Logical Fallacies in Scientific Writing

[greyl]

Something worth reading.

Logic is the set of rules by which one can formulate convincing arguments. It is "the science of argument." When presenting an argument, one takes a set of premises that are proven to be true, and uses logic to show how they prove a certain "foregone conclusion." It is helpful to know that this type of argument is not just a presentation of facts, but is, rather, an effort to prove a conclusion that was previously reached.

The focus of this paper is on logical errors in scientific writings. These logical errors are known as fallacies. If an argument contains a fallacy, then the conclusion will not necessarily be proven. Some fallacies are just accidental, but they can also be used to trap an unwary listener or reader into believing faulty conclusions. First, this paper will identify and describe logical fallacies, then a selection of scientific writing will be analyzed in light of those fallacies.

http://mason.gmu.edu/~arichar6/logic.htm#N_2_

[JackRiddler]

1. Oops.

The essay you recommend begins with a well-done list of logical fallacies - material, verbal and of relevancy - such as are too easy to make in arguments. The examples are clear and well-written, though a couple do seem skewed to a dislike of a certain President Clinton. But seeing as I only dimly remember this guy, I must say the first half of the essay is well-suited as a good general introduction to the subject, for students of all ages.

Ah, but the payoff follows!

How can I thank you, greyl? I assume you did read the article you recommended to the end, didn't you? Perhaps you mean to see if we do, as well, you sneaky dog, you.

I ask because the second part of the essay departs radically from the first, in staging an assault on cherrypicked quotes from those illogical (and no doubt ill-meaning) evolutionists like Stephen J. Gould.

In other words, this essay you have recommended is intended as a guide to logic for those who wish to debunk the theory of evolution and defend creationism.

Never mind. It all makes perfect sense that you, greyl, found this essay so worthy, given your own quixotic efforts at DU on behalf of The Official Conspiracy Theory of the September 11 Events.

[mirandapriestly]

2. what a coincidence

Grey'l's buddy Lared has a quotation from a libertarian who believed that the New Deal was "morally bankrupt" on his posts. Kind of odd for democrats!

[LARED]

5. Nothing odd about it at all

Can I assume you only like quotes from Democrats or progressives?

Are no Libertarian positions are of interest to you? At all? Libertarian and liberal have much common ground. I'm sure you know that. Your being a bit of a purist in my opinion.

Or are you so naive you believe those having opinions different than you cannot be Democrats?

Frankly I know little about the author Leonard Reed, I just happen to like the quote and agree with it. If you find that disturbing, to bad.

[HamdenRice]

9. I never noticed it before but it is a VERY disturbing quote

"Man either accepts the idea that the Creator is the endower of rights, or he submits to the idea that the state is the endower of rights. There is no third alternative."

In other words, the secular view of rights, that people come together in a democratic community to create the state, and democratically decide to limit the power of the state by enshrining rights in a constitution -- that is false approach according to your tag line.

Instead you believe that God alone can grant rights. Well, who interprets what God has said or doesn't say? The church, the Pope, the Imams, the Rabbis, etc.

And if the church says you have no right, say to be a Catholic, because the god of the Baptists says Catholicism is wrong, then that right can be taken away.

It's actually a pretty loathsome tag line, not just for a Democrat or progressive, but for anyone who believes in the US Constitution.

So Lared, Mr. Science, is a theocrat?

[LARED]

13. I find it interesting that you find the quote VERY DISTURBING

I would interpret that as a bias against people of faith or a reading comprehension issue

It's position is quite simple. You either accept that a Creator endows rights as alternative one, OR you submit that the State endows rights as alternative two. The author (as do I) believes the endowment of rights is a binary position. You have two choices.

You plainly state you believe the state endows those rights. That's fine.

Then you display either blatant ignorance or a propensity for flame-bait by implying if you believe a Creator endows rights you do not believe in a Constitution that enumerates those rights; and are a Theocrat.

I know your smarter than that so cut the BS.

[HamdenRice]

15. The statement is disturbing for lots of reasons ...

First of all, it is a false dichotomy. There are people of faith who nevertheless believe that rights are granted by a democratic community.

But I'll go further: There is no "Creator" in the sense of a god who gave us rights. You pretend to be so empirical when it comes to 9/11. Where is your evidence that god gave us rights? So just when exactly did God get off his golden chair in the clouds, come down to earth and sign the Bill of Rights? That's just a huge fairy tale, and it explains a lot about your resolute refusal to look at real evidence regarding 9/11, as opposed to the "faith based" views of the "official conspiracy theory apologists." In other words, your religious faith is a great insight into the positions you have taken on this board: despite the evidence, you have faith in god, faith in George W. Bush and faith in the 9/11 Commission.

Well, I beg to differ. I'm part of the reality based community.

[LARED]

17. You are certainly entitled to your opinion

that it's a false dichotomy. No where has anyone stated this quote represents some absolute dogma or truth, it's an opinion, a view that is held. You hold a different view, that perfectly OK with me, and have no hostility to you for holding it. (You can barely contain your hostility for people of faith).

BTW, if it's a false dichotomy as you claim then there must be some other alternative. The example you gave implies at least that those people of faith that believe rights are endowed by the state ( democratic or other forms of state) do not believe those rights are endowed by a creator. So it is still an either or position. Or have I misunderstood your point?

While I'm on the subject of false dichotomies, you presented a whopper. ie I don't view the evidence as you do, so I have faith in god, faith in George W. Bush and faith in the 9/11 Commission.

Hostility is never good for clear thinking.

[HamdenRice]

19. If you are a theocrat you are predisposed to arguing from authority ...

not reason. In other words, the religious mindset is that truth comes from "authority", eg the Bible and the dictates of the church. There is absolutely no evidence for the whoppers in the bible -- such as that the first people were Adam and Eve, rather than a pack of hominids. But a person of faith believes it because he was told to do so. That is faith based on authority, in philosophical terms.

Belief based on reason is based either on deductive reasoning from postulates to theorems or is based on inductive reasoning based on the examination of data and the drawing of conclusions from patterns in the data.

A person who believes in the unbelievable -- that an invisible man sitting on a chair in the clouds -- gave us our constitutional rights can only believe such a whopper on authority. And a person who believes such things also is likely to have a mindset that is based on appeals to authority rather than reason.

That kind of thinking would lead to such ideas as: The 9/11 Commission must be right because they told us to believe them; or GW Bush could not have been involved in such a thing because he tells us he is a man of god.

[LARED]

22. Ok, I largely agree with what you are say, but

What does it have to do with me and what does it have to do with whether the WTC was destroyed by controlled demolition.

[mirandapriestly]

26. I know , can you believe it? It's really scary. nt

[LARED]

30. BOOO!!!

:scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared:

[greyl]

3. No oops at all.

I'm glad you scanned the whole page.
What do you think is the lesson here?

[JackRiddler]

4. Well, one of two I guess.

With me logic cap firmly on, of course:

1) Either you didn't read all of what you posted and have to cover your ass now with the lie that you did, so you're an idiot and a liar.

or

2) You did read it and you think it has some parallel to how your antagonists on this board do things, though that hardly follows; and you didn't realize in the process that the way you were presenting it would end up with you punking yourself. So you're merely an idiot with unwarranted condescending tendencies.

I try to think the best of people, so I'll bet on 2.

[greyl]

6. Pat yourself on the back for actually reading it,

but not for apprehending the point which I didn't spell out. Subtract several credits for the giddy ad hominem and personal smear campaign which serve to prove my point.

[JackRiddler]

7. 2 it is then

With no particular upper limit to the condescension.

[greyl]

8. Condescension? Where?

Here? : "So you're merely an idiot with unwarranted condescending tendencies."

Don't forget that you approved the part of the OP article that listed logical fallacies
(Personal Ridicule being one of them)

Am I to believe that you have a more subtle point than attacking me?

[JackRiddler]

11. Now now

I'm not condescending so much as insulting outright.

Putting up this article and pretending the gesture is a riddle and being coy about your own highly significant intent without explaining it and mocking others for not getting the joke supposedly hidden somewhere deep in your cranial recesses ... that's (unwarranted) condescendion.

[greyl]

23. It wasn't a riddle, jack.

I haven't mocked anyone for "not getting the joke", because it's not a joke.
Would you like some sugar with your ego, jackriddler?

[MrSammo1]

12. Two thumbs!!!!!

Way up!!!





===============================================================
There are two opposite principles;
(a) Seeing is believing – the scientific principle.
(b) Believing is seeing – the jackass/sheeple/myth mind principle.
===============================================================

[HamdenRice]

10. Jack - you have unlocked the mystery of greyl and Lared ...and

and it is much stranger than we could have imagined. If you look at my above post about Lared's tag line, you will see that basically he is a theocrat.

Now you show that greyl is a creationist.

So these two "debunkers" are actually both fundamentalist Christians -- yet they pose as the "logical" "scientific" debunkers. Strange indeed.

By contrast, we are merely members of the "reality based community".

[LARED]

14. You give yourself waaay to much credit

You're no Sherlock Holmes and I'm no Theocrat.

[HamdenRice]

16. If you believe that god gives rights and not the democratic

community that constitutes the republic, if you believe the right to govern comes from god rather than from the people, then by political science definition you are indeed a theocrat.

[LARED]

18. Well, I disagree with your definition, but you can rest easy

now as based on the one you provided, I'm not a theocrat.

[HamdenRice]

20. Your tag line suggests otherwise

Either you believe in the idea represented in your tag line and you are a theocrat; or you don't believe in your tag line.

But the basic political science definitions of state systems are: If sovereignty resides in the people, then the state is a republic. If sovereignty resides and legitimacy derive from a ruling family, then the state is a monarchy. And if sovereignty and legitimacy derive from god or belief in god, then the state is a theocracy.

The tag line says that rights come from god, not the people. That is theocratic.

Sorry, but if you believe your tag line, that's what you are.

[LARED]

21. Another false dichotomy

Either you believe in the idea represented in your tag line and you are a Theocrat; or you don't believe in your tag line.

Believing a Creator endows rights does not make you a Theocrat any more than believing the state endows rights makes you an Atheist. Believing God endows rights does not determine if sovereignty and legitimacy of a government is derived from God. The sovereignty and legitimacy of a government must come from the people. People whose basic rights exist with or without the presence of a State. People who believe those right are endowed from a Creator can choose any form of government they like in their efforts to protect those rights from the State. Sort of like the people that founded this county, who apparently you believe are Theocrats

[Make7]

24. Theocrats, one and all.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,..."

Signed by:
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Franklin
John Adams
John Hancock
Josiah Bartlett
William Whipple
Matthew Thornton
Samuel Adams
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry
Stephen Hopkins
William Ellery
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott
William Floyd
Philip Livingston
Francis Lewis
Lewis Morris
Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
Francis Hopkinson
John Hart
Abraham Clark
Robert Morris
Benjamin Rush
John Morton
George Clymer
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
George Ross
Caesar Rodney
George Read
Thomas McKean
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton
William Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn
Edward Rutledge
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton
Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton

[HamdenRice]

25. Yes and they also believed that disease was caused by vapors

and that slavery was justified by the bible.

Now, in the year 2006, I think it is more logical to believe that the big guy did not get off his golden chair up in the clouds and come down to earth to sign the bill of rights.

In fact, there is no guy sitting in a golden chair in the clouds directing the fates of men.

On edit: I WOULD agree to the notion that our civil and political rights were bestowed by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, because that is a much more logical religion.

[MrSammo1]

28. were bestowed by the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Amen to that brother!

[Make7]

29. in the clouds

Posted by HamdenRice:

Now, in the year 2006, I think it is more logical to believe that the big guy did not get off his golden chair up in the clouds and come down to earth to sign the bill of rights.

No one has said that he did.

In the excerpt of the Declaration of Independence that I posted, it is perfectly clear what was written. "All men...are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..." And to secure those rights, governments are formed by men with their powers derived from the governed. This does not mean God is running the government, or has put his stamp of approval on it, or has "come down to earth to sign the bill of rights."

It means two things:

1. The men who signed the Declaration of Independence endorsed the belief that rights are endowed by the Creator.
   
2. They believed rights are protected by the institution of government that derives its powers from the consent of the governed.

Using your definitions does that make them theocrats, or republicans? Or both?

- Make7

[HamdenRice]

31. It makes them deists

The Declaration, a political document intended to rally support for the cause of independence and to justify to the world rebellion against the crown, does appeal to a religious justification for its position.

Some of the leading founders were deists. That is, the did not believe in the truth of particular scriptures and church institutions, but believed that God was revealed through the designs he left in nature and human institutions. Humans, they thought, could understand that design through reason.

This set of beliefs was most strongly reflected in their views of the law. The common law came to right decisions through reason, and the overall structure of the common law reflected god's design for beneficient human, social and political relationships. This was what they meant when they said that the common law is "natural law" -- law that reflected god's design in nature. The crown and parliament had violated the design of natural law by enacting unreasonable laws. So they were rebelling to re-establish the common law and natural law, including civil and political rights, which reflected god's design.

When it came time to actually constitute a government and dilineate rights, they completely eliminated the deist justification for rights. God or even "creator" is not mentioned once in the Constitution, and that was done on purpose. So even those old Deists knew that when it came down to drafting the state's constitutive document -- the Constitution -- god would have nothing to do with the justification for rights. The Constitution begins with the words, "we the people..."

Fast forward 200+ years. The notion that rights are evidence of god's design for human, social and political relations is not accepted in any law school or political science department in the country except for those staffed by right wing Christian fundamentalists, who have superimposed a strict scripturalist reading of the bible over the rhetoric of natural law. It was not even accepted by the drafters of the Constitution.

Natural law and inherent rights thinking is now justified in secular politics and law as being based in our morew advanced understanding of "nature", which is to say, in the sciences -- social science, history, economics, political science, game theory, and so on.

The founding fathers' views in the Declaration are today quaint and colorful, but hardly a justification that anyone, who has accepted the advances of science over the last 200 years, would accept.

[Make7]

32. Perhaps I can refresh your memory.

Posted by HamdenRice:

The tag line says that rights come from god, not the people. That is theocratic.

Post #20

From the Declaration of Independence: "...all men ... are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..." - Based on what you have previously stated, "that is theocratic."

Posted by HamdenRice:

...the basic political science definitions of state systems are: If sovereignty resides in the people, then the state is a republic. If sovereignty resides and legitimacy derive from a ruling family, then the state is a monarchy. And if sovereignty and legitimacy derive from god or belief in god, then the state is a theocracy.

Post #20

Again from the Declaration of Independence: "...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..." According to your definitions, that would make their idea of government a Republic, not a theocracy.

So the men who signed the Declaration were basically theocrats that believed in a Republican form of government. Or now I guess they are merely Deists.

In light of your latest installment, does that mean that LARED is now a Deist and not a theocrat?

- Make7

[HamdenRice]

33. Please try to carefully re-read the posts

To put it succinctly, to say that our rights are an endowment from god in 1776 makes you a cutting edge thinker and deist; to say the same thing in 2006 -- after the Constitution based rights solely on the will of the people, after mid 19th century "historical jesus" theology demystified the christian bible, after the rise of social science as the justification for common law, after scientific advances of the last 200 years -- makes you a theocrat, and puts you in the company solely of christian fundamentalist natural law crazies, and characterizes you as possibly simply stupid.

Recall that the OP in this thread is based on Christian fundamentalist "creation science."

[Make7]

34. I think you are purposefully combining two separate issues...

... in order to improperly label someone as something they are not.

The issues are: the belief of the source of one's rights, and how those rights are legally protected (or violated) through institutions.

One can believe in a Republican form of government to protect one's rights whether one believes those rights are endowed by some Creator or not.

A theocracy is a government whose authority to rule is claimed to be based on some religious belief. Simply believing in a Supreme Being as a giver of life and as a endower of the rights inherent with that life does not mean that someone automatically accepts as fact that the basis for the man made institution of government to secure those rights rests upon that religious belief. People can agree to form organizations to protect basic rights while still disagreeing where those rights are ultimately derived.

The source of an individual's rights has been debated for thousands of years, and is likely to be debated for many more. In my opinion, to assert that the Constitution based rights solely on the will of the people is a fundamental misunderstanding of what rights actually are.

- Make7

[LARED]

35. Didn't you get the memo

The debate is over, God is dead, individual rights are solely endowed and provided for at the whim of the state and to imagine otherwise puts you in the company solely of christian fundamentalist natural law crazies, and characterizes you as possibly simply stupid.

According to you know who


Sorry to break the news to you. :)

[Make7]

37. I usually immediately shred the memos that imply that I am stupid.

They have a negative impact on my self-esteem.

Thanks a lot for reminding me.

:) Make7

[HamdenRice]

38. LOL! I thought you were defending Lared deism ....

rather than talking about yourself. LOL!

[Make7]

39. Funny, I thought you might actually attempt to defend your position. n/t

[greyl]

40. Thanks for keeping the topic fresh! :) nt

[LARED]

36. You might want to re-read what others have said

The language of the Bill of Rights was carefully parsed by the writers. Yes, some of them were Deists, some where not, but that is besides the point. None of the Amendments declares, endows, or creates a right. They are written as an enumeration of existing rights and provides protection of those rights from the federal government.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The Congress cannot legally prohibit free speech, or religion, or the right to assemble or petition. No where does it grant any of these rights; it only protects them.


The point of this is that the Constitution does not base rights solely on the will of the people, it protects existing rights from the Federal government.

If you want to believe the state does endow rights you will not find it in the Constitution. If you do not believe a Creator endows inherent right that fine as well. So where do you believe you get your rights? It almost sounds like you believe science endows your rights.

[HamdenRice]

42. If our rights come from a "Creator" ...

which one is it? Was it a capricious trickster of the early Old Testament, Yaweh? Or was it the god of the New Testament? Or did Allah endow us with our rights? Or was it the ferocious Hindu goddess Kali? Or maybe it was the god of the Batswana people, Modimo? Please explain which god has granted me the right to be secure against illegal search and seizure that appears in the Fourth Amendment?

Assuming you mean that it was a god who is some approximation of the god of the western Christian tradition, who is all powerful and a supreme, omniscient and omnipotent god, why did he grant rights to the people of the US, but not to the people of North Korea? For that matter, why would the god who makes the galaxies spin care so much about the trivial differences among people so as to give rights to the South Koreans, but not to the North Koreans? Does the god who makes the universe expand really care that much about the 38th parallel? Why has he given economic, social and cultural rights to the South Africans, but not to Americans, and why has he granted civil rights to South Africans only after 1994? The god who grants rights must be capricious indeed.

Or has he granted rights to the North Koreans, but they cannot enforce them because god is less powerful than the guy with the pompadour, Kim Jong Il? Hmmm ... that seems to contradict the omnipotence thingy.

A different approach would be to take the "positivist law" approach. People have rights because their rights are written into laws that courts and states and other institutions of society enforce. No magic, secret unseen grantors of rights in this paradigm.

But if you believe in such magical processes as god or Kali or Modimo granting us our rights, then you are predisposed to believe in other forms of magical thinking and fairy tails, such as the 9/11 Commission's magical simultaneous pervasive governmental incompetence theory.

[LARED]

43. Are you suggesting that

North Koreans, and folks in similar situations lack the same inherent rights that people in free country's enjoy?

[MrSammo1]

27. "that all men are created equal"

a curious thing for slave owners to say!

[rman]

41. The main fallacy used by 9-11 CT debunkers

is in attacking the CTs rather then defending the Official Story by providing evidence for it.

This is much the same tactic followed by ID-ers in their attempts to discredit the theory of evolution.

[Make7]

44. de·bunk

Main Entry: de·bunk
Pronunciation: (")dE-'b&k
Function: transitive verb
: to expose the sham or falseness of <debunk a legend>
- de·bunk·er noun

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/debunking

- Make7