Am I using the strawman fallacy in Swift blog comments?

[Baloney]

In the "The Skeptical Disconnect" Swoft blog (by Kyle Hill), I (Baloney) rebutt some of badrscher's comments, and she claims I'm making strawman arguments. I don't believe that I am (in fact, I think she is making strawman arguments and "moving the goal posts"), but maybe I'm deluding myself -- maybe I'm actually the one moving goal posts and strawman-building.

Could someone with a better eye for logic and argument than me please confirm that I am either making fallacious arguments or not? I want to make sure that I set the record straight and make amends if I'm wrong.

Thanks,
Baloney!

ETA: mods -- should this be in "members only" section?

 

[crimresearch]

In the "The Skeptical Disconnect" Swoft blog (by Kyle Hill), I (Baloney) rebutt some of badrscher's comments, and she claims I'm making strawman arguments. I don't believe that I am (in fact, I think she is making strawman arguments and "moving the goal posts"), but maybe I'm deluding myself -- maybe I'm actually the one moving goal posts and strawman-building.

Could someone with a better eye for logic and argument than me please confirm that I am either making fallacious arguments or not? I want to make sure that I set the record straight and make amends if I'm wrong.

Thanks,
Baloney!

ETA: mods -- should this be in "members only" section?

Atheism is a self selected belief set, as are the other belief options. Even those who just don't care, are putting themselves in a group... (apatheism?).

For all practical purposes:

All 'I'm an atheist's belong to the set 'A' (Atheists)

All 'I'm a Baptist's are 'B'.

All 'I'm a Catholic's are 'C'

Skepticism is simply an assertion without clear cut parameters for inclusion.

There is no {All I'm a Skeptic's are S} cohesion.

Substitute 'I'm an excellent driver' for 'I'm a skeptic', and make your Venn diagram... it still won't include the entire subset in the larger set.

 

[Baloney]

Atheism is a self selected belief set, as are the other belief options. Even those who just don't care, are putting themselves in a group... (apatheism?).

[snip]

Substitute 'I'm an excellent driver' for 'I'm a skeptic', and make your Venn diagram... it still won't include the entire subset in the larger set.

Oh, I meant specifically my comments, not the OP of the Swift blog. I argued that "there is no god" does not define all atheists, and that skepticism of religious claims can still be scientific skepticism. It's in the comments after the blog.

 

[crimresearch]

Oh, I meant specifically my comments, not the OP of the Swift blog. I argued that "there is no god" does not define all atheists, and that skepticism of religious claims can still be scientific skepticism. It's in the comments after the blog.

Ahhh, my bad. I thought that Kyle was you, instead of you was you...

 

[Baloney]

Ahhh, my bad. I thought that Kyle was you, instead of you was you...

No problem! Just for clarity: Baloney is not Kyle Hill.

 

[Baloney]

I'm begging (the question) here!

Seriously though, I'm really trying to find where I allegedly used a logical fallacy here:

"Skepticism is not about beliefs. This goes for beliefs about God, ghosts, psychics, and vaccines."

badrescher,

I completely agree that skepticism is about testing claims, but I feel that excluding supernatural claims of any sort (such as those made by many religions) from skeptical inquiry is intellectual dishonesty. And skepticism is about beliefs, with respect to not accepting claims without evidence -- this goes for ghosts (holy or otherwise), cryptozoological and mythological beasts (such as dragons and unicorns), and returning to life after death (resurrection, reincarnation, interstellar travel to planet Kolob), and miraculous powers (magical healing, talking animals, levitation). If the religious supernatural claims are exempt from critical investigation, then why not crystal healing and telepathy? Why not talking to the dead and fortune telling? How are any of these different and beyond the scope of skepticism and skeptical activism?

Also, atheism isn't limited to "There is no god," and many skeptical atheists don't make that claim. In fact, atheism also (and -- I feel -- predominantly) can mean "rejection of belief in the existence of deities" or "having no belief in god (or god claims)", which is a very skeptical approach to the existence of divine beings -- not accepting claims withwithout evidence. Saying "I don't believe there is a god" is not the same as saying "there is no god."

I certainly don't think any skeptic should be "required" to demand evidence for supernatural religious claims, but dismissing the right of any skeptic to make those demands sounds pretty non-skeptical to me.

What's intellectually dishonest is promoting science and scientific skepticism while claiming that the rules of science do not apply.

Baloney, your arguments are straw men. If you are interested in discussing what I actually wrote, please read what is in the link I provided in my comment above (and rereading my comments here would not hurt).

I feel sort of like I was told, "No, YOU ARE!" but, for my own peace of mind, want to be sure I'm not off my rocker here.

 

[sphenisc]

You've committed a fallacy in that you've misrepresented badrescher's argument. It is clear from the context of the line you quoted that the point being made is about the definition of scepticism. "Skepticism is not about beliefs" is shorthand for... the definition of scepticism doesn't relate so much to having the right beliefs as it does to how your beliefs are arrived at and how lightly they are held.

You've interpreted it to mean "Skepticism has nothing to do with supernatural beliefs in anyway and shouldn't be applied to them".

Taking that one phrase literally and out of its context, misrepresents the argument. If you did it deliberately with the intention of attacking something weaker then it's a strawman argument.

 

[Baloney]

You've committed a fallacy in that you've misrepresented badrescher's argument. It is clear from the context of the line you quoted that the point being made is about the definition of scepticism. "Skepticism is not about beliefs" is shorthand for... the definition of scepticism doesn't relate so much to having the right beliefs as it does to how your beliefs are arrived at and how lightly they are held.

You've interpreted it to mean "Skepticism has nothing to do with supernatural beliefs in anyway and shouldn't be applied to them".

Taking that one phrase literally and out of its context, misrepresents the argument. If you did it deliberately with the intention of attacking something weaker then it's a strawman argument.

Cool, thanks for the response!

But what I'm trying to say with my argument is "skepticism does relate in that having beliefs based without an evidentiary basis is non-skeptical." I tried to summarize that with my last sentence. My examples showed beliefs without a evidence. badrescher is saying "There is no judgement of beliefs in skepticism. There is only judgement of the accuracy of information." and I'm arguing that judgement of beliefs based on non-credible information is skeptical.

Is that still strawman, or is that just my misinterpreting their argument? Is this a mistake in my stating "not accepting beliefs without evidence into a belief system" as opposed to badrescher saying "skepticism doesn't include whether beliefs can be judged valid or invalid"? Is that what the argument is, because the way you translated doesn't make sense to me: I think there may be a very subtle semantic element that I'm just not getting.

 

[stevea]

I think there is a terminology misunderstanding involved. This may involve a mischaracterization of the other's idea but is not necessarily a straw-man fallacy. I don't think badrescher was suggesting that the supernatural be excluded from skeptical inquiry, so your argument against that point was mistaken. Probably a misunderstanding on the loaded term 'belief'.

A strawman arg involves purposely mis-characterizing the other's argument, for the purpose of creating an decisive count-argument against the false arg. I don't believe your argument is of this form but to be fair I can see why badrescher might misinterpret it that way.

 

[Baloney]

I think there is a terminology misunderstanding involved. This may involve a mischaracterization of the other's idea but is not necessarily a straw-man fallacy. I don't think badrescher was suggesting that the supernatural be excluded from skeptical inquiry, so your argument against that point was mistaken. Probably a misunderstanding on the loaded term 'belief'.

A strawman arg involves purposely mis-characterizing the other's argument, for the purpose of creating an decisive count-argument against the false arg. I don't believe your argument is of this form but to be fair I can see why badrescher might misinterpret it that way.

Agreed: I find it can often be virtually impossible to derive intent and purpose from a few sentences. Also, I think (even though I still don't think I quite get badrescher's argument) that I have most probably misinterpreted the argument, though completely unintentionally.

Thanks, all, for the input!

 

[Jeff Corey]

I couldn't read past the word "rebutt" without spewing Adolph Coor's Light all over the keyboard.
This belongs in Paradie section.
ETA: It is gone now. Too bad, that was a keeper.

 

[RelativeSpace]

I don't have time to read very much, but as others mentioned, from what I could gather I agree that you misunderstood the argument being made and interpreted it as saying that religious beliefs should be exempt from skeptical inquiry, where such was not the argument.

The argument is probably coming from a few places. Somebody can be a skeptic and believe in certain supernatural things by:

1. Holding those beliefs lightly and tentatively.

2. Considering them of less importance as pursuits for inquiry (and so not making them the focus of skepticism- limited time/resources and all)

3. Perhaps they were investigated skeptically and found to be unfalsifiable (see point #2) and so inherently unknown and not worth wasting time trying to prove or disprove, or found to be plausible or even true (something I don't necessarily agree with, but a 'possibility' that the person making the argument may be considering).

4. It could also be done in ignorance; such that the supernatural explanation actually seems to be the most likely for lack of knowledge of science. Skepticism says nothing about how much we know about the world- only how we approach what we do know or consider true.

 

[Baloney]

I couldn't read past the word "rebutt" without spewing Adolph Coor's Light all over the keyboard.
This belongs in Paradie section.
ETA: It is gone now. Too bad, that was a keeper.

I almost didn't want to assk the question.

 

[Baloney]

I don't have time to read very much, but as others mentioned, from what I could gather I agree that you misunderstood the argument being made and interpreted it as saying that religious beliefs should be exempt from skeptical inquiry, where such was not the argument.

The argument is probably coming from a few places. Somebody can be a skeptic and believe in certain supernatural things by:

1. Holding those beliefs lightly and tentatively.

2. Considering them of less importance as pursuits for inquiry (and so not making them the focus of skepticism- limited time/resources and all)

3. Perhaps they were investigated skeptically and found to be unfalsifiable (see point #2) and so inherently unknown and not worth wasting time trying to prove or disprove, or found to be plausible or even true (something I don't necessarily agree with, but a 'possibility' that the person making the argument may be considering).

4. It could also be done in ignorance; such that the supernatural explanation actually seems to be the most likely for lack of knowledge of science. Skepticism says nothing about how much we know about the world- only how we approach what we do know or consider true.

Thanks! I appreciate the perspectives! I've concluded that I was wrong and misunderstood the argument.