Is it the no True Scotsman fallacy to say that disagreeing with evolution makes you...
...unscientific? I say yes. Just because someone disagrees with one theory does not make them unscientific. Saying otherwise is like saying that prochoicers are unchrstian or Muslims unamerican.
Yes.
Side Score: 10
|
 |
No.
Side Score: 4
|
|
|
|
|
2
points
1
point
1
point
1
point
Disagreeing with evolution is unscientific, but technically you can still be scientific... One can be scientific and not accept evolution, you can't be scientific about biology, and other scientific fields without evolution. Not accepting evolution, is in itself unscientific, but one can be scientifically illiterate in one field, and scientifically literate in another. Side: Yes.
2
points
|
1
point
It depends on the context. But to be honest, the "fallacy" is not really a fallacy, except when it is being used in relation as a fallacy of irrelevance or diversion. The No True Scotsman Fallacy is a fallacy. Saying that no true Christian would be prochoice is an example. Saying that rejecting evolution is another. If you start out by saying "no true such and such", you probably are using this fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NotrueScotsman http://www.logicalfallacies.info/ Side: Yes.
I don't care, to be honest, if it is considered to be a fallacy. The thing is that a fallacy is only in certain contexts, and the context rarely comes up. For example, the fallacy of an appeal to emotion, or an appeal to the people, is only a fallacy when in certain contexts. Appealing to emotion or the people is not intrinsically a logical fallacy. Most informal logical fallacies have exceptions and apply to only certain contexts. The only logical fallacies that do not have exceptions are formal logical fallacies, and even then philosophers disagree that they are always logical fallacies. Side: No.
|
