Topic: Lectures On Doubt
Skeptic's Boot Camp
The reasoning of skeptics, on average, should be a cut above that of religious believers. To this end, I've decided to post a few installments discussing some basic problems I've noticed in the day-to-day argumentation I follow online. I hope these suggestions will be helpful to especially, new skeptics, not just as a lesson in what to avoid themselves, but as immediate clues to identify an opponent who doesn't know what they are talking about.
Abusing Logical Fallacies
To my satisfaction, I've noticed skeptics, even new skeptics are far less likely to abuse a logical fallacy than an apologist. It seems to me that it has become part of the apologist culture to view themselves as master logicians and not hesitate to point out the supposed fallacies of their skeptical opponents. It's my belief, that skeptics should restrain themselves from identifying by name the fallacies of believers and just point out plainly what is wrong with the argument. Spending too much time pointing out logical fallacies looks petty and like you're trying to hard to impress everyone. It's not unlike fanatically pointing out spelling and grammar errors. Pointing out logical fallacies by name, should be reserved for those believers most worthy of scorn, or to teach a lesson to those believers who erroneously point out fallacies in others.
Straw Man: Look for this accusation being used broadly to cover virtually anything the believer doesn't like about an opponents argument. Note that the "absurd" portion of a correctly formulated reductio ad absurdum argument is often misidentified as a "straw man." This seems to be a reocurring error in FAIR moderating calls. Saying, "If a Mormon believes X, then he must be a Q" is different from saying, "If a Mormon believes X for reasons Y, then how do you deny a Q from believing Z for reasons Y?"
Begging The Question: This refers to circular reasoning, not "raising a question." Even if brute ignorance secures this phrase acceptence in casual vernacular, it should be avoided. The biggest problem I see is that those who typically use this terminology seem to think that they are pointing out a fallacy. They've heard the term in conjuction with fallacies from somewhere and reason that it means if what the opponent is saying is true, it raises very hard questions that the opponent probably can't answer. Also, unless you've already established a respected persona, it will take you down a notch in the eyes of the lurkers who think you don't know what it means.
Ad Hominem: A personal insult doesn't constitute a fallacy. It has to be suggested that from the insult, it follows that the insultee's argument doesn't work.
Appeal To Authority: It's ok to cite an authority to back a claim. And there is a lot of gray area here, but the problem is when the stature of the authority overshadows the actual content of the claim. Also, be aware of the appeal to (false) authority. This happens frequently with apologetics groups. Where experts in one area, wanting to help with the cause of faith, apply their skills to areas where that expertise counts far less, or not at all.
False Dichotomy: Many have been wrongly charged with a false dichotomy because the accuser doesn't understand that the word "or" has both an exclusive and non-exclusive sense. Make sure what's presented really is, first, a dichotomy before inspecting it for a fallacy. Often times, it's just natural to give two or three options of what's in mind as examples, not meaning to be exclusive.
"You can eat oranges or bananas to get your vitamins."
"What, you're saying I can't get vitamins from apples?!!"
Also keep in mind, that sometimes a fallacy like this will be knowingly
committed by the author for rhetorical effect or humor. Pointing it out
triumphantly might make it look like you didn't quite "get it."
