8 main logic errors supporters of pseudoscience Bashny.Net

GlazamiPsevdonauchnye Their ideas become more and more popular. People come out with questionable arguments against the theory of evolution, global warming, the use of GMOs, and so on - and often erroneous arguments taken seriously. This article contains a number of logical errors and tricks that are most often found in anti-scientific controversies. Knowledge about these errors not need to use to win the debate, and can be used to better talk to.





ChucheloProsteyshaya logical trick, like everything else on this list, do not always use deliberately. It works like this: one of the parties to the dispute misrepresents approval opponent, replacing it with a similar, but less logical. Meaning of the statement is changing and it is easier to challenge. Use this trick - how to overcome a stuffed man, and then say that you fought with someone alive.

Example:

Most often with the help of "stuffed" challenge the theory of evolution - it distorts or simply excluding from it the important components. For example, its opponents ask: "If man evolved from apes, why are apes still exist?", Implying that the evolution of the body replaces all previous stages. This question is impossible to answer. Commits multiple substitutions: that evolution is over, that man descended from apes, finally, that evolution is linear - and when one animal is evolving from another, the previous stage simply disappears.

Misleading dilemmaOshibka in logical reasoning, when excluded any possibility except the two considered. Simply put, the world is divided into black and white. Typically, one possibility is a logical false or simply not acceptable, there is only the second - for the benefit of which the choice is made. "You're either grunge or kislotnik. You're not like grunge, so what exactly kislotnik! »

Example:

Such opposition is often used as an argument in favor of religion or God exists, either in life makes no sense and morality. It excludes any sources of meaning and morality than religious. Or, for example: you either believe in astrology or you blinkered mind. It excludes the possibility that a person may be open to new ideas, but it weighs the pros and cons, but in favor of astrology, there is little argument.

False ravenstvoEto conclusion of equality between the two entities (or, for example, the ideas) of a limited set of qualities that they both do have - but that is not to be equal. For example, if cats and dogs - soft, fluffy pets, no difference between them. In the case of the ideas of this error running a little trickier - when considered equivalent to two views, one of which is significantly different logical.

Example:

It is not even used as an argument, and in general as an excuse to start a dispute. For example, journalists arrange a debate between a respected scientist and crazy, trying to see two views on one problem without taking into account that between these points of view can not be equal.

Episodic svidetelstvaNesmotrya the importance of this term in the Russian language it does not have adequate translation, but we are referring to anecdotal evidence - anecdotal data and evidence that the statement is based on a fragmentary, single cases. In the world of pseudoscience anecdotal evidence are analogous to the evidence obtained as a result of the experiment (which, recall, should be checked by scientists and repeated several times). For example, you say, "My uncle Billy Bob ate 3 kg of apples a day for a year, and his cancer was gone!" And concludes that apples defeat cancer.

Example:

All the arguments against the use of GMOs in food at the moment are based solely on anecdotal evidence. Studies claim that GMOs cause cancer, autism, liver problems and other diseases, are not supported by any evidence. Another example: all is evidence that homeopathy works not only as a placebo, only anecdotal - the science tells a different story.





Texas strelokEta logical ploy based on the history of Texas shooters who fired a revolver on a wall of the barn, and then walked over to her and painted around the bullet holes target - that it looked as if every time he got right on target. It is often used in hypotheses. Under the rules of the scientific method, you first need to put forward a hypothesis, and then collect data to verify it - rather than adjust their hypothesis under the existing data so that it seemed plausible.

Example:

"Texas shooter" is most often used in favor of the idea that the world was created by some intelligent creator. Proponents of this idea say that the chances that the protein molecule appeared "by chance", or the cells were "accidentally", or even that the universe appeared "by chance", an incredibly small - and thus, our world was something created. This argument is simply using our world (ie data) in order to deduce from it a convenient hypothesis, but it is still wrong because nothing is accidental: the processes of physics, chemistry and biology is very ordered.

Appeal to posledstviyamArgument that goes beyond logic - and that is why from the point of view of logic is totally unacceptable. The idea is to predict some terrible consequences of an idea, and concluded that this idea is wrong, or simply immoral. Something in the spirit of "Red increases aggression and, therefore, people need to stop to go to the red car, otherwise we pereubivaem each other!»

Example:

This method is used very simply: "Homosexuality is necessary to declare the disease, because otherwise cease to be born children and humanity will become extinct." Or even worse: the theory of evolution - is false, because if we believe in it, it will lead to the development of eugenics, genetic experiments, and - you guessed it - the extinction of mankind.

Admiration prirodnymFormalno is not quite logical fallacy, but common argument on the side of pseudoscience: the worship of all the "natural", "natural" and "natural." What is considered to be a natural in every case - it is very subjective: the use of herbs rather than tablets to only "organic" food. Sometimes this superiority imaginary nature make serious conclusions, for example, ethical man should not play God and experiment with science, no need to disturb the natural course of things.

Example:

The most striking example - this is probably the fight against GMOs like something "unnatural"; all the same it is clear that the cucumbers must be only his, native, from the garden. This argument is, say, in the fight against homosexuality - like something, if violating the natural course of things.

Proof of oshibkiNaposledok recall that all these errors are not in order so that you can win in any dispute - but in order to keep track of their own reasoning. The last error is derived from all of these. Proof of error - when you make a conclusion about the falsity of the idea due to the fact that the arguments in its favor there must be some mistake. Although in reality the idea can still be right - even by accident. For example, here's a plea: "In the world there is only redheads and brunettes. Elon Musk - not red, respectively, it is brunette. " There is a logic error allowed (false dichotomy), but the output of it still made the right.

Example:

The best way to illustrate this error is not unscientific example, but rather - anti-religious. Despite the fact that the existence of God often displayed using the "arrow Texas," one of this error can not conclude that God does not exist, though many atheists do just that.

via www.lookatme.ru/mag/live/interweb/211921-logical-fallacies-pseudoscience