Comments

  1. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Also, 100% of all creationist arguments.

    It sure sounds like our present creobot. He is so sad science is right and his babble is wrong.

  2. Dick the Damned says

    Jumpin’ Jeezus on two sticks, that sure sums up the religious mindset. And it does so, making me chuckle, which is more than i can say for what comes out of their mouths.

  3. 'Tis Himself says

    So, what’s the fallacy in the argument given in the cartoon? It’s the basis of much political and economic thought these days.

  4. Iain Walker says

    ‘Tis Himself (#3):

    So, what’s the fallacy in the argument given in the cartoon?

    Probably argumentum ad consequentiam, with a side-order of self-directed argumentum ad misericordiam.

  5. kevinalexander says

    Self referential appeal to emotion fallacy. Also known as the “head up the ass” fallacy.

    The theological version of that is In Anus Dei

  6. says

    It also sums up the Paula Kirby et al. mindset:

    If the skeptic movement is contaminated with misogyny, then I will be sad.

    I do not wish to be sad.

    Therefore the skeptic movement is not contaminated with misogyny. (And everyone who makes me feel sad by disagreeing is a bully.)

  7. DLC says

    If set including PZ Myers is not a Poopyhead . . .
    If set not including PZ Myers has a sad . . . oh skip it.
    Too tired for faux boolean logic today.

  8. radpumpkin says

    Ah, a most intriguing variant of modus tollens. And by variant I mean indefinite truth value, ergo flawed negation of conclusion, ergo flawed negation of initial premise. This could be fixed with “I am not sad,” though setting up an inference relationship with those two conditions is somewhere north of ludicrous.

  9. says

    Yes, but P is omnipotent. Therefore it can do anything, and thus is the best answer for any problem.

    Which means that it’s good inductive reasoning to infer P, God.

    Works at Uncommon Descent.

    Glen Davidson

  10. raven says

    So, what’s the fallacy in the argument given in the cartoon? It’s the basis of much political and economic thought these days.

    Fallacy that wishing something is true, makes it true. AKA as the Fallacy of Wishful Thinking or Magical Thinking.

  11. Stardrake says

    But if P is not true, what’s gonna happen with all this water and Diet Dew I’ve been drinking?

  12. David Marjanović says

    I should know better than to try sardonic irony with this crowd.

    Look:

    1) We can’t hear the tone of your voice, and we can’t see the subdued smirk on your face.

    2) To say this fallacy is “the basis of much political and economic thought these days” is not irony or sardonic. It’s a plain, uncontested statement of fact. :-| Have you forgotten? We live in a world where, when the Onion publishes an article, a few months to years later some Republican acts it out.

    The theological version of that is In Anus Dei

    In ano. In goes with the ablative.

  13. Frank Asshole says

    Just to set aside creoturds and other issues. John Searle (1998 ‘How to study consciousness scientifically’) made in my opinion good point about relation of philosophy and science.

    “For the purposes of this discussion the only important distinction between philosophy and science is this: science is systematic knowledge; philosophy is in part an attempt to reach the point where we can have systematic knowledge. This is why science is always `right’ and philosophy is always `wrong': as soon as we think we really know something we stop calling it philosophy and start calling it science. Beginning in the 17th century, the area of systematic knowledge, i.e. scientific knowledge, increased with the growth of systematic methods for acquiring knowledge.”

    I know that it was provisonal, but i think it’s honest place for philosophers. IN THE PAST.

  14. unclefrogy says

    I think Frank’s quote has it about right. The ideas philosophy is mostly to my ears some variant of speculation until there is data to “prove’ the point when it then becomes part of the understanding of the world provided by science until then any actions taken as the result of those thoughts are gambling which can be accompanied by an unlimited amount of self delusion but do not need to be.

    uncle frogy

  15. carbonbasedlifeform says

    I believe that the logical fallacy in the cartoon is affirming the antecedent, AKA modus ponens.

  16. daniellavine says

    This is why science is always `right’ and philosophy is always `wrong’: as soon as we think we really know something we stop calling it philosophy and start calling it science.

    Dan Dennett said basically the same thing in one of the early lectures in his Philosophy of Mind class. I tend to trust his perspective on that sort of thing.