Jobar

lwf, do you realize that there are people who actually claim the world is flat? Would you consider it a fair statement to say that all such people are either fools, liars, or lunatics? If you do consider this a fair statement, then you cannot complain when we say the same about creationists- true, there are more of them, and they make more noise than flat earthers, but their ideas are no whit more rational than some loony who says the world rests on the backs of four elephants, which ride on a giant turtle.

It occurs to me that you might understand all this better if I once again state that creationist = anti-evolutionist. (Are you clear on that?)

long winded fool

"All creationist arguments are either mistakes or lies," is not an ad hominem argument. "All creationists are either liars or fools," is. "All people who believe the earth is flat are either liars or fools," is an ad hominem argument. "All people who don't believe in gravity are either liars or fools," is an ad hominem argument. Again, the conclusion doesn't have to necessarily be false for an argument to be ad hominem. Most people (including myself) wouldn't begrudge your use of the last two arguments since there is no real debate about gravity or the general shape of the earth. (Though I would call them ad hominem, if asked.) Since there IS a major debate about evolution and creationism and since there ARE a fair number of people who are either creationist or undecided, I think it is irresponsible for either side to use ad hominem arguments. An intelligent, rational human has no way of distinguishing between creationism and evolution if all he has to go on are ad hominem arguments. If he hears a reasonable creationist argument and an ad hominem evolution argument, he is going to lean towards creationism. The question is whether these arguments are destructive because they show lack of integrity on the part of the arguer, or constructive because we live in a democracy of people who aren't, for the most part, intelligent or rational, and these arguments tend sway the public opinion in their favor. I obviously believe the former, but am open to debate.

lpetrich

Grow up.

Stop whining. There is a standard rule that the burden of proof is on the positive. LWF, imagine that you were arguing with someone who claims that Jesus Christ is a myth -- and whose main "argument" is challenging you to prove that JC had existed. Would you like that? And why or why not?

LWF, if you continue to make claims and whine about how terrible it is that you have to support your claims, everybody else will think that you are nothing but a crybaby. And you wouldn't want that, O LWF, would you?

Yawn. What is that supposed to prove? And that's about abiogenesis, not evolution.

long winded fool

Since my argument is not that creation is true and evolution is false, I'll assume you're refering to my argument that evolutionists make mistakes. (since that is what you quoted, right?) So then do you fall into the category of those who believe evolutionists are infallible? If not then you agree that evolutionists can make mistakes. If so, then why would you seek proof of this? Only a few here think that my claim that evolution scientists are not perfect is a claim which requires proof in order to consider. It is as embarassing to evolution and science for an evolutionist to invoke the burden of proof to prove that evolutionists are not infallible as it is to use ad hominem arguments to discredit creationists. This is why I grow tired of providing proof for things that are a priori true. This is why I question certain evolutionists who seem to think that they are infallible. They discredit all of evolution in the eyes of the undecided.

Jobar

lwf, we do not state that creationists are either ignorant, liars or fools, as an argument.

We state this as a conclusion due to our experience with creationists, as a result of our many interactions with them, and our long study of their works.

This conclusion is, like all scientific conclusions, falsifiable. All we need to see is one creationist with reasonable and factual arguments, with viable and novel evidence which demonstrates a better-working creationist alternative to evolutionary theory. Until we see one, we are quite justified in doubting any exist.

If you want to put it that way, that statement is also our opinion of creationists, too. A very thoroughly researched and strongly held opinion it is!

I repeat. We do not use ad hominem arguments against creationists! We don't need to.

long winded fool

I'm certainly not accusing all evolutionists of using ad hominem arguments, but just because you don't doesn't mean others don't, even if they don't need to. It's interesting that you single out the conclusion as being the personal attack and say that this is why it's not an ad hominem argument. I see now that several others were trying to get this point across. Logically, all conclusions can be used as premises in other arguments. True conclusions make true premises and allow for sound arguments. False conclusions make false premises and always result in unsound arguments. If these conclusions of yours were used as premises, they would always make the argument an ad hominem fallacy, regardless of the conclusion, and therefore unsound. Does this make your conclusions untrue? Or would they just be included in the ad hominem category, as I had assumed?

In either case, conclusions like these can be used as premises by others. Is this the responsibility of the one who makes the conclusions? No, but it is rational to take responsibility for your arguments, premises and conclusions, since it influences other, perhaps younger and more impressionable scientists. If you want your peers to argue responsibly about evolution and not discredit it in the eyes of the undecided and creationist with ad hominem arguments, don't present conclusions that can't be logically used as premises for a sound argument. (I don't think there are very many of these kind of conclusions. I think that these, perhaps "pseudo ad hominem," conclusions might be the only ones?) And if by mistake you do, acknowledge your mistake. After you master this, then you might try to let them know when they are in danger of doing this and hopefully we'll all learn the truth a lot faster.

Doubting Didymus

Luckily I did not make it. Again and again you put words in my mouth. When referring to my argument in future will you please bloody well make use of the short, simplified, formalised logic version that I have graciously supplied you. My argument is not that creationists are idiots therefore they are wrong. I can only assume you failed to read what I actually wrote. Please do so right now. Here is a hint: my argument is 'evolution is true, creationism denies evolution, therefore creationists are mistaken". There is no ad hominem.

Do so. Stop sodding around and do it, already. I never make ad hominem arguments.

Once again, you have failed to read what is written for you. You were challenged, not to find mistakes of any kind, but to find mistakes that persist for any length of time, and is not overturned in favour of more correct versions.

This is a statement that no-one has made. As a matter of fact many, including myself, have specifically denied any hint of fundamental truth in evolution. Stop writing for a moment and do some reading instaead. One last time: evolutionists can and do make mistakes, but they are a world apart from creationist mistakes in that they are critically examined, and honestly overturned.

I challenged that there are no mistakes in evolution THAT ARE NOT CRITICALLY EXAMINED AND HONESTLY OVERTURNED IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF SCIENTIFIC PROCEEDINGS.

Stop. Read that scentence again. Note please that there is not only the original statement: 'there are no mistakes in evolution', but also a second part, a disclaimer. The scentence must be read the whole way through to obtain the meaning I intend to impart.

Please do not attempt to psychoanalyse me. You have made a simple mistake, which is the suggestion that I have demanded proof for an axiom. I have not done so. To establish this, you will have to read what I actually demanded.

No, you are wrong. That is not an ad hominem argument at all. You have fallen into a common trap that catches many, which is the idea that any argument containing an insult is an ad hominem fallacy. That is not the case. An ad hominem argument is only applicable when a conclusion relies on attacking the author for its support. Your example is not even an argument, but a premise. the ad hominem form would be:

Jhon the anti-gravitationist denies gravity.
Jhon the anti-gravitationist is a lying idiot.
Therefore, the theory of gravity is right.

The conclusion relies on an attack on the character of another, and is therefore an ad hominem. An inverted form:

The theory of gravity is right
Jhon the anti-gravitationist denies this fact.
Therefore, Jhon the anti-gravitationist is a lying idiot.

... is NOT an ad hominem. The conclusion is supported by premises that do not attack the man. What it IS is a false dilemma, excluding the possibility that jhon is clever and honest, but ignorant or otherwise mistaken. My own argument recognises this by using 'is mistaken' and not 'is lying or stupid'.

I apologise. However, what I have done is an insult borne of exasperation and NOT an example of irrational behaviour. My actual argument is both valid and sound (in my opinion, obviously). You would do well to focus on it, and not on me, lest you fall prey to ad hominem fallacies.

I did suggest earlier that you formalise your logic, but if that is not your style I suppose I must work with what I am given.

Fine.

Incorrect. You misrepresent me. I have specifically denied this in previous posts.

Wrong again. You are imagining motivations on my part that bear no resemblance to reality. I don't even know how you got this idea.

I have never used ad hominem arguments. I HAVE used insults. You would do well to learn the difference.

This does not accurately represent your actual statements. You suggested that creationists are not always lying or mistaken, and also that evolutionists are sometimes guilty of lies, and are also frequently mistaken. These are the statements I challenge.

I ask you only to back up your claims. If you cannot do so, etiquette suggests you retract them.

Doubting Didymus

You are completely wrong. None of your examples are ad hominem arguments. None of them are even arguments.

long winded fool

Point taken. Jobar pointed this out as well. They are conclusions. But they since they are impossible to use as premises in a sound argument, and since all true conclusions can logically be used as premises in a sound argument and no false conclusions can, they must be false conclusions. To put it another way: A false premise always results in an unsound argument. A true premise can result in a sound argument or an unsound argument. Since "all creationists are liars or fools" as a premise always results in an unsound argument, (fallacy) "all creationists are liars or fools" is an untrue proposition. I called them ad hominem because this is the argument that these conclusions imply, even if no such argument is given. Instead of warning you against ad hominem arguments, I should have warned you against false conclusions. (which I initially attempted to do, but since no one understood that they were false I moved on to ad hominem arguments in the hopes that you would see the implied parallel.)

Insults are patently untrue conclusions (my proof of this is that they can never be used as sound premises) and therefore have no place in logical discourse about truth. I also hold that those who use them risk weakening their arguments in the eyes of rational onlookers. However, as Albion (I think) pointed out, they may indeed strengthen their arguments in the eyes of irrational onlookers as many charismatic creationists have shown.

Doubting Didymus, you've wisely restated your conclusion. This is why I no longer try to refute your argument. As for other commonly used arguments: "Since every creationist I have talked to was either ignorant or insincere, I assume all creationists are ignorant or insincere," is an obvious Hasty Generalization fallacy. "Since evolution hasn't been disproved, any who disagree with it are wrong, therefore all creationists are wrong," is also a fallacy. It is an argument from ignorance. "The vast majority of scientists all agree that evolution is the way life works, therefore evolution is true," is a fallacy similar to Appeal to Popularity. "If I were shown evidence proving creationism, I would be a creationist. Since there is no evidence for creationism, I assert that evolution is true," is Denial of the Antecedent. "Since creationists believe in an unscientific theory, they are incapable of scientific research," is a Non Sequitur. If you state that all creationists are liars or fools and tell someone to prove otherwise, you are not only Begging the Question, you are shifting the burden of proof. Saying that abusive opponents warrant abusive arguments is a form of argumentum ad hominem.

All of these were either stated or implied at some point on this thread. I'm not going to name names because I will be here forever trying to read and respond to logical defenses. While I realize that those who made them were probably assuming other unstated premises, this itself is an unwise practice and leaves you wide open for accusations of using fallacious arguments. Your arguments are fallacious until you make your assumptions known, as Doubting Didymus has done. What I'm trying to get across is that creationists don't necessarily have the monopoly on logical fallacies. As an evolutionist, I am critical of any untrue propositions even if they aren't directly used as an argument by the ones who state them. And I am critical when I point out untrue propositions and the burden of proof is shifted to my shoulders and I am asked to prove that the proposition is untrue. So yes, I suppose I do have a problem with abusive evolutionist personalities because I believe abusive evolutionists weaken the credibility of the theory of evolution to the uninformed.

Jobar

. As for other commonly used arguments: "Since every creationist I have talked to was either ignorant or insincere, I assume all creationists are ignorant or insincere," is an obvious Hasty Generalization fallacy. "Since evolution hasn't been disproved, any who disagree with it are wrong, therefore all creationists are wrong," is also a fallacy. It is an argument from ignorance. "The vast majority of scientists all agree that evolution is the way life works, therefore evolution is true," is a fallacy similar to Appeal to Popularity. "If I were shown evidence proving creationism, I would be a creationist. Since there is no evidence for creationism, I assert that evolution is true," is Denial of the Antecedent. "Since creationists believe in an unscientific theory, they are incapable of scientific research," is a Non Sequitur. If you state that all creationists are liars or fools and tell someone to prove otherwise, you are not only Begging the Question, you are shifting the burden of proof. Saying that abusive opponents warrant abusive arguments is a form of argumentum ad hominem.


lwf, I challenge you to show where any of us here have used a single one of those "arguments". You are putting words in our mouths we have never spoken!

I am coming round to DT's point of view concerning you, I think. You have had the errors of fact in your statements pointed out over and over, gently and clearly- and you seem utterly incapable of understanding those errors. To compound your failing, you then commit new enormities, seemingly by taking a list of fallacious arguments and creating statements about evolution with them, statements which I am quite certain have never been made in the course of any argument in this forum.

I'm at the point of deciding you are not just mistaken, but purposely lying.