The Cargo-Cult arguments and how to deal with them.

by bohm 7 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  bohm

  I have noticed a pattern in a couple of recent discussions which i have dubbed "cargo-cult arguments": Basically its when one side go through the patterns which is usually associated with a real scientific argument, but its really just a scaffold.

  More specifically, typically an argument take the following general form:

  We observe A. A relate to C as follows (...). Therefore A is evidence against C.

  Furthermore, how A relate to C can (in a proper argument) be fleshed out in the most trivial details.

  What is missing in a cargo cult argument is either: clear language around the conclusion and hypothesis and (most importantly) a clearly stated, valid argument that can be made granular.

  In other words, he or she "goes through the motions", introducing both valid scientific evidence A and a disputed conclusion C, and because it sound quite scientifcally he or she does not understand why its just dismissed by the other party.

  What make cargo-cult argumentation poisenous for rational conversation is that when one tries to dismiss a cargo-cult argument, one usually have to try to flesh out the lacking argument and THEN dismiss it. This will seem like a strawman to the person who made the argument: He or she will think: "But thats not what i said or implied. Why does he not address my actual argument, rather than adding more to it?", and usually the debate will detoriate.

  Cargo-cult argumentation typically arise in pseudo-science, and rely on supporters who are willing to quote the arguments almost verbatim without thinking them through.

  The best way to expose a cargo-cult argument is to ask the person who make it to flesh it out in details before any counter-points are introduced.

  It will typically cause the argument to unravel by itself, and since one is just asking for clarification, there is less chance of antagonizing the other party.
• 

  bohm

  Its much clearer to give examples:

  • Frozen mammoths have been found in siberia. This support the idea of a global flood.
  • "There has been very few huricanes this year, contrary to what scientists said 5 years ago. This is evidence global warming is a hoax" (basic form of argument made here a couple of months ago)
  • Whale fossils confirm evolution.

  For the mammoths, I would first ask if this is the general form of the argument:

  • Frozen mammoths have been found
    • There is a natural explanation why the precense of flood water would cause a sudden drop of temperature in siberia.
    • The way science explain how they froze is wrong or incomplete due to some argument or observation.
  • therefore this is evidence in favor of the flood.

  If we can agree on this, i would then ask to explain the two middle points. If the person who make the argument does not have an explanation, dont try to exploit it right away, just state it as a fact. Like: "An undiscovered phenomona associated with the flood caused sudden freezing". the point is to agree on an exact wording of the argument. If this is done, the argument unravel by itself.

  For the global warming argument, I would suspect the argument is like this:

  • A group of scientists deduced based on some argument X that global warming would lead to more intense huricanes.
  • If this argument is valid, it mean one can measure the temperature by counting storms.
  • Direct measurement of temperature by other means indicate an increase, counting of storms indicate a decrease which due to a statistical analysis (REF?) is significant.
  • This mean that either the direct measurements of temperature is wrong, or the argument is wrong.
  • There is an additional reason or argument which lead one to suspect counting the frequency of storms is a better method than more direct methods.

  but its entirely unclear really.. When i actually had this discussion with another poster, he refused to spell out the argument, and instead quoted wikipedia on huricane formation and began talking about al gore.

  The last example with whale fossils is something i consider a proper argument, but stated much to briefly. The proper argument as i understand it is this

  • Fossils of primitive whales with eg. legs, nostrils in front of the head, land-like inner ears, etc. have been found, dating around 50mio years. ago.
    • According to a creation account, we could expect to find whale-like fossils from this periode with any mix of modern/transitional characteristics.
    • According to evolution, there is a rather narrow set of characteristics we EXPECT to find with high probability, and a set of modern characteristics we expect NOT to find with high probability. Evolutions prediction is much more narrow.
  • the chance of the given observation is thus allways higher for evolution.
  • This is evidence in favor of evolution over creation.

  and additionally the folllowing argument could be made:

  • Fossils of primitive whales with eg. legs, nostrils in front of the head, land-like inner ears, etc. have been found, dating around 50mio years. ago.
    • According to the creation account, the chance we find such whale fossils depend on if whale-like creatures existed at all and if they fossilized.
    • According to evolution, the chance we find such whale fossils depend if they fossilized (existence is given with 100% certainty)
  • The chance of the given observation is thus allways higher for evolution.
  • thus this is evidence in favor of evolution over creation.

  many similar arguments could be made, for example on the chance we find whale fossils (which we have not!) dating from the cambrian.
• 

  bohm

  damn this bold crap!
• 

  Mad Sweeney

  formatting on this site is a nightmare, Bohm. I think it came out looking fine and not detracting from, but emphasizing the points well.
• 

  wobble

  Thanks BOHM, I am always appreciative of education into false argumentation. So oten in the past, I have known an argument to be fallacious, but could not put my finger on exactly why and where quick enough.

  I think too, your method of getting them to flesh out the argument will work against many other logical fallacies.

  Thanks.
• 

  dgp

  Bookmarked.
• 

  bohm

  thanks for the replies!

  I have been trying to find one of my own pet-arguments which fall into the above category, and its quite a fun excersize. I think the most fertile ground (in my case) is political arguments. i really have no clue why or how my particular ideology affect the real world.
• 

  wobble

  Neither do I, here in the U.K I support the Monster Raving Looney Party.

  They have great ideas, like a 99p coin, to stop all that change when something is priced £25.99 or similar.

  Mind you, I think their idea, during our snowfalls in the winter, of heating all the pavements, was a bit impractical !