Special pleading

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Apologetics)
(4 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
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]] (usually their particular prefered 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 [http://www.palaeos.org/Australopithecine 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.  Incidentally computer programmers can be biased and that can theoretically influence computer results.
  
 
==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]
 +
 
 +
{{Logical fallacies}}
  
 
[[Category: Logical fallacies]]
 
[[Category: Logical fallacies]]

Revision as of 03:24, 13 December 2011

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 (usually their particular prefered 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. Incidentally computer programmers can be biased and that can theoretically influence computer results.

References

Creationist Arguments: Australopithecines at TalkOrigins


v · d Logical fallacies
v · d Formal fallacies
Propositional logic   Affirming a disjunct · Affirming the consequent · Argument from fallacy · False dilemma · Denying the antecedent
Quantificational logic   Existential fallacy · Illicit conversion · Proof by example · Quantifier shift
Syllogistic   Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise · Exclusive premises · Necessity · Four-term Fallacy · Illicit major · Illicit minor · Undistributed middle
v · d Faulty generalisations
General   Begging the question · Gambler's fallacy · Slippery slope · Equivocation · argumentum verbosium
Distribution fallacies   Fallacy of composition · Fallacy of division
Data mining   Cherry picking · Accident fallacy · Spotlight fallacy · Hasty generalization · Special pleading
Causation fallacies   Post hoc ergo propter hoc · Retrospective determinism · Suppressed correlative · Wrong direction
Ontological fallacies   Fallacy of reification · Pathetic fallacy · Loki's Wager
v · d False relevance
Appeals   Appeal to authority · Appeal to consequences · Appeal to emotion · Appeal to motive · Appeal to novelty · Appeal to tradition · Appeal to pity · Appeal to popularity · Appeal to poverty · Appeal to spite · Appeal to wealth · Sentimental fallacy · Argumentum ad baculum
Ad hominem   Ad hominem abusive · Reductio ad Hitlerum · Judgmental language · Straw man · Tu quoque · Poisoning the well
Genetic Fallacies   Genetic fallacy · Association fallacy · Appeal to tradition · Texas sharpshooter fallacy
Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
wiki navigation
IronChariots.Org
Toolbox