who advocates the fallacy?

Question

It sounds in my ears that the writer is criticizing the young earth creationists. The writer points out what they are fond of is just an equivocation fallacy in logic.

Am I on the right track?

Plus, I don't get " so the phenomenon itself is uncertain to have occurred" well. Does it mean "so it is uncertain that the phenomenon itself has occured?"

Context:

It is important to distinguish phenomena from theories. Phenomena can be shown to be factual while theories (explanations of phenomena) cannot. Notice that in the link you provided the author distinguishes between the fact of evolution (as a phenomenon) from the theory of evolution (the current explanation that tries to make sense of the phenomena). Young Earth Creationists, for example, are fond of implicitly equivocating the theory and phenomenon of evolution to argue that theory implies uncertainty so the phenomenon itself is uncertain to have occurred, which is an equivocation fallacy in logic (and the conclusion is thus a non-sequitur). The website to which you linked was created for the sole purpose of placing a spotlight on that equivocation fallacy. IBF.ATTACHMENT_589209634>

Avangi · Accepted Answer

You're exactly right. The point is that let's say Darwinism is a theory of how evolution might occur. The theory remains to be proved.

There is also a fact of evolution which we can see proved around us every day, as mutations occur in viruses which make them better able to survive the humans' attempts to destroy them.

Your paragraph is arguing that people often confuse the theory and the fact, saying that since the theory is unproven the fact must also be disputable.

If a fact is unproven it's simply not a fact, and never was.

Pter · Answer

Yes, I think the writer is criticizing the young earth creationists. He thinks they like to consider the theory and the phenomena as the same thing when making their arguments.

I can't find what you quoted online, but I think the writer is not very careful in his own words regarding logic. A conclusion cannot be a non-sequitur. A non-sequitur is an argument where its conclusion does not follow from its premises. It refers to the argument, not the conclusion. If the writer intend to say that because the argument of the young earth creationist is wrong, their conclusion MUST be wrong, the writer is himself making a fallacious argument that is called Argumentum ad logicam. However, I am not sure about that because I don't exactly know what he means by the term phenomena and whether he has misrepresented the arguments of the young earth creationists. Moreover, I am not so sure he can call that an equivocation fallacy. An equivocation fallacy is an argument in which a word, phrase, or statement is used with one meaning (or sense) in one part of the argument and with different meaning in another part of the argument.

A phenomenon is observable. No one can deny something that has already been observed and it is foolish to try to do that. Critics of young earth creationist often commit a lot of fallacies themselves and they often suggest that evolution has been observed as a phenomenon in certain specific situations (e.g. animals on the Galapogos), and therefore you cannot deny the other "phenomena" of evolution (e.g. mammals evolved from reptiles). Well, I call that an equivocation fallacy.

However, I am not saying that the young earth creationists are right.

Hoa Thai · Answer

Hi,
I would like to add a small part to help clarify the language.
First, the word 'equivocate' means to use ambiguous expressions to avoid commitment or to mislead.
Second, in terms of logic, 'non sequitur' means 'logical fallacy for not following a premise'. There are two types of 'non sequitur':
Given premise: if A is a cow, A is a mammal

1. Affirmative non sequitur (reversing the condition and the result (i.e.,affirming the result)): if B is a mammal, B must be a cow.
2. Denying non sequitur (negating the meaning of the condition to arrive at the opposite result (i.e, denying the condition)): if C is not a cow, C is not a mammal.
That said, let's take a look at what the writer talks about what the young earth creationists (YEC) say: he writes that they equivocate "the theory and phenomenon of evolution" to "argue that the theory implies uncertainty so the phenomenon itself is uncertain to have occurred."
To determine what is wrong with the statement made by the creationists (i.e., what the non sequitur is), we need to set up a premise: if the theory is true, the phenomenon is true.
Therefore, when the YEC says, "if the theory is not true, the phenomenon is not true." That is what we call a denying non sequitur. Just because we cannot come up with the theory to prove why a phenomenon occurs, it does not mean the phenomenon we observe does not occur!
In contrary, if we say, "if the phenomenon is true, the theory must be true," we commit an affirmative non sequitur. Just because the phenomenon we observe does occur, it does not mean any theory derived by any Tom, ****, or Harry is good!

who advocates the fallacy?

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions