Argumentative foul: Emphasis on unknown authority

Hi,
last time I mentioned straw man as the first argumentative foul, today I will continue with the emphasis on unknown authority.


I think that this one is very very famous. Just take the following sentence.

American scientists say that apples are poisonous!

You have hears something like this, starting or ending with some authority. The last time I remember hearing it was when me and some people were talking about what is called: consciousness after death. Few were christians and their opinion is that it proves God. To make their argument stronger they said:

Even scientists proved that some people remembered things when their brain did not show any evidence of functioning!

It is kind of hard to say something against it, because scientists are authority, but unknown. The problem is that nobody else then them knew anything about the authority and it could seem kind of reasonable to believe it, because scientists must be right.

Do not get fooled.

What was their source? Did the source said the same thing? What is their definition of scientist? Why could actually such a thing be true when it collides with the rest of science?

Such an authority can be for example government, or doctors, or people who work there a long time and have experience.


 

Feel free to share you experience with argumentative foul in comments!

Dragallur

 

Advertisements

Argumentative foul: The Straw Man

Hi,
I decided to make some post about argumentation, this is partial because of what happened today (which was quite interesting though I will write about it a bit later) and also because argumentation is so important to me. Probably the first argumentative foul that has ever been known to me was the “straw man”.


I heard about straw man for the first time when my brother showed me some meme and there were those two words.

So I asked: “What does straw man means?”

“Imagine debating with me about God, I would be an atheist and you the one who believed in God. We would make some arguments and then I would say: Imagine old man sitting on a cloud with shiny thing around his head looking down and letting people do wars.”

This is nice example of straw man, in this situation I believe in God and the other person does not even need to know what I exactly mean by God but he says this. Creating an argument which I do not even need to believe in, making it ironic or so. This is the building of straw man, now he burns this straw man down by saying: “Could you really imagine it? This is so stupid, old man on cloud -_-.”

This is of course argumentative foul because I never said something about old man sitting on cloud, plus the person is acting ignorant. Of course you can not always see it so easily but once you know that it exists you can detect when this straw man is being build so dont let yourself be thrown down by such a thing.

Dragallur

2nd foul: Emphasis on unknown authority

 

 

Creationism vs Science: The separation

Hi,
something like this was not here before. Why did I create such a series now? About week back I started discussion on blog of one Christian. I started with the question “Why can not I feel the existence of Him (the God)?” And then it started, I must say that it was rather peaceful conversation and very friendly and for now it is about 12 word pages with 12 font and normal space between lines, so quite filling. You can find the almost whole conversation here. If you clicked it and searched through you can see that the post itself is just a small part. Roughly there are arguments from the side of science (me) and creationism (her).


Why did I do such a discussion? Well I wanted to know what creationists really say, I talked once with Christian and it was for nothing since back then I knew so much less and I know that if I would suddenly erupt the conversation again it would look as that I am trying to convince her that there is no God, but I do not care much about what they think.

So we started and right now I think that I can make conclusion from the debate

1)It was indeed very interesting. I think that she already done a lot of research since she was able to put hers argument in high numbers. The problem here is that those arguments are kind of old or not understanding the whole concept, if you did not read the discussion here I will pick up some:

On this page there is a lot of them and if you understand just basics, you know that they do not disprove big bang at all:

For example they say that dark matter has not been prove, as I said, this is like 150 years back, because back then this was probably true but not today. It is so simple to look it up on the internet, just write: “Prove for dark matter” and you will get tens of thousands of pages. The problem is that people like to look just on their side of argument. Lets say that I believe in creationism, well I will go on pages like these: 1) 2) 3). All of them are about creation and science that apparently proves it as the pages say. Now there are very good arguments there, somebody who never heard about all the science stuff could so freakin easily believe in creation, I must admit that it so well written with only one side of argument that there is actually nothing else to do than to believe in it!

The problem rises immediately and it is the problem that most people on the world do. If you only look on your side of argument you will always gain evidence for you becoming more and more sure, but is this really what we should do?

As Barack Obama said, people in USA whether they are republicans or democrats tend to look only on the news for their side which makes the gap between both side bigger and bigger creating something what is called extremism (not that I am trying to say she is extremist, I do not even know how much she looked on the “science side”, so I know nothing).

So it does not really matter on what side you are on, what I think is that you should always look on the arguments on the other side and think about them so you know what they think, otherwise it leads just to bigger separation between democrats and republicans or creationists and evolutionists and so on.

This leads to what I will write about in next post in those series: Should we teach creationism alongside evolution?

Dragallur