Ok - here are three examples of complex arguments. The first one (if you follow the link) actually has the answer at the bottom of the page and it happens to be a little different from what we have gone over in class (hint: it may have more than one conclusion!) I followed the professor's guidelines on how to find complex arguments, surfing a few white-supremacist web-sites...waste of time (plus I feel like my retinas are burning to cleanse themselves from the hate I read) - no clear stated premises - barely any of them have truth value to them...so I decided to poke fun at evolution instead! :) So, print them out, give them a try, and we'll go over them tomorrow at the Study Group to see if we're on the same page.
The theory of evolution is not acceptable. It is just a hypothesis that has very little supporting evidence. It contradicts commonsense, the Bible, and the 2nd Law of thermodynamics. It is impossible to believe that something so complex as the eye can come about through random processes. That leaves creationism as the only viable theory of the origin of life. This of course means that God exists. It also means that many biologists are just dead wrong.
(Borrowed from: http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/arg/complex.php)
While a good deal has been written about the potential threat of hate online that targets youth, this is often framed around the issue of “recruiting” young people to join white supremacist groups. To me, this is an unlikely outcome and a misguided concern. The much more likely, and pernicious, threat is an epistemological one. That is, the epistemological threat of cloaked websites is the ability to change how we know what we say we know about issues that have been politically hard won, such as civil rights for African Americans. Because search engines have replaced libraries for young people (and, they have), young people find information about race, civil rights, and white supremacy online. Teaching critical digital media literacy has to be combined with teaching critical thinking about race and racism.
(Jessie Daniels: The Epistemology of White Supremacy 11.17.06)
There are 2 or 3 types of evolution. The first would be "guided" from above. Certainly this is possible, and we have many examples in the world (cars have "evolved" tremendously during the 20th Century, with the guiding hand of engineers and designers). Many believers ascribe to such theories, but they still compromise the literal Genesis record. Secondly, there is what is termed: "micro-evolution", which I prefer to call: "genetic remnant variation". This refers to changes made within a biological "kind", i.e. mutations and other changes related to natural selection and environmental adaptations. Let's say that two calves are born and the one with longer fur survives the harsh winter allowing it to breed the next Spring, thus perpetuating longer fur in the herd. Sure, this is scientific. Within the DNA coding God has placed varying factors; thank the Maker for his forethought in allowing for automatic adaptability! But the third type (related to the first, but with no God "guiding" the outcome), as best as I understand, is unbiblical and also unscientific. There are no fossils which prove any transitional life forms have ever come about through "natural selection" or otherwise. The third type of evolution is what is believed and preached to our children in the public schools today, but to the best of my understanding there is no scientific evidence to support its tenets.
("A Defense of Creationism" by Paul Abramson)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I hope someone sees this. I'm having problems figuring out how to post a blog. ugh.
Here's my comment:
With the logical fallacies what’s the difference between Division and Composition?
On the sheet it says that Composition is a “fallacy committed when on reasons mistakenly from the attribute of a part to the attributes of the whole or when one reasons mistakenly from the attributes of an individual member or some collection to the attributes of the totality of that collection.”
And then the sheet says that Division is a “fallacy committed when one reasons mistakenly from the attributes of a whole to the attributes of one of its parts or when one reasons mistakenly from the attributes of the totality of the collection to the individual member of the collection.”
Maybe I’m just not reading it correctly but I’m not clearly recognizing the difference between the two.
Also, do we need to know how each fallacy is categorized under Ambiguity, Presumption, and Relevance, or do we just need to focus on identifying each fallacy by itself.
Alex, the description of the division fallacy contains a typo. Good question, though.
Composition argues mistakenly from parts to wholes (or from individual members to entire populations).
Division argues mistakenly from wholes to parts (or from entire populatioins to individual members).
Knowing whether a fallacy falls under the categories of ambiguity, presumption, or relevance, can help you narrow down to the right fallacy, but it is not required that you know it. You won't be tested on that.
HA HA thanks for proving god exists again.
Post a Comment