Counter-gishing


The Gish Gallop is a notorious tactic used by creationists: spew out lots and lots of bad arguments at a rapid fire pace, and mire the poor scientist in efforts to refute them one by one…which she can do, but only at a slower pace than the creationist can assert them. For a perfect example, Don Batten has 101 arguments for a young earth, every one of them stupid and dishonest. Imagine a debate in which your opponent rattles off all of those at you!

Fortunately, there’s this thing called the interwebs, where people at their leisure can organize and refute such nonsense. I recommend to you this rebuttal to 101 evidences for a young age of the Earth and the universe. Start reading.

Comments

  1. says

    What’s the best way to parry that?

    I’d imagine saying, “You’re attempting to overload our audience with a shoal of red herrings. perhaps you should pick your best argument and let’s focus on that? because what you’re saying is all wrong – and you know it – but I’m not going to have time to explain each of those points in detail. I understand your strategy, and so do you, so surely you know how dishonest it is.” ?? I’ve encountered Gish Gallops before and generally I find it nearly impossible to rein them in.

  2. says

    It is hard to reason with the irrational. I find it humorous (hypocritical, and sad) that the religious will pounce on any answer that is “unsure” as evidence that evolution is incorrect, when their entire claim is based on uncertainty and requires “faith”. The rapid fire question technique seems to be nothing more than a way to trip up the evolutionist into one of these “unsure” answers. As usual, it is just another example of poor reasoning by the religious.

  3. says

    Another strategy is simply to avoid the kinds of debate where the Gish Gallop is most effective, state why you’re doing so, and propose an alternative forum/format — then hammer the other guy if they try to weasel out of it.

    Here’s another: point out that the kind of debate they want has already happened — it’s called Kitzmiller vs. Dover, the their side lost.

    And another, which might not sound all that strong: “I’ve dealt with all those arguments before, and they’re all wrong in more ways than I have time to describe here. You can find good answers to all this rubbish on [easily googled name of web site], but I’ll just deal with one or two here…”

  4. Brownian says

    I propose a countercomment of “Wrong. Wrong. Lie. Wrong. Misrepresentation. Lie. Lie. Quote-mine. Parody. Wrong. No. No. Lie….” as long as the gish is gushing.

    I propose an alternative, but you’d need to be a forceful, commanding speaker. Pick one or two arguments of shklers that you know you can beat into the ground and proceed to do so. Slowly. Forcefully. Insinuate as often as possible that your opponent knows that shklis arguments are a load of shit, and is simply trying to pull a fast one on the audience. Leave with the audience the implication that all every other argument of your opponent’s can be destroyed in a similar fashion and shklee knows it. Get the audience pissed off at your Gish Galloper.

    “My opponent has made a number of wild claims, and quickly too. There’s a reason for that, and it’s the same reason that used car salesmen speak quickly and lawyers use fine print. But I’m going to pick just one, and demonstrate that it, like the rest of my opponents’ claims, rests on on lies debunked decades ago, and he’s hoping that if he rattles off enough lies and fast enough, you won’t catch them. Specified complexity is as real as Corinthian leather…”

    and so forth.

  5. Brownian says

    And another, which might not sound all that strong: “I’ve dealt with all those arguments before, and they’re all wrong in more ways than I have time to describe here. You can find good answers to all this rubbish on [easily googled name of web site], but I’ll just deal with one or two here…”

    Ah, I see we’re more or less on the same page.

  6. sc_828c37b92476ccae4681e53d9c0bbdfd says

    All of their sources are their own website…
    “It’s true because I said so!”

  7. infraredeyes says

    Surely the point of the gallop is that the admiring audience can tell each other afterwards “Didya see that? He had TWENTY-NINE different arguments–TWENTY-NINE! And that evolutionist fella could barely answer three of them!”

  8. says

    Cheers to PZ for plugging this :-) I’m one of the people who worked on the RationalWiki response article (and spent the last week polishing it up) and asked PZ if he could give it a mention.

    I’ve run it past some ex-Young Earth Creationists, who’ve found their way to sanity, and they say it would actually have helped them. What this means is that we have to be low-key and factual in the text … and obliterate every bad argument in a tour-de-force of calm, understated reason. (Which means we can’t really call liars liars, or stupid argument stupid arguments, as that would be an excuse to stop reading. Etc. I’m tempted to do a “what is this dumbass bullshit” version as well …) This article could actually help the miseducated.

    You guys, your help is most desired. See those [edit] links? It’s a wiki, you know what to do. Or comment here. Or whatever.

    (Cheers also to Jerry Coyne for plugging it last week.)

  9. says

    Oh, and the best way to parry a Gish gallop: Don’t argue in real time. Science is not decided by debate, but by reason. Arguing on paper is devastating to Gish gallopers.

  10. carlie says

    Maybe you could launch an easily observable offensive: walk up to the podium with a cadre of 5-7 students, each with a basic textbook on biology, geology, etc. Offer a deal: for every time the other debater says “science can’t explain (x)”, and a student finds the answer explaining (x) in a textbook, the debater has to give the student $10.

  11. Das Boese says

    I never liked the term “gish gallop”, it’s obscure and unlikely to be known by people outside the debating arena…

    I’d call it something like “bullshit barrage” or “fallacy flood”…

  12. Crudely Wrott says

    David @ 14,

    Your comment puts me in mind of an poem introduced to me by an elementary school teacher. My regret is that I don’t recall which one.

    The poem addresses the incremental gains that are reaped by staying the course and acting with resolve and confidence. Of course, the font of profitable resolve and confidence is being grounded in reality and acknowledging natural limitations while exploiting personal insight and resource.

    Really, the Gish Gallop is not a running towards. It is a running away.

    Little By Little
    Anonymous

    “Little by little,” an acorn said,
    As it slowly sank in its mossy bed,
    “I am improving every day,
    Hidden deep in the earth away.”

    Little by little, each day it grew;
    Little by little, it sipped the dew;
    Downward it sent out a thread-like root;
    Up in the air sprung a tiny shoot.

    Day after day, and year after year,
    Little by little the leaves appear;
    And the slender branches spread far and wide,
    Till the mighty oak is the forest’s pride.

    Far down in the depths of the dark blue sea,
    An insect train work ceaselessly.
    Grain by grain, they are building well,
    Each one alone in its little cell.

    Moment by moment, and day by day,
    Never stopping to rest or to play,
    Rocks upon rocks, they are rearing high,
    Till the top looks out on the sunny sky.

    The gentle wind and the balmy air,
    Little by little, bring verdure there;
    Till the summer sunbeams gayly smile
    On the buds and the flowers of the coral isle.

    “Little by little,” said a thoughtful boy,
    “Moment by moment, I’ll well employ,
    Learning a little every day,
    And not spending all my time in play.
    And still this rule in my mind shall dwell,
    Whatever I do, I will do it well.

    “Little by little, I’ll learn to know
    The treasured wisdom of long ago;
    And one of these days, perhaps, we’ll see
    That the world will be the better for me”;
    And do you not think that this simple plan
    Made him a wise and useful man?

  13. says

    Das Boese @17 – yeah, that’s why the response article doesn’t use the term (though it does link it) – it’s skeptic technical jargon and normal people can’t be expected to understand it.

  14. Who Cares says

    The only way I see to counter a gish gallop in a debate is to one up the user and turn the spectacle into an actual circus.
    They are not interested in a reasoned debate so why should you. And by turning it into a circus people are less likely to fall into the trap of ‘he had 30 pieces of evidence and that other guy could only counter 3’ because they are distracted by your shenanigans.

    Keep it visual that has more impact then a person just talking to the point that the audience won’t notice how staged your performance is.

    For example

    Start of with something as theatrical as throwing your speech over your shoulder (Looks at PZ Myers). Have someone cart in 15′ of books (and a box big enough to hide yourself behind filled with DVDs), relevant to the discussion , then tell your audience the other speaker is holding them for idiots and counting on the fact that no one in the audience has the background (refer to that stack of books & DVDs) needed to know that everything the other speaker say is cow manure.
    Then start dividing the pile of books. First basic biology then for each claim a stack of books that refute said claim. If the other speaker is stupid enough to include geology or astronomy claims ask your flunkie to drag in more books while making it clear that the other speaker doesn’t know what biology is since he included other fields of study.
    And so on and so on.

    Yes this is not a way to debate but I’ll reiterate that your opponent isn’t interested in a real debate so why should you be at a disadvantage by playing by the rules while he doesn’t.

  15. Air says

    Another option I have used is:

    Ask – “If I refuted one of your arguments completely, would that change your mind about your YEC position?”

    The answer is clearly going to be ‘no.’

    Then ask ” If I refuted all of your arguments completely, would that change your mind about your YEC position?”

    They are now on the horns of a dilemma. Answering ‘no’ forces them to admit their arguments are pointless; answering ‘yes’ would force them to abandon their faith….

  16. says

    I’ve run it past some ex-Young Earth Creationists, who’ve found their way to sanity, and they say it would actually have helped them.

    I’m an ex-Young Earth Creationist. This kind of stuff helped me. It also made me really pissed off when I realized that there is no other explanation for the stuff I was taught than flat out lies. Not necessarily by the people who gave me that crap, they were just buying into it like I was. But somebody somewhere in the chain was a pants-on-fire liar. And probably made money at it.

  17. 'Tis Himself says

    And probably made money at it.

    I doubt Ken Ham is worried about how to pay for his next Lexus.

  18. christophburschka says

    To quote Robert Hooke:

    The Inquisitive Jesuit Riccioli has taken great pains by 77 Arguments to overthrow the Copernican Hypothesis, and is therein so earnest and zealous, that though otherwise a very learned man and good Astronomer, he seems to believe his own Arguments; […] I believe this one Discovery will answer them, and 77 more, if so many can be thought of and produced against it.

    This tactic is old.

  19. osmosis says

    But somebody somewhere in the chain was a pants-on-fire liar. And probably made money at it.

    I’ve struggled to figure this point out. Are these people *knowingly* lying, or do they lie without realizing it. The reason it’s been a bit of a struggle is that I have fundie relatives, and I know for a fact they wouldn’t knowingly lie. Yet they lie constantly!

  20. kantalope says

    academic debate has a way to deal with the gish gallop although they refer to it a “spread”. Skip ahead to about 2:15…and if you are not used to this kind of thing…well you have to see it and hear it to believe it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoHPiHiWagg&feature=related

    There are argument theory ways to deal with all this gishy stuff: it is the same way you deal with anecdotes and anomalies – anecdotes are hasty generalizations and anomalies are arguing from ignorance. Also pointing out strategy (galloping) is one of the best ways of ruining it. Also if you show the audience how it takes longer to dissect and counter a lie than to make it up…they should have more sympathy as to why you did not answer all 100.

  21. escuerd says

    kantalope @ 27

    What the fuck? That was an utterly ridiculous display.

    This a style used at the finals in a national debate tournament? Why? How? Is this some way of gaming the scoring?

    I thought debates were ostensibly about truth and truly about persuasion. I don’t see how such unintelligible* rapid-fire parroting serves either purpose.

    *Perhaps that was somehow clear to some people (though I doubt it), but I only sporadically caught words and phrases.

  22. kantalope says

    It is what it is…with training not only can you follow what they are saying you can take notes and be writing down your responses as you go. And joking with your partner on how things are going.

    And national yes: harvard, kansas, georgetown…im not sure who the big name teams are anymore. I think it is Liberty University (Falwell’s place) also has a team with lots of money and participation.

    It is admittedly also very strange.

    It is formalized gishgalloping and has been going on for some time. Wired magazine has a write up from earlier this year: http://www.wired.com/magazine/2012/01/ff_debateteam/

    But when you get down to it – it is really about the truth and the the arguments – no pathos, no demagoguing, no squishing feelings – the only persuasion you get is logic and evidence.

  23. says

    point out that the kind of debate they want has already happened — it’s called Kitzmiller vs. Dover, the their side lost.

    OOoh, I like that. That’s weapons-grade.

  24. says

    @David #15 “Arguing on paper is devastating to Gish gallopers.”

    Hear Hear! I went to a lecture on campus titled “Humanism” that turned out to be a creationist harangue by anti-humanist twit Steve Wolfgang. Afterward I wanted to bleach my brain, and felt sorry for the young person who did ask a question. You’d have to be a total pirate-ninja to track the cloud of flying lies let alone respond to them in real time.

    I knew the corrections, but I’m not all that quick even in ordinary conversation let alone public debate. About the best I could have done there is to point out that it is a tactic, and not exposition per se. A “Buyer Beware” label.

  25. says

    I’ve struggled to figure this point out. Are these people *knowingly* lying, or do they lie without realizing it. The reason it’s been a bit of a struggle is that I have fundie relatives, and I know for a fact they wouldn’t knowingly lie. Yet they lie constantly!

    They may not know that what they are saying is false. But, somebody is feeding them false information. And somebody is giving it to that person. Somewhere in there is a person who knows that all their “unanswered questions” have been answered, and their “unbeatable arguments” beaten. It’s just not possible for some of these people to have never encountered the responses to their claims. Yet that person continues to write and sell books, make videos, or preach. That one I see as a villain.

    The rest I see as victims, to an extent. They were betrayed by people they trusted to give them the truth. Or let down by others who were themselves betrayed. Though everybody in this chain of falsehoods is also guilty of something – believing absurd things just because it came from somebody they trusted. I don’t deny that I failed at that. I was willing to believe many absurd things from many sources. It took a long time for the kernel of skepticism in me to grow, and until it did I found it very easy to just push aside the doubts I had about whatever lie I was told, as long as it fit the narrative I favored.

    So yes, I’m pissed off about having been brainwashed by creationist bullshit when I was young. But I don’t blame my father. At least, not as much as I blame the people who published those books he gave me, while knowing that what they were printing was bullshit. Knowing that evolution doesn’t mean what they say it does, or that there’s more evidence than they claim there is, or that all their “reasons the earth can’t be more than 10,000 years old” are pure BS. That’s the person I’m pissed at.

  26. osmosis says

    Yet that person continues to write and sell books, make videos, or preach. That one I see as a villain.

    It seems we’re using the same criteria. I don’t think you have to be making money at it though, you just have to be actively promulgating the lies.

    This is why I consider my fundie relatives liars — they actively spread the lies they’ve been fed, and not one of them has ever taken the simplest reasonable steps NOT to be a liar.

    Is it still a lie if you believe it? IMO, yes.

  27. RFW says

    #26 osmosis says (4 April 2012 at 7:03 pm):

    I have fundie relatives, and I know for a fact they wouldn’t knowingly lie. Yet they lie constantly!

    Your relatives aren’t lying: they don’t realize that what they say is demonstrably false. Maybe I’m redefining “lie” but istm that the essence of the situation is that the speaker is aware he’s lying.

    Tom Paine said it well, nearly 250 years ago: Only things you witness yourself are certainly true: everything else is hearsay and you needn’t take anyone else’s word for it. [I paraphrase.]

    But what to do about dear maiden Aunt Fannie, who is devout and believes all the anti-scientific crap her church feeds her? And whom you adore and wouldn’t want to be mean to for anything? Or does Aunt Fannie even matter?

  28. osmosis says

    Or does Aunt Fannie even matter?

    Considering “aunt fannie” is an umbrella term for fully half of my immediate family, yes, to me it matters. I can’t hardly even talk to these people anymore, and that includes my father.