Re: logic: why won't antievolutionists learn it?
- From: Kermit <unrestrained_hand@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 11:21:48 -0800 (PST)
On Dec 14, 9:59 am, geop...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
The thread on Ad Hominem has made me notice a disparity between the
pro- and anti- evolution sides, namely that of an understanding of
logic. It surely can't be a coincidence that both sides think 'ad
hominem' means something different.
If I may make a few comments - I was raised by creationists. I
sometimes felt like a feral child, raised by those not of my true
kind.
I believe some of this is congenital, that is, like reading, logical
thinking is teachable to everybody, but it just comes easier and more
naturally to some. And the environment of fundamentalist households
teaches denial, thought stoppage, projection, wishful thinking, social
rewards as a test for truth rather than correspondence to reality,
etc.
So there is not only some self-selecting going on here, but a lifetime
of conditioning. When I've read about brainwashing techniques, I
recognized my own upbringing - except for sleep deprivation.
I learned in my arguments with Ray that he really doesn't understand
what logic even is, but I hadn't realised other antievolutionists were
having similar trouble. And this annoys me a little. I came into the
evolution debate a few years ago with, aside from my education, pretty
much zero knowledge. I didn't know how science worked. I didn't know
how evolution worked. For all I knew, the universe really could be
6000 years old. And I didn't know how argumentative logic worked. I
learned over those years.
They tend to be black and white thinkers. I often heard them say
something like, if part of the bible isn't true, then none of it can
be trusted. A more subtle Christian would simply say that he/she was
mistaken on that issue, but these folks seriously lack introspection.
I don't think they know the difference between [The bible says X] and
[I *think the bible means X].
Now, if the bible isn't true, then they aren't going to spend all of
eternity in the loving arms of Aunt Petunia, singing the praise of God
(in slightly off-key minor chords). So *psychologically, they are
literally fighting for their lives when you or I discuss evolutionary
science. That is how fiercely they will struggle against reason and
the evidence.
So when antievolutionists spew erroneous nonsense, it annoys me,
especially when the same ones do it repeatedly. How many times does
someone have to be told why abiogenesis is not evolution, for example?
I learned after the first time, so why are they still wasting people's
time over it? It's not a matter of opinion - we don't simply tell them
that this is the way things are; we tell them WHY.
The devil can quote the bible to steal a soul. Reason and evidence
are the trickery of Satan-loving atheists. And we do it, apparently,
just so we can wallow in luxury and sexual deviance. I mean, that's
the only reason *they would do it, and they can't imagine how other
people would think any differently.
That applies to logical fallacies too, in particular this argument
over ad hominem. I have corrected antievolutionists on its use surely
a dozen times by now. I have explained why they are wrong, but they
still hold to their version like it's open to opinion. And I'm not
sure it is.
Then you expect them to start examining what the path of reason leads
to, and they already know where it leads: eternal death.
To get back to the point, then... I'd like to ask these very basic
questions about logic, and I want to know if antievolutionists agree
with them. Because if you don't know this stuff, you really shouldn't
be talking about logic at all. (And if Ray doesn't know this stuff,
any talk of his paper 'proving' anything is laughable.)
1) Do you know what a logical fallacy is? It's an argument with faulty
logic, the key word being /argument/.
It's a key word you are misunderstanding. When most people hear the
word "argument", they think of some kind of personal conflict, knock-
down shouting match, struggle for power. Polite people may refrain
from arguing, angry people can't help it. These kind of arguments *can
be won by physical threats, emotional
appeals, etc.
Mostly only scientists and philosophers think otherwise when they
first hear "argument".
2) Are you aware that fallacies have definitions and names, and that
there are long lists of them, and even taxonomies?
Taxonomy largely confuses them. It's just a list for them, like a list
of your favorite insults. Understanding them requires understanding
what *logic is, at a fundamental level.
3) Are you aware that only arguments can be fallacious? This is why a
mere insult is not ad hominem... an insult is not an argument.
This requires understanding that thinking cannot be true if two
assertions contradict each other, or are contrary to fact. They won't
live forever if they follow that route very far.
4) Are you aware that an argument can be fallacious even if its
premises and conclusions are perfectly true?
5) Are you aware that an argument can be logically valid even if its
premises and conclusions are not true?
Until they are *willing to die, they cannot be willing to follow the
truth of things down the path of evidence and reason. For what if it
means in the end, that they will not live forever?
These are folks who, by nature and training, believe things are true
or not based on the consequences. An attitude which I found
incomprehensible when I was a child in the midst of them. I note that
I am not very sociable - perhaps peer pressure just never met very
much to me.
Kermit
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: logic: why won't antievolutionists learn it?
- From: David Canzi -- non-mailable
- Re: logic: why won't antievolutionists learn it?
- From: Denis Loubet
- Re: logic: why won't antievolutionists learn it?
- Prev by Date: Re: Asteroid hit
- Next by Date: Re: Professor of genetics says 'No!' to evolution
- Previous by thread: Re: logic: why won't antievolutionists learn it?
- Next by thread: Re: logic: why won't antievolutionists learn it?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
