long winded fool

This implies that all who are anti-evolution are fools, liars, or lunatics, does it not? This is a patently untrue conclusion and therefore an unsound (but valid) argument.

"Anyone who believes 2+2=5 is a fool.
Joe believes 2+2=5
Therefore Joe is a fool."

Joe is a fool
Joe says 2+2=5.
Therefore 2+2=5 is foolish."

These are both valid and unsound (fallacious) arguments.

The argument here is:
Creationists do not use science.
Creationists sole agenda is to interpret all evidence so as to fit the little universe described in Genesis, no matter how poorly the evidence fits.
Therefore there are no creation scientists.

This argument has two unproven premises, a vague premise, and, I would argue, two false premises. No current creationist uses science? No creationist has ever used science? No creationist will ever use science? Not all creationists’ sole agendas are to interpret all evidence to coincide with Genesis, just as not all evolutionists’ sole agendas are to refute the book of Genesis. Both of these could be incidental. The burden of proof is on you to show that all creationists do not use science and that you are aware of all creationists' agendas. Since you are unaware of every creationist's agenda, your argument is unsound.

Since this conclusion makes an unsound premise, it is a false conclusion. "If evolution is true, then creationists are either lying or mistaken," is a true conclusion, assuming no creationists accept evolution. "Because evolution is true, creationists are either liars or fools," requires proof that evolution is true and that those who don't believe it are liars or fools. You are naive if you think that evolutionists are incapable of logical fallacies when trying to prove that the theory of evolution is true. They prove evolution with an unsound argument and then use the proof to show that creationists are wrong. If you reread this thread, you will see where I got all of my examples of these previously stated fallacies. And as I stated, most of these arguments rest on assumed premises, however if they are not stated, someone unfamiliar with them will only see the fallacious argument. Just because evolutionists accept the assumed connotation of the argument doesn't mean creationists do. I don't want to get into a huge debate over "quote mining" and what you said as opposed to what you "meant." That is the whole point of my posts. I know what you mean but others might not, so I assert that fallacious arguments are harmful to the theory of evolution, and some evolutionists DO unwittingly use them.

Doubting Didymus

If you are interested, I reccomend procuring one of the many written guides to critical reasoning and logic that are available. A search on amazon.com for 'critical reasoning' produces a variety of such texts.

You have made a few more mistakes that I feel I should point out.

Sub conclusions can be safely used whenever the supporting argument is both valid and sound, no matter what the conclusion consists of. It doesn't matter if a conclusion is an insult, provided thatit is independantly supported in a valid, sound argument. It does not follow that they must be false, just because they would constitute an ad hominem if used as a premise.

Here, you are attempting to attack a conclusion independantly of the argument. That is not permissable in logic; the conclusion is always true if the premises are true and the argument is valid. This means that you must attack premises or structure, and not the conclusion itself.

There is no rule against using insults as premises. You must remember that ad hominem is NOT a property of the premise or a conclusion, but of the STRUCTURE of the argument. It is when the conclusion relies entirely on a personal attack that an ad hom fallacy is comitted, not simply when premises are rude.

So, you are simply wrong when you say that insulting premises are a priori false.

Your list of fallacious arguments is mostly correct, but as Jobar has pointed out: no one has used them.

I did not do so because my first conclusion was wrong, only because it is more simple to say mistaken than to list all the forms in which they may be mistaken. My conclusion could just as easily be: "therefore all creationists are EITHER liars, ignoramuses, insane persons, or self deluded" (you may add any other forms of being mistaken in order to prevent a false dilemma. I can not think of any.)

I may add a premise: "Most creationists are not lying, insane or self deluded" and safely reach the conclusion: "most creationists are ignorant". Its not flattering obviously, but I'm afraid it logically follows.

Wrong. I say yet again: unless the conclusion relies entirely on an irrelevant personal attack, ad hominem can not exist. "Abusive opponents warrant abusive arguments" is just a statement.

Only fallacies? We don't have the 'monopoly' on unsoundness either. My point is that, while evolutionists can and do make logical mistakes in this debate, creationists do not have a single solitary valid and sound argument to their name. All creationist arguments ever made have been illogical (either invalid or unsound). This makes them targets of ridicule, just as politicians in the public eye are often ridiculed for displaying idiocy. To expect all people on the planet to be polite to each other all of the time is unreasonable. Some of us will always ridicule the ridiculous. Its not illogical, just impolite.

Now, your latest post:

Now if only saying it could make it so. Unfortunately you must demonstrate that this conclusion is false, rather than simply claiming it.

"Anyone who believes 2+2=5 is a fool.
Joe believes 2+2=5
Therefore Joe is a fool."

Whats the problem? the on;ly thing I can see might be a false dilemma: rather than foolish, lying, or loony, joe may be ignorant of mathemetics. A slight alteration to the first premise: "Anyone who believes 2+2=5 is ignorant, lying, a fool, or is insane", and I believe the false dilemma evaporates. The argument is now both valid and sound.

This one:
Joe is a fool
Joe says 2+2=5.
Therefore 2+2=5 is foolish.

Is not relevant to any argument that has been made here. To put it bluntly, you have pulled it out of thin air. (As it happens, the problem is that the argument is circular (begging the question): the subconclusion "joe is a fool" relies on the premise in the first argument: '2+2=5 is foolish', which echoes the conclusion it is trying to prove. Luckily, no-one has made any such argument as this)

Next, you mischaracterise jobars argument thus:

You have this one wrong, more accurately:
P1: Creationists sole agenda is to interpret all evidence so as to fit the little universe described in Genesis, no matter how poorly the evidence fits.
P2: This attitude is not scientific
C: .: creationists are not scientific

Validity is confirmed like so: Creationists shall be X. Attitude described above represented by q, the property of being scientific shall be p.

All X = q
All q = not p
.: All X = not p

Valid as a modus ponens, my freind. Your only options are to find problem with the premises, by demonstrating that creationists do not display said attitude, or that said attitude IS, in fact, a scientific one. You have claimed that jobar does not support is premises, which is true. If you doubt that creationists display this attitude, give the word, and I will demonstrate it to be true by quoting several mission statements from major creationist organisations. If you doubt that the attitude described is unscientific, I will fill you in on the philosophy of science, and explain to you why it is contradicted by the creationist attitude. However, I do not believe that you do doubt either of these things. I think you are clutching at straws.

Again you make this assertion. This is not any rule of logic I have ever encountered. Conclusions are used based only on its supporting argumentation, never on its merit if stood alone. By the way, any conclusion that is supported by a valid and sound argument is a true conclusion, and would therefore make a very very good premise indeed.

I hope you are speaking generally. Or are you claiming that someone here has used a fallacious argument? If the latter, please point me toward it, as I would be most interested.

Lastly, I assert again that you are not concerned with our logic, but with our use of the occasional insult. It would do you good to admit this. Stop fighting with spectres and come out and say it: you would prefer us to be more polite to creationists.

long winded fool

I purposely mischaracterized Jobar's argument as I did all the others, because I am attempting to argue from a creationist viewpoint that doesn't accept the unstated premises that you and I do. Adding premises later in the argument does erase the fallacies as I have already mentioned, however not stating necessary premises at the outset can leave an otherwise sound argument illogical and open to ridicule by those who don't accept the axioms that evolutionists accept. The danger of this is that these arguments are in such cases perpetuating creationism and discrediting evolution.

Irrelevant and insulting premises make all arguments about the soundness of another's conclusions a priori ad hominem. Therefore, all such arguments which contain insults are ad hominen unless they are not premises and just superfluous irrelevant statements, in which case they wouldn't be a part of the argument. In addition, all true conclusions can be used as relevant premises.

"Everyone who believes 2+2=5 is a fool.
Joe believes 2+2=5
Therefore Joe is a fool."

Not sound. The conclusion is false, even though it is supported validly by premises. Therefore, the nature of the conclusion proves that at least one of the premises is false as long as the argument is valid. (In this case premise 1 is arbitrary and unprovable.) You can't reach an unprovable conclusion with true premises any more than you can reach a false conclusion with true premises. This is not circular reasoning because the nature of the conclusion is what is in question, not the conclusion itself. Examining its ability to be used as a valid premise is different than using it as a premise in the same argument.

"All creationists are fools," is always an irrelevant and unprovable conclusion regardless of the premises in the commonly accepted understanding of a creationist, just as "Joe is a fool," is an irrelevant and unprovable conclusion regardless of the premises. An unprovable (not unproven) thing can logically be considered false. Since all conclusions are logically also premises at some point, both of these premises would always be false premises. "Joe is a fool, therefore..." is always at least an ad hominem argument, as is "Creationists are fools, therefore..." You say that evolutionists would never use this kind of argument. Whether I agree doesn't matter. I say that the conclusion that all creationists are fools is irrelevant as it is completely unprovable (or false) and impotent in any logical argument. Therefore insults like this are false conclusions. Furthermore, false conclusions tend to harm one's credibility more than help it.

Again, you have restated your conclusion so that it is no longer false by definition. You have cleaned up your act and I can no longer refute you. However, "abusive opponents warrant abusive arguments" is an ad hominem argument. "Because opponents are abusive, they can be abused." This is a tu quoque fallacy. It is a form of ad hominem argument actually used in this way more often by atheists and evolutionists, I find. (Since theists and creationists generally use personal attacks first.)

My "Joe" arguments are relevant because they show why the conclusion that Joe is a fool is a false conclusion. A statement can't be both a true conclusion in one argument and a false premise in another. It is not a true conclusion because it will always be a false/unprovable premise. It can never be used. How do you soundly deduce something that can never be a valid premise? You say that a conclusion supported by a valid and sound argument would make a very good premise. If the conclusion "Creationists are fools" can be supported by a valid and sound argument, try to use it as a premise in another valid and sound argument. (Keep in mind that, while I know this is not YOUR non-insulting conclusion, we are talking about MY insulting conclusion that creationists are fools. Can this be supported by a valid and sound argument? If so, can this be a premise in a valid and sound argument? Logically the two are mutually inclusive, therefore if not B, then not A, and vice versa.)

Again, YES I think we should be polite to creationists. All of this logic and devil's advocate rhetoric is my reason why. Nothing constructive can come from impoliteness. I think this because insults (or personal attacks) discredit evolution to reasoning people, being untrue (or unprovable) and therefore not rational. (Rational being defined as agreeable to reason; not absurd.) You are of course welcome to your opinions, I just warn that abusive personal opinions are not logical arguments and can damage one's reputation and even discredit him or her in the eyes of friends and foes alike. Even minor discrediting ought to be avoided by both evolutionists and creationists.

Doubting Didymus

Two quick notes:

I have not 'cleaned up my act', I have merely formalised my logic. My conclusions are still 'all creationists are mistaken, and also 'most creationists are ignoramuses'. I reiterate: you clearly can not find any logical problems with calling creationists ignoramuses. I assert that your problem with the posters here is not of logic, but of etiquette.

Secondly, response in kind is not a tu quoque. tu quoque is when a premise is refuted based on the observation that it contradicts other aspects of the author. For example, if a man in a leather jacket told you that vegetarianism is good, and you refuted him based on the fact that that attitude contradicts his fashion choices, that is a tu quoque.

Jobar

lwf, I urge you to go back in our archives several months, and look for threads where we interact with creationists. I won't say that any less-than-civil conduct is invariably started by those on the creationist side; we make no claim to perfect manners. However, you *will* find that the very large majority of derogatory posts are from the creationist side. We know that we both outnumber creationists here, and have vastly better logical arguments than they do; I've told you again and again that we do not need to openly insult them.

You say:
YES I think we should be polite to creationists. All of this logic and devil's advocate rhetoric is my reason why. Nothing constructive can come from impoliteness. I think this because insults (or personal attacks) discredit evolution to reasoning people, being untrue (or unprovable) and therefore not rational.

So, do you plan to go to any creationist sites and rag them for being impolite to evolutionists? They are far more in need of lessons in proper ettiquette than we are. And reasoning people will be quite able to distinguish expressions of personal opinion from logical argument.

*Unreasoning* people, however, will not. And (IMO of course) creationists count far too many unreasoning (and uncivil and unintelligent!) people amongst their ranks.

long winded fool

You're right. You don't need to insult them. And most creationists need this advice far worse than most evolutionists. Since I am an evolutionist, it is in my best interest to correct the evolutionists. While I'll correct any creationist I talk to who makes logical mistakes or assumes false propositions, I have no particular desire to go find some. Instead of trying to argue with them by reductio absurdum, I feel that evolution stands alone without the necessity of showing creationists all their logical faults. As long as evolutionists argue logically, (and I agree that they do for the most part) and they understand that abusive arguments are not logically countered with abusive arguments, creationists can argue however they want without damaging the reputation of evolutionists. It's the evolutionists alone that who I see are capable of damaging the reputation of the theory of evolution.

Reasoning people can tell the difference between opinions and arguments. However, if an opinion is false "Creationists are fools," then the holder of the opinion's arguments will be viewed with suspicion, if they are viewed at all. (I tend not to view the arguments of impolite people who state false conclusions under the assumption that, if they were logical, they wouldn't come to false conclusions. I figure that, in the long run, the time I save myself outweighs the slim chance that one of them may have a logical argument I haven't seen before.)

Jobar

... Okay. I can agree with all that. With the caveat that we evolutionists, who are human beings with the normal human emotions, will sometimes express negative opinions about creationists- still it is always best to clearly indicate that it is an opinion and not an argument.

lwf, believe it or not, we have expressed some concern that few creationists come here any more. See the thread about it, 'Creationists don't come here to play any more' (approximately). We are in real danger of becoming the 'Evolution' forum instead of the 'Evolution/Creationism' forum. I think it has much more to do with our overpowering logical arguments than with our bad manners, but I do intend to try to avoid gratuitous insults. And I have no doubt that the other mods will also.

Is that the result you wished to achieve from all this?

Doubting Didymus

While I'll miss it, I find that discussions between people with some idea of the subject are much more fruitfull. Its not as if we all agree. I forsee some enjoyable debates. As for insults, I maintain that creationists are mostly ignoramuses and are, to the man, incapable of scientific research in the feild of evoluiton/creation. If this offends, then it is not my problem.

long winded fool

My only goal was to show that insults do more harm than good to both sides of the insult.

Doubting Didymus

Then you should have made that clear from the start. I apologise for any over the top insults, but I can rationally defend the position that creationists are mostly ignoramuses, so I will stick by it. Attempting to attack our logic was unneccesary, right?