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

On 7/31/06, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> *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?
>

I don't think that's the same thing at all.

One can start with a scientific theory and then refine it as more knowledge
comes in. E.g. Newton's second law becoming subject to relativistic
correction clearly isn't an arbitrary adjustment. Perhaps the equivalent "No
true .." to this would be if you said "No experiment measuring an
accelerating body violates F=MA". Then you get measurements that show the
Relativistic correction. "Ah, you say, no TRUE experiment violates F=MA,
therefore yours can't be a proper experiment".

Yes I've seen a page by a Christian on the "The No True Scotsman Fallacy
Fallacy" and a rejoinder by an atheist called "The No True Scotsman Fallacy
Fallacy Fallacy" etc.

Iain Strachan (despite the name, not in any way a "true" Scotsman, in fact
an Englishman who likes sugar on his porridge!)

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 10:08:02 2006