The Strawman Fallacy Demonstrated

_{Barry Arrington
July 16, 2012

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

In a prior post lastyearon employs such a classic example of the strawman fallacy that I can’t resist putting it up for all to marvel at.

In the course of an attack of ID as disguised theism lastyearon writes: “Meyers: The origin of the gene can’t be explained by chemistry (i.e. must’ve happened supernaturally).” Meyers has never said anything like the statement in the parenthetical that is attributed to him. I defy lastyearon to provide any source for his statement.

As I said in the comment thread, when one’s opponents feel they must erect a strawman to attack instead of addressing the arguments one is actually making, that is a sure indicator that they have no response to the actual argument one is making (otherwise they would feel no need to erect a strawman).

Comments

What tickles me to bits is that normally the sources of controversies among logically-minded people of high worldly intelligence are precisely that, i.e. the sources of the controversies will be the premises upon which they are predicated. And even in physics - particularly in physics, today, whether of the quantum or the astro variety - premises tend to be abstruse, to say the least. Did not Einstein, when asked about the issue, reply that the criterion he resorted to when choosing his hypotheses, was aesthetic? Still, TO THE MIND OF THE MATERIALIST, EVERYTHING IS OF EQUAL IMPONDERABILITY. Indeed, they are in such denial concerning the matter, that they cannot bring themselves to accept that paradoxes qua logical impossibilities (not necessarily impossibilities per se) are, in fact, COUNTER-RATIONAL. No. They must be counter-intuitive. How could they countenance their 'promissory note's being worthless. Monopoly money. So, 'counter-intuitive it is!' Are we all agreed, then? Thank you. Now, on to more important matters...Axel_{July 16, 2012
July
07
Jul
16
16
2012
04:48 PM
4
04
48
PM
PDT}

Quantum and Particle physics cannot explain chemistry. Therefore, we know that lastyearon believes that all the good folks searching for the 'God Particle' at the LHC are dirty Theists. And that when Richard Feynman described himself as an 'avowed Atheist' what he meant was 'confirmed Catholic'. Is there any reason we should not take at face value lastyearon's beliefs about the religious beliefs of Particle Physicists? It seems obtuse, counterfacutal, and incoherent to be sure. But if this is what lastyearon believes then it is certainly not a Strawman for him to wear his ignorance openly with pride. But then, if we are to understand that epistemic ignorance is an affirmative declaration or theistic belief, only means that lastyearon has declared himself a Theist.Maus_{July 16, 2012
July
07
Jul
16
16
2012
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2