Two-headed cerberus, part 6: Three-way shootout
Creationists are fond of an argument that, once you send it through the Architectonic Decoder Ring, translates into this:
If there are two people in the world who disagree with me, but also disagree with each other on any issue, then I'm right.
We'll call it the argumentum ad bonus, malus, et turpis. (i.e. the Fallacy of Argument from The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, because it posits that the mere existence of a three-way shootout automatically proves the creationist right.)
For example, paleontologists disagree on whether birds are descended from dinosaurs or from some other, non-dinosaurian reptile. Creationists point to that disagreement as proof that evolution is false. The most prominent grist for argumentum ad b. m. & t. is, of course, the disagreement between phyletic gradualists and the proponents of punctuated equilibrium.
Needless to say, "Skeptics" are so well-versed in creationist silliness that they know to steer well clear of this fallacy, right? No. George case wrote this article on "conspiracy theories" in which he included the following gem:
"The blunt truth is that conspiracy theories very seldom make a solid case. Either they play on pre-existing prejudices (how corrupt you already take the government / the media / big business to be), or contradict each other (if the Iraq war is all about Halliburton contracts, then it can’t be about Judeo-Christian millennial fanatics within the Bush administration; if the Mafia killed JFK, then the Freemasons are off the hook)..."
Yes, not only does George Case point to the mere existence of multiple JFK conspiracy theories as proof that they are all wrong, he also states that logically, it is impossible to kill two birds with one stone. Thus we can't have Bush (a known Judeo-Christian millennial fanatic who has, in fact, stated that God told him to attack Iraq) steering corrupt contracts to Halliburton (who is known to have received corrupt contracts.)
What is a "conspiracy theory", anyway? Run it through the Decoder Ring and we get:
"Any conspiracy that a 'Skeptic' doesn't believe in."
Take Watergate, for example. Case believes in that, so it's not a crazy conspiracy theory. On the other hand, he's a conservative, so if you pay attention to the news and remember the time Bush said God told him to invade Iraq, you're crazy.
Given Case's supersonic flight from all logic and facts, can we expect him to be criticised by the Skeptics for using the same arguments that creationists use? No, he's actually a recurring writer for Skeptic magazine, in which his conspiracy piece first appeared. And the Skeptic's Dictionary website makes favorable mention of him as well.
Remind me again, what is Skepticism supposed to be about, precisely? Isn't it supposed to have something to do with critical thinking?
If there are two people in the world who disagree with me, but also disagree with each other on any issue, then I'm right.
We'll call it the argumentum ad bonus, malus, et turpis. (i.e. the Fallacy of Argument from The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, because it posits that the mere existence of a three-way shootout automatically proves the creationist right.)
For example, paleontologists disagree on whether birds are descended from dinosaurs or from some other, non-dinosaurian reptile. Creationists point to that disagreement as proof that evolution is false. The most prominent grist for argumentum ad b. m. & t. is, of course, the disagreement between phyletic gradualists and the proponents of punctuated equilibrium.
Needless to say, "Skeptics" are so well-versed in creationist silliness that they know to steer well clear of this fallacy, right? No. George case wrote this article on "conspiracy theories" in which he included the following gem:
"The blunt truth is that conspiracy theories very seldom make a solid case. Either they play on pre-existing prejudices (how corrupt you already take the government / the media / big business to be), or contradict each other (if the Iraq war is all about Halliburton contracts, then it can’t be about Judeo-Christian millennial fanatics within the Bush administration; if the Mafia killed JFK, then the Freemasons are off the hook)..."
Yes, not only does George Case point to the mere existence of multiple JFK conspiracy theories as proof that they are all wrong, he also states that logically, it is impossible to kill two birds with one stone. Thus we can't have Bush (a known Judeo-Christian millennial fanatic who has, in fact, stated that God told him to attack Iraq) steering corrupt contracts to Halliburton (who is known to have received corrupt contracts.)
What is a "conspiracy theory", anyway? Run it through the Decoder Ring and we get:
"Any conspiracy that a 'Skeptic' doesn't believe in."
Take Watergate, for example. Case believes in that, so it's not a crazy conspiracy theory. On the other hand, he's a conservative, so if you pay attention to the news and remember the time Bush said God told him to invade Iraq, you're crazy.
Given Case's supersonic flight from all logic and facts, can we expect him to be criticised by the Skeptics for using the same arguments that creationists use? No, he's actually a recurring writer for Skeptic magazine, in which his conspiracy piece first appeared. And the Skeptic's Dictionary website makes favorable mention of him as well.
Remind me again, what is Skepticism supposed to be about, precisely? Isn't it supposed to have something to do with critical thinking?
posted by Wintermute at 12:30 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home