Special pleading

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Apologetics)
(added a link to the evidence page; replaced the word "religionists" with "theists")
Line 1: Line 1:
[[Special pleading]] is a claim that standards of evidence should be modified or reversed for a particular claim or type of claim.
+
'''Special pleading''' is a claim that standards of evidence should be modified or reversed for a particular claim or type of claim.
  
 
==Apologetics==
 
==Apologetics==
[[Apologists]] often [[compartmentalization|compartmentalize]] their religious beliefs and apply special evidenciary standards to claims related to those beliefs.  
+
[[Apologists]] often [[compartmentalization|compartmentalize]] their religious beliefs and apply special [[evidence|evidenciary standards]] to claims related to those beliefs.  
  
For example, while the standard practice for analyzing a claim places the [[burden of proof]] on the individual making the claim, some religionists seek to reverse this burden, asserting that belief in the existence of a [[god]] is warranted until the evidence and arguments opposing this claim are sufficient to warrant disbelief.
+
For example, while the standard practice for analyzing a claim places the [[burden of proof]] on the individual making the claim, some theists seek to [[Shift_the_burden_of_proof|reverse this burden]], asserting that belief in the existence of a [[god]] is warranted until the evidence and arguments opposing this claim are sufficient to warrant disbelief.
  
Another good example of special pleading was done by [[Charles Oxnard]] in a study on Australopithecines.  In it he claimed that his results showed that australopithecines were no more closely related to humans than apes.  The study was critized for several reason and is not widely accepted in the scientific world. However, the study is widely quoted by [[Creationist]]s such as [[Duane Gish]] because of Oxnard's use of computers in his research.  Gish claims that since "[a] computer doesn't lie, [a] computer doesn't have a bias" Oxnard's should be taken seriously. This is where the special pleading comes in; a great deal of studies have been done using computers that contradict Oxnard's results yet Creationists don't want us to take them seriously.  This is also an example of [[cherry picking]]; counting the times that computers have backed up [[Creationism]] yet forgetting the times they haven't.
+
Another good example of special pleading was done by [[Charles Oxnard]] in a study on australopithecines.  In it he claimed that his results showed that australopithecines were no more closely related to humans than apes.  The study was criticized for several reasons and is not widely accepted in the scientific world. However, the study is widely quoted by [[Creationism|Creationists]] such as [[Duane Gish]] because of Oxnard's use of computers in his research.  Gish claims that since "[a] computer doesn't lie, [a] computer doesn't have a bias" Oxnard's should be taken seriously. This is where special pleading comes in: a great deal of studies have been done using computers that contradict Oxnard's results, yet Creationists do not want ''those'' studies to be taken seriously.  This is also an example of [[cherry picking]]--counting the times that computers have backed up [[Creationism]] yet forgetting the times they have not.
  
 
==References==
 
==References==
  
[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_piths.html Creationist Arguments: Australopithecines] at talkorigins.org
+
[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_piths.html Creationist Arguments: Australopithecines] at [http://www.talkorigins.org TalkOrigins]
  
 
[[Category: Logical fallacies]]
 
[[Category: Logical fallacies]]

Revision as of 21:47, 18 August 2009

Special pleading is a claim that standards of evidence should be modified or reversed for a particular claim or type of claim.

Apologetics

Apologists often compartmentalize their religious beliefs and apply special evidenciary standards to claims related to those beliefs.

For example, while the standard practice for analyzing a claim places the burden of proof on the individual making the claim, some theists seek to reverse this burden, asserting that belief in the existence of a god is warranted until the evidence and arguments opposing this claim are sufficient to warrant disbelief.

Another good example of special pleading was done by Charles Oxnard in a study on australopithecines. In it he claimed that his results showed that australopithecines were no more closely related to humans than apes. The study was criticized for several reasons and is not widely accepted in the scientific world. However, the study is widely quoted by Creationists such as Duane Gish because of Oxnard's use of computers in his research. Gish claims that since "[a] computer doesn't lie, [a] computer doesn't have a bias" Oxnard's should be taken seriously. This is where special pleading comes in: a great deal of studies have been done using computers that contradict Oxnard's results, yet Creationists do not want those studies to be taken seriously. This is also an example of cherry picking--counting the times that computers have backed up Creationism yet forgetting the times they have not.

References

Creationist Arguments: Australopithecines at TalkOrigins

Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
wiki navigation
IronChariots.Org
Toolbox