In defence of ridicule.
12Sep. 09
Commentor Robert Webb posted the following in response to my most recent article on Jason Lisle:
Jason Lisle is wrong about things, but I don’t think the best response involves ad hominem attacks and straw man arguments. He’s sincere in his intentions, so I wouldn’t call him a lying jackass, he’s just wrong, and the best response in that case is rational reasoning not emotive personal attacks.
Jason is right at least that, at least when addressing a creationist, you have to go right back to basics and not presume things in your questions to them that they probably disagree with from the start. I don’t have a problem with his example questions being split up in the way he describes. They would have to be when talking to someone who doesn’t understand them to begin with.
He comes across as calm and reasonable, in terms of manor I mean. I can imagine that from his point of view he would encounter a great many angry abusive atheists, and such a situation would only make him feel more certain of his own position, especially when they just go on the attack without presenting a single counter-argument, as you’ve done here.I guess ridicule and venting has it’s place, and this may well be that place since the audience is already on your side, but if I was Jason Lisle, I’d be pointing people to pages like this as examples of the kind of irrational responses he gets, and I’d rather he didn’t get the ammo. As one of the more rational creationists, I think we need to give a more rational response.
Thanks,
Rob.
Respectfully, no.
Jason Lisle is not some poor dupe who has been taken in by Creationist arguments. He is not merely a man misguided, who, if shown the evidence for evolution would slap his head and say, “Well shucks, now I get it!” Jason Lisle has been told, repeatedly and in many different ways not only that he is wrong and why he is wrong, but also why evolution is correct.
What Jason Lisle is involved in is not an honest appraisal of science and scientists, but a propaganda campaign; these latest articles by him should show this more than ever. This series of articles on logical fallacies is in no way intended to actually educate those who read the Answers in Genesis blog — if it were it would be a dismal failure, as it is riddled with errors of fact and terminology, as well as using ‘examples’ that are either a strawman characature of science or that are not a fallacy at all. These ‘logical fallacy’ articles are a means by which Jason Lisle can provide fallacious soundbite rebuttals to science that can then be parroted by other Creationists — a means by which all reasonable evidence and argument can be ignored simply by uncovering a non-existent fallacy in every defence given of evolution.
If you wonder why Jason Lisle comes across as quite calm, it’s because that is the way he gets his message across convincingly. The calmer he is, the less crazy his ideas sound — compare with this. It allows him to come across as authoritative, even when everything he says is complete nonsense.
And indeed, this series has descended into absurdity much faster than I had anticipated. While at first addressing his lies and errors made sense as a strategy, such a tactic is worthless against completely substanceless articles. Suggesting that his labelling of the question, “If the earth truly is 6000 years old as you creationists say, then why do we find rocks that are over 4 billion years old?” as fallacious is an honest misunderstanding that merely requires correction is, in my opinion, entirely incorrect. The notion that such absurdities should be acknowledged as questions worth entertaining is in itself counterproductive, as all it does is give the impression that there is a legitimate debate when the truth is that he is talking bollocks.
Mind you, I take offence at the idea that I used ad hominem and strawmen arguments in my article. Yes, I charactured and insulted him — make no mistake of that. But my piece was never intended as a serious examination of his article, and it’s hard to see how anyone could think it ever was. My article was an exercise in satire and ridicule, as that is exactly what his article deserved.
All in all, my position on such matters can be summed up as such: I reserve the right to ridicule the ridiculous. Jason Lisle has over time proved to be not uninformed, but malicious, and so you will excuse me if I find a bit of guilty enjoyment in observing and commenting on his descent into absurdity. Make no mistake, there is a time and a place for reasoned, calm explanation — ‘debate’ is a term I will reserve for situations where there actually is a debate — but this is not one of those times. Give a Creationist an inch and they’ll tell you it was a mile back when the world was created six thousand years ago…and then you’re got to clean up the intellectual debris left in the popular marketplace. I’d prefer to stop them before they manage to do the damage in the first place.
Tags: commentor, Creationism, jason lisle, reply, Richard Hughes
September 12th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Also Richard, many of your other deconstructions of Lisle’s “arguments” have been well thought out and attack not only the man but the argument itself. I have to agree that there is a point when well thought out and carefully constructed rebuttles become futile and time wasting.
Let’s face it; Jason Lisle is a moron. You can hardly be expected to respond with a detailed and intelligent answer to something that a forth grader can identify as no more than bullshit.
Reason and knowledge are words that can not possible apply to Jason Lisle, so attempting to use them when responding to his crap is silly.
September 12th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Hi Richard,
Sorry if you took offence, none was intended, but any time actions or points of view are debated, there’s a chance people will take offence. We certainly don’t stop commenting on religion, for example, just because they may take offence.
By all means ridicule the ridiculous, but at least give some indication of why it’s ridiculous. I agree some things barely require it as they are so transparently crazy, like the “crocoduck” guy, but at least in the Jason Lisle article you link to there is nothing so obvious. After reading your article I expected to follow the link and find a delusional preacher-man dishing out doctrine from on-high, but that’s not at all what I found. Maybe you can provide a link to the craziest article he’s written if he’s more crazy elsewhere.
> Suggesting that his labelling of the question, “If the earth truly is 6000 years old
> as you creationists say, then why do we find rocks that are over 4 billion years
> old?” as fallacious is an honest misunderstanding that merely requires
> correction is, in my opinion, entirely incorrect.
Logical fallacies have nothing to do with the truth of components making up a statement, just how those components are put together. His examples are all correct, strictly speaking. The above is a loaded question. “If A then why is B true?” presupposes B. It’s a logical fallacy. This does not imply in any way that B is false, just that B is presupposed by the question. If you are directing the question at someone who does not believe in B, then you are attempting to load the question. So he’s right. His article is in fact logical in terms of question structure.
Of course, you could just reword all those questions differently to avoid the problem. His article kind of implies that because the questions are phrased poorly that the whole concept behind the question can be ignored, which is of course incorrect.
By the way, I’m curious: you still refer to his “lies”. Do you honestly believe that Lisle knows deep down that evolution is true and is just lying about it? I wouldn’t call them lies if he believes them.
Ha, that time-cube thing is bizarre! I have no idea what it’s about, not that I could be bothered reading too much of it. Would be hard to believe that guy doesn’t have a few screws loose!
Rob.
September 12th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
@Robert:
That’s quite alright — I felt your comment deserved more than just another comment anyway, as it gave me the chance to expand upon my ideas about reasoned debate versus ridicule.
To mean, the ridiculous nature of Jason Lisle’s article seems self evident. Here is a man, supposedly writing a series of articles on logical fallacies — yet he makes regular errors of fact, uses inappropriate or strawman examples, and regularly engages in logical fallacies himself. The entire situation is Monty Pythonesque in its odd back-asswardness.
While it is true that logical fallacies are formal or informal errors in reasoning, to say that a question of the form, “If A then why is B true?” is always a logical fallacy is completely incorrect. It is incorrect if B has been unjustifiably assumed, however in the above example that is not the case. The plain fact of the matter is that we have found rocks that are over 4 billion years old — incorporating that into our question as an objection is not presupposition, but a legitimate criticism of the idea that the world is 6000 years old. For this reason, Jason is completely wrong — the same problem arises with other examples in that article — for example, “If creation is true, then why does all the scientific evidence point to evolution?” Like it or not, that IS where all the evidence points…so saying that it is an unjustified assumption is just not true.
Facts like this are exactly the sort of thing that I think are pointless to debate; they only lend credence to the nonsense being spread by the Creationists, and by meeting them on a level playing field we faciliate that. The earth is not 6000 years old, the evidence does point towards evolution, and if Jason Lisle wants to argue those points he can argue with a brick wall for all I care. He certainly won’t be taken seriously by anyone with a cursory understanding of science.
Incidentally, the reason I linked to Timecube was to make a point: That most of what Jason Lisle is saying makes no more sense than anything on that Timecube page. In the light of modern science, Creationism is an absurd proposition supported by nonsensical (and nonexistant) evidences. The difference between Jason Lisle and Timecube is a difference of presentation, not of content.
As for my referring to his lies — no I do not believe he secretly believes in evolution. However, I do believe that it is possible for a person to hold conflicting beliefs in their head without coming to great worry; given the specific lines of ‘evidence’ for Creationism or against evolution that he has been repeatedly shown are false yet continues to parrot, it is reasonable to say that he is lying when he uses these known false evidences in his talks and articles.
Richard
September 14th, 2009 at 8:15 pm
“He certainly won’t be taken seriously by anyone with a cursory understanding of science”
Look I wish that were true, but Lisle himself is an astrophysicist and no doubt has far more than a cursory understanding of science. Yes it’s bizarre, but there you have it, and as such he has a position of authority that some other scientists may listen to. I don’t think this guy is a nutcase on the same level as the timecube guy. The timecube guy deserves ridicule :-) Lisle “sounds” reasonable, which will suck people in, so I think it deserves a reasoned response.
Anyhoo, I decided to put my money where my mouth was and write my own response, which I’ve sent to Lisle, and posted as an article here:
http://www.youngausskeptics.com/2009/09/a-letter-to-jason-lisle/
I’m not expecting to change his mind of course, but am curious to see what he replies. Will be surprised if he does though!
Rob.