Nobody is exempt of using (unintentional) logical fallacies, sophisms and contradictions. However, it is not common that straightforward contradictions and inconsistencies be employed by a thinker or writer, specially in an academic paper or book. The existence of such obvious contradictions, inconsistencies and fallacies cast doubts on the intellectual powers and rigour of the author in question.One of the reasons why I've became convinced that hard-core atheistic materialists are (as a rule and save some exceptions) irrational is that they defend mutually incompatible positions and are caught in obvious contradictions and absurd positions, but they cannot spot such contradictions and fallacies (even if you document them and explain carefully such contradictions to them). This is evidence of irrationality. Their minds don't function properly in order to think straight. (A recent and painfully embarassing example of this kind of atheistic irrationality, imbecility and stupidity is the case of atheist Lawrence Krauss, who is currently known worldwide as Mr.2+2=5 atheist genius).
An example of this kind of straightforward inconsistency by a "professional skeptic" is demostrated in the book Debating Psychic Experience, which is an academic book where defenders of the existence of psi debate skeptics of psi.
In his essays entitled "Attributions about impossible things" (please, keep in mind this title, this is absolutely crucial to my argument here), professional skeptic of parapsychology James Alcock speculates about the "attributions" that parapsychologists make regarding the critics of psi:
Attributions are also made regarding the continuing rejection of parapsychology and its data by most scientists. While the scientists are likely to attribute this state of affairs both to the absence of persuasive data and to the incompatibility of parapsychological claims with modern scientific theory, parapsychologists on the other hand typically attribute it to dogmatism rooted in the belief that paranormal phenomena are impossible because their existence would violate the laws of physics. Britain’s Society for Psychical Research expresses this position clearly:
Opposition to psychical research is often against its implications and not the quality of the evidence. The evidence of psychical research, if accepted, challenges the fundamental assumptions about how the world works generally accepted by the scientific community. (Society for Psychical Research, 2009) (p.31, emphasis in blue added. Note carefully the emphasis in red)
Please, read carefully (three or more times, slowly) Alcock's argument above.
Note carefully that Alcock is arguing that parapsychologists attribute the rejection of parapsychology by most scientists to the following reasons:
1-Dogmatism based on a belief that the paranormal is impossible
2-Such impossibility derives of the the incompatibility of the paranormal claims with known physical laws.
Alcock calls "misattributions" these attributions made by parapsychologists about the mainstream scientific community's rejection of parapsychology: "While such attributions about scientists’ motives may appear reasonable to the parapsychologist, they fall far wide of the mark in terms of what is really going on. These misattributions unfortunately serve to insulate the parapsychological researcher from an understanding of why parapsychology has such difficulty being heard in the hallways of science, and they preclude due consideration to valid critiques that might promote better research." (P.31. emphasis in blue added. Note again the emphasis in red)
In other words, such attributions are convincing for parapsychologists, but they're false attributions (=misattributions) because they are far wide of the mark regarding the actual motives of the rejection of parapsychology by "scientists".
According to Alcock, the actual reason of why most scientists reject parapsychology is " the absence of persuasive data and to the incompatibility of parapsychological claims with modern scientific theory"
However, in the beginning of his essays, Alcock actually affirms (and hence, confirms) the attribution made by parapsychologists!. He says: Parapsychologists believe in “impossible” things. By definition, their subject matter involves phenomena that cannot possibly occur if modern materialistic science has things right. And the first goal of parapsychology is to demonstrate that these supposedly impossible things—purported paranormal abilities such as extrasensory perception, psychokinesis and the like—are indeed real and not impossible after all. If they are demonstrated to be correct, the laws of physics as we know them will have been shown to be terribly wrong in some very important respects. (p. 29. Emphasis in blue added)
Can you see the inconsistency? One the one hand, Alcock complains that parapsychologists wrongly attribute the rejection of parapsychology to the dogmatism of most scientists who believe that paranormal claims are imposible because they violate physical laws. But Alcock himself explicitly say that paranormal claims are impossible ("cannot possibily occur") because the laws of physics are incompatible with such claims (hence, if paranormal claims were proved to be true, "the laws of physics... will have been shown terribly wrong").
So, are parapsychologists wrong when they attribute the rejection of parapsychology to the dogmatism of people like Alcock, who believes that psi claims are impossible ("parapsychologisys believe in impossible things" -Alcock) because they are incompatible with the scientific laws as currently understood?
Alcock himself is providing the crushing and explicit evidence that parapsychologists' attribution is right!
It is not common that scholars defend so obvious inconsistencies in academic texts. Mistakes like that are strong evidence of a serious lack of intellectual rigour and logical training, and cast doubts on the author's overall reliability.
Cognizant of this obvious inconsistency, Dean Radin replied to Alcock in the same book in this way:
Alcock repeatedly emphasizes his belief that psi violates the laws of physics. He writes that if the parapsychologists are demonstrated to be correct, the laws of physics as we know them will have been shown to be terribly wrong in some very important respects. Later he asserts that while the scientists are likely to attribute this state of affairs both to the absence of persuasive data and to the incompatibility of parapsychological claims with modern scientific theory, parapsychologists on the other hand typically attribute it to dogmatism rooted in the belief that paranormal phenomena are impossible because their existence would violate the laws of physics.
This last statement suggests a regrettable prejudice, which leads to a blithe assertion that is, frankly, preposterous. Alcock claims that it is simply wrong to claim that parapsychology’s entry into the hallways of science is barred by scientific bigotry.
If this statement were true, then why does Alcock find it necessary to distinguish between what the parapsychologists say versus what “the scientists” say? (p.113. Emphasis in blue and red added).
Do you remember my emphasis in RED in the Alcock's citation of the beginning of this article? Read it again.
Radin correctly spotted the rhetorical ploy used by Alcock. Alcock distinguishes between "parapsychologists" and the "scientists" (implying that parapsychologists are NOT scientists), what is more evidence of Alcock's prejudices. (Note that a more intelligent person would have tried to hide his prejudices, instead of making them explicit and straightforward).
If I say "atheists" vs. "theists", I'm implying that theists are NOT atheists and viceversa (otherwise, the distinction is stupid and make no sense). Likewise, If I say "scientists" vs. "parapsychologists" I'm implying that parapsychologists don't belong to the group of scientists (otherwise, the distinction is ridiculous, ignorant, stupid and make no sense).
The use of these rhetorical fallacies is evidence of the defensiveness and weakness of Alcock's position. He cannot make his point with sober logic and sound evidence. He needs to use logical fallacies, inconsistencies and rhetoric in order to persuade the reader.
When you see the use of such fallacies, you'll know for sure that the author cannot make his case in a rational way. He needs to use logical fallacies and rhetoric in order to compensate the deficiencies and weakness of his case.
You need to ask yourself: if the evidence for psi were so weak as Alcock pretends, then why the hell professional skeptics like Alcock make use of such obviously bad and illogical arguments (which undermine their own position)?
0 comments:
Post a Comment