143
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 71:
Line 71: + + Line 295:
Line 297: − + + + + + + + − + − − == See Also == − * '''[[Liberal logic]]''' − * [[Conservapedia:Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?]]
added example, standardised headings/references
*Person A is wrong about Y
*Person A is wrong about Y
*Therefore person A must also be wrong about X
*Therefore person A must also be wrong about X
One example of this was by the actor [[Matt Damon]], who attempted to discredit [[Sarah Palin|Sarah Palin's]] political credibility on the basis that she was a young-earth creationist: {{cquote|You know, the hockey mom, you know, "I'm just a hockey mom from Alaska," and she's the president. And it's like she's facing down Vladimir Putin and you know, using the folksy stuff she learned at the hockey rink, you know, it's just absurd. It's totally absurd, and I don't understand why more people aren't talking about how absurd it is. I...it's a really terrifying possibility. The fact that we've gotten this far and we're that close to this being a reality is crazy. Crazy. I mean, did she really - I need to know if she really thinks dinosaurs were here 4000 years ago. That's an important - I want to know that. I really do. Because she's gonna have the nuclear codes. You know, I wanna know if she thinks dinosaurs were here 4000 years ago, or if she banned books or tried to ban books. I mean, you know, we can't have that.<ref>Page F30. [http://www.pagef30.com/2008/09/matt-damon-on-sarah-palin-with.html ''Matt Damon on Sarah Palin with transcript''] (2008)</ref>}}
When spelled out in the above form, the fallacy is easily seen, but it is used very frequently in political debate where skillful use of rhetoric can mask the underlying fallacy. The argument is fallacious because a person's opinions on one subject do not affect the truth or falsity of their statements on other subjects.
When spelled out in the above form, the fallacy is easily seen, but it is used very frequently in political debate where skillful use of rhetoric can mask the underlying fallacy. The argument is fallacious because a person's opinions on one subject do not affect the truth or falsity of their statements on other subjects.
For example, Darwinists claim that asking how the theory of evolution explains the origin of life is "moving the goalposts," even though it is a logical question to ask.
For example, Darwinists claim that asking how the theory of evolution explains the origin of life is "moving the goalposts," even though it is a logical question to ask.
== Related References ==
==References==
<references/>
<references/>
==See Also==
* [[Debate:Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?]]
* [[Liberal logic]]
==External Links==
*[http://creationwiki.org/Logical_fallacy Logical fallacy] by [[CreationWiki]]
*[http://creationwiki.org/Logical_fallacy Logical fallacy] by [[CreationWiki]]
*[http://www.creationsafaris.com/crevbd.htm The Baloney Detector]
*[http://www.creationsafaris.com/crevbd.htm The Baloney Detector]
*[http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp SGU-Top 20 Fallacies]
*[http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp SGU-Top 20 Fallacies]
*"The Fine Art of Baloney Detection." Sagan, Carl. ''The Demon-Haunted World, Science As a Candle in the Dark.'' Ballantine: New York, 1996; pp 201-218.
* Sagan, Carl. "The Fine Art of Baloney Detection" in ''The Demon-Haunted World, Science As a Candle in the Dark';' Ballantine: New York, pp. 201-218 (1996)
{{Liberalism}}
{{Liberalism}}
[[Category:Logic]]
[[Category:Logic]]
[[Category:Logical Fallacies]]
[[Category:Logical Fallacies]]