the complete debate with materialists see this
logical fallacies of the pseudo rationalist crowd:
I am going to
enumerate a list of most common logical fallacies and compare the
statements of the pseudo rationalists to see where they stand.
argumentum ad numerum
If you think you are right because you are among the majority please
know that this is called argumentum ad numerum and it is a logical
fallacy. Majority has often been wrong.
If you think the position of pseudo rationalists is more popular and
“respectable” please know that this is called argumentum ad populum
and it too is a logical fallacy.
If your excuse is that some renowned authorities in science share the
same beliefs and hence they know better, please know that appeal to
authority or argumentum ad verecundiam is another logical fallacy. Just
as Newton's religious beleifs are no proof to the truth of his religious
belief, the fact that some scientists are materialists does not prove
materialism is right.
If your obstacle is the stupid statements made by some proponents of
paranormal, (e.g. Van Praagh says skeptics are dangerous) then know that
this is called argumentum ad logicam and it too is a logical fallacy. A
thesis does not become invalid just because someone says something
stupid in its support, especially if other explanations are irrefutable.
(e.g. animal acupuncture)
An argument does not become true if it is repeated. This is called
argumentum ad nauseam.
"All the evidence of paranormal is anecdotal and there is a million
dollar prize for anyone who can prove them."
There are many
evidences of paranormal that are not anecdotal and that million dollar
prize is a mentalist’s stunt. If James Randi was honest, he should pay
that money to the American Veterinary Medical Association that has
evidence that acupuncture works even on animals or he should convince
them that animal acupuncture is fraud.
Non Sequitur is another logical fallacy of pseudo rationalists.
"The claim of paranormal is anecdotal and hence we do not need to
think about it."
This is of
course a fallacy. Psychosomatic diseases are all generated in the mind
but not because of that they become unimportant. Even if a claim cannot
be tested with scientific instruments, it does not mean it should be
dismissed as hocus pocus.
This is the fallacy of making a sweeping statement and expecting it to
be true on every specific case -- in other words, stereotyping.
"Several psychics have been found to be playing tricks. Ergo all
psychics are tricksters."
Another logical fallacy often used by pseudo rationalists is red
herring. This means introducing irrelevant facts or arguments to
distract from the question at hand. Example:
“I am a
mentalist and I can fool people that I can do cold reading.”
The art of
magicians and mentalists has nothing to do with psychic power or
Straw man is another fallacy used by pseudo rationalists.
“Psychics cannot predict the lottery number and they can’t prevent
the disaster in their own lives therefore psychic power is
No one said
predicting the lottery number is one of the functions of the psychics or
that psychics are omnipotent.
argumentum ad ridiculum
Last but not least is the weapon of the loser and that is argumentum ad
ridiculum or in plain English appeal to mockery and horse laugh. This of
course has no intellectual value and serves only as a feel good factor
for the loser.
As one can see in this long and tedious debate, there has been virtually
no rule of logic left unbroken by the proponents of materialism.
Ironically they like to be called rationalists.