Re: [asa] True Scotsman fallacy - was Of m....

*The fallacy being that in the face of contrary evidence, you make an
arbitrary adjustment to your original premise.*

I kind of hate the "fallacy" game -- the "fallacy fallacy" if you will.
It's too easy, every time your adversary makes some adjustment or nuances a
point, to cry "fallacy." Who defines why something like this is a "fallacy"
and not a proper refinement of an argument? And, back to the mote and beam,
hasn't evolutionary science done exactly the same thing? Natural selection
doesn't quite do it? Ok, add genetic drift. Abiogensis doesn't do it? Ok,
try panspermia. No real explanation? Ok, assert "time and chance of the
gaps." What's the difference?

On 7/31/06, Iain Strachan <igd.strachan@gmail.com> wrote:
> I changed the title of this thread because I didn't like the "moral high
> ground" implications of the title. Besides which it begs the question
"Who
> is the one with the mote in his eye and who is the one with the beam?"
>
>
>
> On 7/31/06, gordon brown < gbrown@euclid.colorado.edu> wrote:
> > One reason that discussion of mutations of viruses and bacteria doesn't
> > seem to work to convince anyone of macroevolution is that this is the
type
> > of evolution that is already accepted by pretty much everyone. You might

> > make more headway in arguing that microevolution implies macroevolution
if
> > you can point to instances in which these mutations produce a more
complex
> > organism.
>
>
> I think that this is an example of the "True Scotsman Fallacy" that Merv
> mentioned earlier.
>
> It was described by Anthony Flew in terms such as these. A Scotsman reads
> in the newspaper that a horrible crime has been committed by an
Englishman.
> He declares to himself "No Scotsman would have committed such a crime".
> Next day he reads in the newspaper of ab even more heinous crime committed
> by a Scotsman. So he declares "No TRUE Scotsman would have committed such
a
> crime". The fallacy being that in the face of contrary evidence, you make
> an arbitrary adjustment to your original premise. Furthermore that
> arbitrary adjustment is ill-defined; what is a "true" Scotsman?
>
> This is popularly contracted to a slightly different version:
>
> A: No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.
> B: Well my friend Hamish puts sugar on his porridge.
> A: Well, ... no TRUE Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.
>
> It's my view that Vernon has committed this fallacy on two counts.
>
> When I challenged him about evolution producing "good" fruits by
mentioning
> the immune system and what it does to fight off infection, Vernon
responded
> "Ah yes, but that's micro-evolution, not macro-evolution - it's not the
real
> thing". i.e. it's not "True" evolution.
>
> And how do you define "true" evolution - at what point do you say an
> organism is more complex than another one? Suppose you find a single
> mutation that makes an organism slightly more complex than the previous
one
> e.g. a gene is duplicated, the new one mutates and the new protein has a
> novel use. The new organism is arguably more complex as it has more
> functionality. But then you might argue, ah well, that's only SLIGHTLY
more
> complex, but a man is MUCH more complex than an amoeba, so you still
haven't
> described the real thing. And so it goes on, arbitrary adjustments in the
> face of evidence that contradicts your position
>
> Secondly, Vernon committed the true Scotsman paradox when I challenged him
> about apparent "bad fruits" of the Bible, mentioning how Noah's curse on
Ham
> was used to justify the evil of Apartheid. The response was that such
> people can't be proper Christians - obviously no TRUE Christian would
> support Apartheid/fight in the Crusades/torture people as in the Spanish
> Inquisition.
>
> But what is a "true" Christian? Someone who has given his life to Christ,
> accepted the free gift of Salvation through Jesus's death on the Cross.
> "True Christians" still can and do behave unacceptably. All have sinned
and
> fall short of the glory of God. I wouldn't mind betting that in the Dutch
> Reformed Church there were many sincere Christians who'd given their lives
> to Christ and accepted salvation, who still supported Apartheid. Of
course
> they were deluded and hopelessly wrong, but that doesn't mean they weren't
> Christians. It's not for us to judge.
>
> Iain
>
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Jul 31 09:48:32 2006