Darwinian Debating Devices: Call for Comments

_{Barry Arrington

October 18, 2014

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Dear Readers,

In recent days we have been working on our “Darwinian Debating Devices” series. Links to each entry in the series are set forth below.

CALL FOR COMMENTS: UD is opening up the series to comments from our readers. When you see a Darwinist using faulty reasoning, logical fallacies or otherwise unfair argument, please bring it to our attention, and we will consider it for addition to the series. Is predict we will have a fairly lengthy list before we’re done. Here’s a challenge to start: Does anyone have an example of a Darwinist using the following fallacy: “No True Scotsman.”

REQUEST FOR CATEGORIZATION: When debating Darwinists it is often helpful to call them out on the exact type of logical fallacy/faulty reasoning they are using. Therefore, if you see a Darwinist using one of the devices we’ve discussed in the series, by all means link to that article in your response.

BTW, if you ever want to see the latest list of Darwinian Debating Devices, go to “Categories” on the right side of our home page. Click on “Select Category” and then scroll down and click on “Darwinian Debating Devices.”

A FINAL NOTE: Has anyone else stopped to wonder (as I often have) why a theory that is “as well supported as the theory of gravity” requires its defenders to engage in such faulty argumentation in its defense?

Darwinian Debating Devices #1: Jeffrey Shallit Style Ad Hominem

Darwinian Debating Devices #2: The “Turnabout” Tactic

Darwinian Debating Devices #3: Moving Goalposts

Darwinian Debating Devices #4: “Desperate Distractions”

Darwinian Debating Devices #5: The False Quote Mining Charge

Darwinist Debating Devices #6: “The Literature Bluff”

Darwinian Debating Devices # 7: “Definition Deficit Disorder”

Darwinian Debating Devices, # 8: refusing to acknowledge the reality and reliably known, characteristic cause of FSCO/I

Darwinian Debating Devices #9: “The Humpty Dumpty Gambit”

Darwinian Debating Devices #10: “The Double Standard”

Darwinian Debating Devices #11: “The Straw Man”

Darwinian Debating Devices # 12: Selective Hyperskepticism, closed-mindedness (and “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”)

Darwinian Debating Devices #13: “Equivocation”

Comments

Some of nuttier commentators here extend this one to cast down on the possibility of a materialist being able to know what truth is or behaving morally (metaphysical well-poisoning!) It's all they have. Be charitable.Daniel King_{October 18, 2014
October
10
Oct
18
18
2014
05:16 PM
5
05
16
PM
PDT}

Oh, I also forgot the "materialism side show", whereby supporters of evolutionary biology are presumed to be "materialists" who use evolutionary biology to defend a religious positions Some of nuttier commentators here extend this one to cast down on the possibility of a materialist being able to know what truth is or behaving morally (metaphysical well-poisoning!)wd400_{October 18, 2014
October
10
Oct
18
18
2014
05:11 PM
5
05
11
PM
PDT}

Barry:
Mung, not sure what you mean. Employing a DDD is never appropriate no matter which side you are on.
There's some objective moral basis for that view? I'm not sure those on the other side would agree. In fact, this whole series of yours points out how "the other side" seem to find themselves under no obligation to "follow the rules." But that doesn't stop them complaining about us if we don't "follow the rules." That's all I mean. Arcatia_bogart redux.Mung_{October 18, 2014
October
10
Oct
18
18
2014
05:04 PM
5
05
04
PM
PDT}

To add to Mark's comment, how about mistakes that are unique to (or at least common) among ID-ist? Starting with continual accusations of bad-faith on the behalf of the few evolutionary biologists who bother to engage with these topics. (See, for example, the existence of this series, the comment above). Then there's mistakes like the 747 error (ignoring natural selection), ultra-specfication of 'targets' (e.g. calculating the probability of a protein sequence as 1/20 to the power of the protein length), and your classic physicist/programmer/engineer chavaunism (misplaced confidence that expertise in one field allows you to make cogent criticisms of another). I can't even imagine what you could reap from the "News" account here...wd400_{October 18, 2014
October
10
Oct
18
18
2014
04:58 PM
4
04
58
PM
PDT}

Here's possibly another one. I don't know what the debating tactic is called, but “feigning confusion” might come close. Here's what Wikipedia calls it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_manipulation Feigning confusion: Manipulator tries to play dumb by pretending he or she does not know what the victim is talking about or is confused about an important issue brought to his or her attention. There were five of such Darwinistic dodges in this topic: https://uncommondescent.com/ddd/darwinian-debating-devices-5-moving-goalposts/ 1. What? I really no idea what you are on about. I have described what the actual concept of fitness about is above, if you have a problem with that I guess let me know. 2. That definition is very nearly the same as the one give above. The rest is, again, completely opaque. If you want to address my comment 54, please have a go. 3. It’s not clear to me that you are saying anything at all, or that any of your sentences connect to each other. 4. What are you on about? Are you objecting to “expected” meaning the long-run average? If so you are objecting to the standard statistical definition 5. . . . you appear to have completely lost the plot. If you find a way to back, please try and address the things I have actually said. -QQuerius_{October 18, 2014
October
10
Oct
18
18
2014
02:54 PM
2
02
54
PM
PDT}

Mung, not sure what you mean. Employing a DDD is never appropriate no matter which side you are on.Barry Arrington_{October 18, 2014
October
10
Oct
18
18
2014
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT}

Mark Frank:
Are we allowed to add comments when we find an ID supporter using any of these tactics?
That would depend on whether you can establish some meaningful ground as to why they ought not do so.Mung_{October 18, 2014
October
10
Oct
18
18
2014
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT}

MF: If you see an ID proponent using a DDD by all means call him out.Barry Arrington_{October 18, 2014
October
10
Oct
18
18
2014
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT}

Barry wrote,
When debating Darwinists it is often helpful to call them out on the exact type of logical fallacy/faulty reasoning they are using. Therefore, if you see a Darwinist using one of the devices we’ve discussed in the series, by all means link to that article in your response.
What a great idea! Thank you! -QQuerius_{October 18, 2014
October
10
Oct
18
18
2014
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT}

DavidD
This is an odd uncharacteristic comment from you. You generally post as you please. Unless of course this was a purposed Grand Standing to deflect from the OP
The writer of the OP does not usually specify what kind of comments are expected.Mark Frank_{October 18, 2014
October
10
Oct
18
18
2014
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT}

H'mm looks a lot like a DDD # 2 there a bit up: https://uncommondescent.com/ddd/dk-demonstrates-the-turnabout-tactic/ I'd say it is hard to think consistently correctly, just ask programmers about bugs. Math helps a lot, so does appropriate visualisation. Third comes a lot of eyeballs, on the principle that bugs get shallow under a lot of eyes. But we are not going to get the problem of error fixed quickly and easily. That said, it seems to me that there is a deep rooted problem with origins sciences in general and with origin and diversification of life in particular, one multiplied by too much of ideologisation and thought control tactics in science education. We need a fresh start. KFkairosfocus_{October 18, 2014
October
10
Oct
18
18
2014
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT}

Mung, I noticed the acronym you used to start your comment, looked for 'iirc' and found this: If I Read Correctly If I Recall/Remember Correctly If I Really Cared If I Recollect Correctly If It Really Counts In Internet Relay Chat Isn't It Really Cool :)Dionisio_{October 18, 2014
October
10
Oct
18
18
2014
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank "Are we allowed to add comments when we find an ID supporter using any of these tactics?" This is an odd uncharacteristic comment from you. You generally post as you please. Unless of course this was a purposed Grand Standing to deflect from the OPDavidD_{October 18, 2014
October
10
Oct
18
18
2014
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT}

Mung, Thanks for the tip. Will look into it.Dionisio_{October 18, 2014
October
10
Oct
18
18
2014
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT}

JGuy Interesting link. Thanks. BTW, was the 'n-D e' censorship police sleeping when that TED presentation was going on? :)Dionisio_{October 18, 2014
October
10
Oct
18
18
2014
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT}

Off topic, I thought this was worth sharing. I didn't see any better post to post this off topic. The design word pops up often in this TED talk, when talking about the brain & sleep: http://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_iliff_one_more_reason_to_get_a_good_night_s_sleep?utm_source=newsletter_weekly_2014-10-18&utm_campaign=newsletter_weekly&utm_medium=email&utm_content=talk_of_the_week_buttonJGuy_{October 18, 2014
October
10
Oct
18
18
2014
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT}

Are we allowed to add comments when we find an ID supporter using any of these tactics?Mark Frank_{October 18, 2014
October
10
Oct
18
18
2014
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT}

Dionisio, iirc, there are services that offer a temporary email address. Perhaps that could be a way to establish initial contact.Mung_{October 18, 2014
October
10
Oct
18
18
2014
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT}

Barry, I understand. Thank you.Dionisio_{October 18, 2014
October
10
Oct
18
18
2014
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PDT}

Sorry Dionisio, we do not currently have sufficient resources at UD to implement your request.Barry Arrington_{October 18, 2014
October
10
Oct
18
18
2014
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT}

Barry, Is there an easy way to exchange emails with another commenter without having to post the email address? Aren't our email addresses stored in the site and available to the site administrator? Can the site provide an easy exchanging mechanism, where a commenter could request that his email address be emailed to another commenter? Let's say that I request that my email address is forwarded to humbled or to KF for example (not a real request). Then that second commenter, after receiving the email address, could opt to write to the first commenter . Another way could be to have a secure message exchange mechanism controlled by the site, where we can exchange messages that are not posted, but without exchanging emailsDionisio_{October 18, 2014
October
10
Oct
18
18
2014
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT}

Barry, Thank you for this summary list!Dionisio_{October 18, 2014
October
10
Oct
18
18
2014
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply