Attacking the real model
> for evolution by arguing that the steppingstones really aren't close
> together is an attack on the real model of evolution - not a strawman
> version.
Again, that is NOT what you are doing. You are *asserting* the truth
of large neutral gaps and then saying that evolution could not happen
*because* large neutral gaps exist. That is NOT attacking the premises
of the real theory of evolution. It is simply asserting that one of
them is not true and attacking what would be the consequences if your
assertion were correct. Evolutionary theory *does not* predict these
consequences. It does not predict them *because* it rejects your
assertion about large neutral gaps. It rejects your assertion about
large neutral gaps because the evidence does not support the idea of
neutral gaps between selectable functions *increasing* in size based on
any of the measures of your misnamed "functional complexity". The
evidence supports the idea that there are many cases where quantitative
selection can optimize a function and cases where one or a few
mutations can *change* or generate a new function regardless of the
size of the sequence or the fraction thereof that has selective
function.
> It doesn't matter if the attack is right or wrong, weak or
> strong, supported or not, it is not a strawman attack since it really
> does propose that what the ToE actually says is mistaken.
It is a strawman because you claim to falsify evolution because you can
falsify the *consequences* of a theory that is based on assumptions
that evolutionary biologists DO NOT make. Again, if you were to
directly argue that the assumptions that evolutionary biologists make,
feel free. But until you can demonstrate that evolution *must
necessaily* cross large neutral gaps to gain a function, you cannot
claim to have falsified evolution. You have merely falsified the
logical consequences of a theory based on assumptions that evolutionary
biologists DO NOT make. You have neither falsified the logical
consequences of the theory based on the assumptions that biologists DO
make nor have you falsified the assumptions that biologists DO make.
Until you do one of the last two, you will be arguing against a
strawman consequence that is based on assumptions that biologists DO
NOT make. Again, an argument that starts out that "*if* evolution
requires crossing large gaps, then..." is quite different from one that
implies that "*because* evolution requires crossing large gaps,
then...". In either case you cannot get by with simply asserting
assumptions that evolutionary biologists disagree with and claiming to
have refuted *evolution* because of consequences based on the
assumptions that biologists disagree with.
> I am not attacking some strawman version of evolution of my own
> creation that is a false representation of your position. I'm saying
> that your closely spaced steppingstone theory, which is your actual
> theory, is wrong. Where's the strawman argument?
Because you keep claiming to have refuted evolution based on
consequences that derive from *assumptions* that evolution does not
hold to be true. The only way for you not to be making a strawman
argument is either to be explicitly putting out an argument against the
assumptions that evolution makes or by aguing against consequences
based on the assumptions that evolution does make.
> You need to read the definition of a strawman argument. Look at the
> link to the Wikipedia article:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman
>
> > Pitman is being a bit a weasel lately. Is he losing it???
>
> ; )
>
> Come on now guys, just admit when something is obviously clear every
> now and then. You just make yourselves look silly when you accuse me
> of using the strawman argument. This is clearly not true.
Yes it is true. However, since you do not agree with that
characterization, perhaps we can agree that the only honest way for you
to continue to present your argument is to *explictly* point out in all
your discussions, both on this forum and in your webpages, that you are
really arguing *for* the idea that the size of *neutral gaps* that
*must* be crossed between selectable steps increases with some actual
measure of 'functional' complexity and that evolutionary biologists
disagree with that idea. The appropriate use of the word "if" to
indicate the assumptions you are making, and that the conclusions you
are coming to would *only* be the case if your assumptions were true,
would help. Your wording appears to be diliberately slanted so as to
give the impression that you have actual evidence that the size of
*neutral gaps* must increase and that evolutionary biologists *agree*
with that, when, as you point out, you know that not to be the case.
You wording also appears to pretend that by pointing out the problems
that would arise *if* your assumptions were true that you have
*actually* demonstrated that evolution *can't* happen (as opposed to
arguing that it *can't happen if *my* assumptions, that biologists
disagree with, are correct*. Doing so would concentrate the argument
on the important difference (the disagreement about working
assumptions) rather than the points of agreement (that, *if* your
assumptions were true, then evolution would be quite difficult).
I have to express, with some dismay, that despite my urging the proper
use of *if...then*, you keep using language so as to imply that your
assumptions about the size of neutral gaps is an agreed upon truth. It
isn't.
At that point, of course, we could then have a *real* discussion about
the empirical reality of your assumptions, which, as you point out,
differ from those of evolution. We can then stop discussing the
conclusions you (or I) might come to *if* your assumptions actually
were correct and argue whether or not your assumptions are correct.
But we can only do so *if* you recognize that you are making
assumptions that might not be true.
> You can say
> that you don't think the evidence I'm presenting is convincing or that
> you think it isn't worth the time of day, but my argument, however weak
> you may think it is, is certainly not a strawman argument against some
> phantom position of the ToE that doesn't really represent the ToE.
Again, you will be making an argument against the ToE only when you
start making an argument that is either based on the idea that the
consequences predicted, if the assumptions that *it* makes, are false
or start making an argument that directly and explicitly points out
that some assumption of the ToE is false. Continuing to make an
argument that *if* assumptions that the ToE does NOT make were true,
then evolution could not happen is NOT an argument against the ToE.
What I see is you doing the last and not the first two.
>
> > -BruceW
>
> Sean Pitman
> www.DetectingDesign.com
.
- References:
- The Strawman Defense: Use at all times - it just in case
- From: Seanpit
- Re: The Strawman Defense: Use at all times - it just in case
- From: Von R. Smith
- Re: The Strawman Defense: Use at all times - it just in case
- From: Seanpit
- Re: The Strawman Defense: Use at all times - it just in case
- From: Von R. Smith
- Re: The Strawman Defense: Use at all times - it just in case
- From: BruceW
- Re: The Strawman Defense: Use at all times - it just in case
- From: Seanpit
- The Strawman Defense: Use at all times - it just in case
- Prev by Date: A More Realistic Dialogue with my child
- Next by Date: Re: an evilutionists tale
- Previous by thread: Re: The Strawman Defense: Use at all times - it just in case
- Next by thread: Re: The Strawman Defense: Use at all times - it just in case
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
