Results 1 to 10 of 79
Threaded View
-
11-09-2007, 09:21 PM #11
Senior Member
The primary flaw in intelligent design
Another thing that I think complicates these discussions is a difference in the use of terms.
When I speak of Logic, I am speaking of a specific branch of philosophy that codifies how arguments are formed. It is like Mathematics in that it has strict rules. The various forms of fallacy are codified as well. The video in this thread talks about one form of logical fallacy with respect to how it is applies to one argument in the evolution vs creation debate.
But the words "logic" and "logical" are often not used in such a strict way in common usage. So when someone says, "you are not being logical," they often mean, "you are being unreasonable." When I say, "that is a logical fallacy," what I mean is, "your conclusion does not follow from your premise, because it is not formulated as a stricly Logical argument." It does not necessarily mean that the conclusion is not a reasonable thing to assert (although that might be the case too, and I do object to the formulation of the argument), and it is not meant to say, "you are unreasonable."
I think sometimes a video like this wants to have it both ways, or at least fails to clarify the scope of what exactly it is saying. The assertion it makes, that this one particular argument is a logical fallacy, is absolutely correct. But I think maybe it also wants to suggest that intelligent design in general is unreasonable as a belief by saying it is "illogical," without actually saying so.
Proponents of intelligent design sometimes do the same thing. The example that comes to mind is the effort in certain states in the US to get textbooks that teach evolutionary theory stamped with words to the effect of, "Evolution is only a theory, not a fact." In a strict scientific sense of the words "theory" and "fact," that statement is absolutely correct --- evolution is a theory. But the comoon usage of the terms "theory" and "fact" are not the same as the strict scientific usage, so the phrase sounds like it is diminsihing evolutionary theory by suggesting it is an unsubstantiated idea. And I think that is the intent of those who would like to see the phrase on the books. The honest truth in scientific terms is that evolution is a very well founded theory, substantiated by many facts.
There are many other examples of scientific terms that have different meanings in common usage, and examples on both sides of intentional misuse of terms to desparage the other's line of thinking.More of the same: Renger\'s Rantings
Advertisements
Similar Threads
-
The fundamental flaw in religion as I see it
By KevinFinnerty in forum SpiritualityReplies: 27Last Post: 07-28-2007, 02:15 AM -
intelligent design > pure accident
By hazetwostep in forum SpiritualityReplies: 46Last Post: 12-30-2006, 08:03 AM -
Some of my issues with "intelligent design."
By mrdevious in forum SpiritualityReplies: 86Last Post: 12-16-2006, 08:41 PM -
thought of a nother flaw related to sex-god
By slipknotpsycho in forum SpiritualityReplies: 30Last Post: 04-12-2006, 09:56 PM -
Supreme Court deems "intelligent design" unconstitutional in public schools
By Oneironaut in forum PoliticsReplies: 28Last Post: 12-28-2005, 04:44 AM










Register To Reply
Staff Online