Question

...
Dan

Swallowing the red herring?

A friend says apologists Like William LaneCraig have no choice but to use probability calculus and Bayesian theory in defense of human resurrection from the dead because hostile debate opponents are also using science which is also beyond the intellectual grasp of most laypersons (here’s a link to a thorough debunking of Craig’s method brane-space.blogspot.com/. . .

What kind of fallacy is happening when people swallow the red herring?

It seems that this is something different from argument from authority, perhaps not, but the position being argued is that Craig has no choice but to respond with such grand hypotheses. I see this as sophist gibberish.
asked on Wednesday, Dec 24, 2014 10:42:35 AM by Dan

Top Categories Suggested by Community

Comments

Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."

Master the "Rules of Reason" for Making and Evaluating Claims

Claims are constantly being made, many of which are confusing, ambiguous, too general to be of value, exaggerated, unfalsifiable, and suggest a dichotomy when no such dichotomy exists. Good critical thinking requires a thorough understanding of the claim before attempting to determine its veracity. Good communication requires the ability to make clear, precise, explicit claims, or “strong” claims. The rules of reason in this book provide the framework for obtaining this understanding and ability.

This book / online course is about the the eleven rules of reason for making and evaluating claims. Each covered in detail in the book. 

Take the Online Course

Answers

...
Bo Bennett, PhD
0

There are a couple of different issues here we can address: 1) Your friend's assumption and 2) WLC's use of Bayesian theory as a way to defend a alleged miracle. Let's start with #1.

I would question how your friend knows this—unless he prefaced the statement with an opinion qualifier such as "probably." It is possible that WLC admitted to this kind of "sophist gibberish" as you so eloquently put it, but unless he did, his reasoning for using Bayesian theory would be unknown.

If WLC really did admit to saying that, he is basically admitting to an Argument by Gibberish or perhaps the more specific form, argument by prestigious jargon. WLC would be right that much of science that is used to debunk supernatural claims is generally beyond the intellectual grasp of the layperson. This sounds kinda elitist, but it is more likely than not factually accurate based on the scientific literacy of US. The problem with WLC's line of "reasoning" would be that his opponents who use science are using it correctly—his use of it is not.
answered on Wednesday, Dec 24, 2014 11:04:41 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD

Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories

Comments