HOME | DD
slyeagle — Science is not Infallible
by-nc-sa
Published: 2008-04-18 21:46:49 +0000 UTC; Views: 8543; Favourites: 159; Downloads: 64
Redirect to original
Description
Scientific knowledge is human knowledge and scientists are human beings. They are not gods, and science is not infallible. Yet, the general public often thinks of scientific claims as absolutely certain truths. They think that if something is not certain, it is not scientific and if it is not scientific, then any other non-scientific view is its equal. This misconception seems to be, at least in part, behind the general lack of understanding about the nature of scientific theories.From The Skeptic's Dictionary
In this day and age people will take anything with a grain of salt up until it has "scientifically proven" attached to it. Then it's accepted as an absolute truth. As a person with faith, I personally have had it up to the ceiling with people whose religion is "scientifically proven" and telling me everything I believe in is "scientifically proven" to be wrong. Once and for all, I'd like to say that science is the systematic observation of the natural world and is simply a mode of human understanding. It can neither prove nor disprove the supernatural.
Furthermore, scientific claims can ALWAYS be amended or disproved by new evidence and should NEVER be accepted as the final answer. People who further scientific claims usually do so with a very human agenda. In the early 1900s, Westerners believed that science had explained everything there was to know and there was nothing new to be learned. This included that bathing was bad for you (Europeans still believed that at this era). Up until 1945, the American law called for compulsory sterilization of the "feeble-minded" or otherwise "unfit," because these people were "scientifically proven" to create defective children. Up until very recently, people fighting for animal rights had a hard time going up against the fact that animals were scientifically proven to be programmed by instinct and were devoid of thoughts and feelings. Just two years ago, Lydia Fairchild nearly lost custody of all three of her biological children because current DNA testing was considered "infallible" in the courts. Makes you wonder how many innocent people we're sending to prison based on faulty science.
So support science AND humanity. Don't accept whatever is the current scientific claim as absolute truth!
Related content
Comments: 205
It's called the Theory of evolution for a reason.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.
Lrn2science.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Theories are never absolute. Even the greatest scientists know this.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I never said it was absolute, but it's at least mostly accurate.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Wait.... It is? Last I heard it was a theory.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Raven, Peter H. and George B. Johnson. BIOLOGY. 6th ed. Boston: McGraw Hill, 2002.
"Scientists use the word theory in two main ways. A 'theory' is a proposed explanation fr some natural phenomenon, often based on some general principle. [...] 'Theory' is also used to mean the body of interconnected concepts supported by scientific reasoning an experimental evidence, that explains the facts in some areas of study."
I'm not dismissing theories lightly by any stretch of the imagination. They provide us with a guide to put forth further questions and test the concept in question. That doesn't quite make them paragons of truth, though.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
You don't understand what a scientific theory is.
A theory is a supported by evidence and tested to be true. Your thinking hypothesis.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
No, no, NO. False statement! Very false! And extremely dangerous!
True statement: living creatures adapt and evolve in accordance with their environment.
Unproven statement: this accounts for the origin of life.
And yet, both are packaged together as a single idea, and people think that it is "proven beyond all reasonable doubt" which, as I've been trying to say, is simply not the case.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Your wrong once again. Can you even tell the difference between evolution, Abiogenesis, and Big bang cosmology?
Abiogenesis explains the origin of life, not evolution.
Big bang Cosmology explains the origins of he universe, not evolution.
So you basically just admitted evolution is true.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Your never wrong! I'm going to start a JamesJimRaynor religion and make millions!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You responded to a comment months ago.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm aware of that. Seems your attitude hasn't change since then either. Have a good day
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Then why bother responding in the first place?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Good point. Maybe because I think your naive and controversial. But that's my opinion. I would hope you wouldn't think that of yourself since it's damaging to our well beings to look down on yourself. But then again, I wouldn't want you to think your always right either. I'm just shooting the shit because it seems to be your favorite food, reading all those comments. Then again, it's a worthless attempt to pursue and at this point, it would seem I'm giving it too much of my energy. How much energy have you lost over such trivial things?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Actually these things aren't trivial.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Then that's your first mistake. What else is there except for the now? Are you not thinking about things in the future or things in the past "now"? I would prefer to think about the things that are happening "now" and create things "now" so that I will have a brighter "now" in the future. But, it's the things we think, say, and do that really matter and those things are happening "now". So where does thinking about the fallibility of science (which is a prediction and hypothesis) get us? That's why me even writing this "now" is time that I'm spending, which is energy, and it's being poorly used. Well, most likely it's poorly used because your not going to care about this. Instead, you'll probably retort and spend more of your energy on something that is not involved with either one of our "now's". Right "now", I'm sitting in front of the comp, wasting energy on stuff in the past and future and future is a replica of the past since the past is all we have to go by. Like the farmer seeding his fields at the appropriate times due to past learning, he still does it "now".
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
If people are unaccepting of science, how can we have a better future?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That's a matter of choice. Some people will choose to dedicate their lives to the study of science, ie our world in which we live in, and some will dedicate their lives to their current surroundings. Neither one is better than the other. And being a science advocate, what do you think about 2012? At that point would it even matter? On a further note, would it even matter to be controversial to anything considering change when drastic change is due regardless of our accomplishments and/or knowledge.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The thing is that evolution is a fact, yet your friend here denies that.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Who said she is my friend? Science is based on assumption. I believe evolution is inevitable due to adaptations plants and animals have to make for their environments, however, not much is said for things under our seas that once used to be inhabited. You are shirking the suggestions I am making and therefore will take heed to nothing outside of your current belief systems. Now, my energy is becoming wasted so I will not respond to another message from you. Please think about where you send your energy and whether it is beneficial to you or not. Not for me, because I honestly don't care, but for you. It seems you waste far to much energy concerning over things that are futile to our current existence, and when I say our existence I mean my personal life and yours. All we have is now and right in front of us. Until you realize that these things are beyond our control and science is fallible you will continue to deprive yourself of life. Science is the study of life. One can know all the nutritional value of food but that does not get us anywhere, we have to eat the food. ie: One can study all about life (science), but study alone does not allow us to live life. We have to be present in the "now" to do that. Save your energy. Getting upset about these things is trivial especially with change in the planet due to come that is beyond our control.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Science is not based on assumption. You'd know that if you had any understanding of it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You are silly. What is a hypothesis? That question is loaded. Have a decent life.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
A hypothesis is an educated guess.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And what's a guess? You can not see the forest through the trees.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
A hypothesis must be tested before it can be endorsed.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Test evolution. The big bang. All that stuff. You can't. Science, wether people admit or not, is based on beleif. Much like religion.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Have tested evolution.
[link]
So your first premise is wrong.
Second (And I know this will blow your mind) the big bang theory was purposed BY A CATHOLIC PRIEST. [link]
Second of all just because we cannot directly observe everything in science doesn;t mean we cannot know it's there, there is a method called inference.
Science Provides Evidence for the Unobservable via Inference
The primary function of science is to demonstrate the existence of phenomena that cannot be observed directly. Science is not needed to show us things we can see with our own eyes. Direct observation is not only unnecessary in science; direct observation is in fact usually impossible for the things that really matter. In fact, the most important discoveries of science have only be inferred via indirect observation. Familiar examples of unobservable scientific discoveries are atoms, electrons, viruses, bacteria, germs, radio-waves, X-rays, ultraviolet light, energy, entropy, enthalpy, solar fusion, genes, protein enzymes, and the DNA double-helix. The round earth was not observed directly by humans until 1961, yet this counterintuitive concept had been considered a scientific fact for over 2000 years. The Copernican hypothesis that the earth orbits the sun has been acknowledged virtually ever since the time of Galileo, even though no one has ever observed the process to this day. All of these "invisible" phenomena were elucidated using the scientific method of inference. When the term "evidence" is used in this article, it is used strictly with respect to this scientific method.
Useful notes: Do the research before hand, get facts to back up your point, because your personal opinion is meaningless on it's own.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Firstly, I never claimed not to beleive in evolution, only that I beleive that it is, first and foremost, a beleif. Same goes for the big bang, which I do not beleive. We see what we expect to see; 'tis a human flaw. And you may infer the wrong thing, you know. No-one is always right. Science has been proven wrong many times in the past, and changed. It could happen again, whose to say? Also...the TV Tropes logo you linked me to somehow doesn't say anything about your point, or perhaps that's just me.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Evolution and the big bang are not 'beliefs' they are science.
There is a difference between a scientific theory and a belief.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Nowadays it is increasingly dificult to see it, though. Many, many things are somewhere in between. Also...you beleive that it happened, do you not? Thus it is your beleif. Of course...beleif is largely what makes things real.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No. Your confusing two different things here.
A belief is something that we cannot know to be true, but we hold that it true.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hmm...allow me to quote myself:
"Of course, beleif is largely what makes things real.."
We cannot *know* anything to be true, not really, not even that the sky is blue. Who decided what 'blue' is, afterall? And how do you know that you're not simply insane? I mean, hell, this whole 'internet' thing could all be a figmet of your own screwed up mind. This could all be a dream. You could be in a coma. Anything is possible, after all.
Also, in the first sentance you used the wrong word. It should have been 'you're' as in, "you are".
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes obviously it could all be made up.
But in order to actually make progress with knowledge we need to make the bare minimum assumption that the universe is real.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Practically, yes, but every truth is based upon a lie. Science could be a lie...religion could be a lie...hell, the cake *is* a lie. We see what we expect to see, remember? If you beleive in something enough, it can be so, purely by your willpower. There's a word for that, but I can't seem to recall what it is. Also, you need to improve your grammar, dude.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It's not a 'lie' a lie is purposely giving false information.
And who cares about my grammar, it doesn't really affect what I say does it?
Also you need to take into consideration that science is a way of knowing things ever though we are flawed, even though we can make mistakes.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
On your point the first: A lie is not nessisarily purposfully, not in the sense I use the word, it is merely anything untrue. And for that matter...what if some of it -was- intentional, on the behalf of...someone, who discovered something we weren't ready for, or liked being thought of as intelligent, or just felt like tricking someone? Just because you are scientists does not nessisarily mean that you are invunerable to acts of cruelty. Also, I never said science itself is a lie, only parts of it. Same goes for all religions, as the real 'truth' is no doubt somewhere in between.
On your point the second: No, but it has a strong detrimental effect on wether or not people take you seriously. I'm only 14, and I still think you failed highschool english.
On your final- for the time being- point: I have taken it into consideration, but no-one truly 'knows' things. We can think them, we can be certain of them, but we can never truly 'know' them. Some things are unknowable. Also, I know of better ways to understand things than science.
I am now off to respond to my friend requests on the book of face.
In short, and in the 80s, you just got burned!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
[link]
[link]
IE lying.
If a scientist is lying they'd be caught by the way science weeds out liars. Since they have to be peer reviewed many MANY times.
People can take me seriously, I just don't care for grammar on the internet. [link]
"Some things are unknowable."
Knowing for certain is something science cannot do, it can only be to a reasonable degree. Like proven beyond all reasonable doubt, but it cannot be completely proven with 100% accuracy. Science can show something is certainly there but it cannot be completely accurate or without error. However that is different then saying that it's a chance tha science is totally wrong.
"Also, I know of better ways to understand things than science."
Like what?
"In short, and in the 80s, you just got burned!"
I'm a pyro, I don't burn.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
What if they were ALL lying? Some sort of masquerade? No, I don't personally think that, I've considered it, and it is very plausable, but I really do not know either way, so I would not accuse them. Innocent until proven guilty, Y'know?
It cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt, when you really look into it enough, it all starts to seem rather stupid, and flawed and ver easily doubted. Or perhaps that's just me being jaded.
Yes, I am a grammar nazi, and proud of it, bitch.
I like new age spirituality, and paganism. And SOME traits of christianity and buhdism, but not most of them. And a sprinkling of science for the mundane things, which I trust -but don't know- that we were smart enough to get right. It's my own beleif system, 100% copyright Sana Shadow, although others are welcome to beleive it as well, free speech 'n all, even though I hate wannabes SO much.
UNyuh-huh..hun? It more or less translates to 'owned'.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"What if they were ALL lying? Some sort of masquerade?"
Then there shouldn't be any benefits or any consistency with what we observe. Like if evolution was a lie, then using it to develop like new medicines wouldn't work if it was wrong.
"It cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt, when you really look into it enough, it all starts to seem rather stupid, and flawed and ver easily doubted. Or perhaps that's just me being jaded."
If to all 5 of our senses it appears to be true, all the facts line up neatly, etc, then it is beyond reasonable doubt.
"UNyuh-huh..hun? It more or less translates to 'owned'."
I find a stunning lack of ownage in our discussion.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"
Then there shouldn't be any benefits or any consistency with what we observe. Like if evolution was a lie, then using it to develop like new medicines wouldn't work if it was wrong."
1. I meant if every scientist was in on it. They were all working together trick us...or to cover something up. No, I don't think that, but what I'm trying to say is that absolutley anything could be possible.
2. Placebo affect. Google it. We see what we expect to see.
"If to all 5 of our senses it appears to be true, all the facts line up neatly, etc, then it is beyond reasonable doubt."
Sometimes it doesn't. And that's what happens with a lot of miracles, you know. The fact that something seems real doesn't mean it is.
"I find a stunning lack of ownage in our discussion."
I'm trying to get into the habit of using 80s speak, neo-maxie-zoom-dweebie (that's from the breakfast club). 'cause they rocked.
You seem to being missing the point of everything I say, you know. That we see what we expect to see.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"I meant if every scientist was in on it. They were all working together trick us...or to cover something up. No, I don't think that, but what I'm trying to say is that absolutley anything could be possible."
How about impossible? After all proving them all wrong only gets you fame and glory.
"Placebo affect. Google it. We see what we expect to see."
And this is where you fail logic forever. Placebo is something that has no effect but feeling good makes us think it does. Obviously medicine isn't a placebo so your talking out of your ass.
"Sometimes it doesn't. And that's what happens with a lot of miracles, you know. The fact that something seems real doesn't mean it is."
Hence why we test for consistency.
"I'm trying to get into the habit of using 80s speak, neo-maxie-zoom-dweebie (that's from the breakfast club). 'cause they rocked."
[link]
nonononono.
"You seem to being missing the point of everything I say, you know. That we see what we expect to see."
And you seem to not grasp basic logic.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"How about impossible? After all proving them all wrong only gets you fame and glory."
Impossible is nothing, except perhaps slamming a revolving door, my child.
"And this is where you fail logic forever. Placebo is something that has no effect but feeling good makes us think it does. Obviously medicine isn't a placebo so your talking out of your ass."
How, precisley, is that obvious? Now, here is where I am going to repeat myself: I do not, personally, beleive half of the stuff I'm saying here, I am merely trying to get you to consider the idea -not fact, unlike you and most other scientists, I am not that up myself- that pretty much anything could be possible.
"Hence why we test for consistency."
And if it was you interpreting what you see incorrectly?
"nonononono."
yesyesyesyesyes
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"Impossible is nothing, except perhaps slamming a revolving door, my child."
Fine, highly improbable to near impossible.
"How, precisley, is that obvious? Now, here is where I am going to repeat myself: I do not, personally, beleive half of the stuff I'm saying here, I am merely trying to get you to consider the idea -not fact, unlike you and most other scientists, I am not that up myself- that pretty much anything could be possible."
You fail miserably. You simply come off as stuck up your own ass.
"And if it was you interpreting what you see incorrectly? "
It's not one person that figures it out, and the interpretation is tested fore further consistency.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"Fine, highly improbable to near impossible."
Improbably, certainly, I never denied that. But possible. Just like everything else. Erm...save for the revolving door thing, and I'm still working on that one! *grin*
"You fail miserably. You simply come off as stuck up your own ass."
Anything is possible. Your mind is what makes it real, in a sense. In another sense, a lot of things are as unlikely as me dressing up as a magical girl and going "Super sparkly Sana magic attack!". Bad example, I have actually done that. Don't you love being hyper, kid?
Also, I diliberatley come across as that. I'm over-the-top sarcastic and arrogant then switch to hyperactive and insane just so people realize "this girl does not take herself seriously in the least" or "Great, another lunatic." Shmoo.
"It's not one person that figures it out, and the interpretation is tested fore further consistency."
There is no way to test the real reason, behind it all, that something happens. It's unknowable, so you have to guess at it, and most people's guess becomes the accepted 'truth'. Not that that's a bad thing; not knowing everything is what makes us human, after all.
Tell me, child, do you beleive in anything outside of what is accepted as 'science'?
(PS- I know you're older than me. I looked at your profile breifly, and saw a photo of you, and you look about 16. I'm 14. That does not mean I will stop referring to you as kid, child, hun, sweets, or any other such term. It's just how I talk.)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
'Improbably, certainly, I never denied that. But possible. Just like everything else. Erm...save for the revolving door thing, and I'm still working on that one! *grin*'
You can slam a revolving door. But you fail to understand that there is a difference between what is possible and what is probable.
"Anything is possible. Your mind is what makes it real, in a sense. In another sense, a lot of things are as unlikely as me dressing up as a magical girl and going "Super sparkly Sana magic attack!". Bad example, I have actually done that. Don't you love being hyper, kid?"
Apparently not very unlikely. Again you pay to much attention to what is possible and not what is probable.
"Also, I diliberatley come across as that. I'm over-the-top sarcastic and arrogant then switch to hyperactive and insane just so people realize "this girl does not take herself seriously in the least" or "Great, another lunatic." Shmoo."
Then don't complain when people ignore you.
"There is no way to test the real reason, behind it all, that something happens. It's unknowable, so you have to guess at it, and most people's guess becomes the accepted 'truth'. Not that that's a bad thing; not knowing everything is what makes us human, after all."
Your making a lot of big assertions.
"Tell me, child, do you beleive in anything outside of what is accepted as 'science'?"
I don't know little girl, do you believe in anything outside your fantasy world? If you want to deny reality, fine. Just leave us sane people alone.
"(PS- I know you're older than me. I looked at your profile breifly, and saw a photo of you, and you look about 16. I'm 14. That does not mean I will stop referring to you as kid, child, hun, sweets, or any other such term. It's just how I talk.)"
Then I'd recommend getting that out of your vocab before you say it to the wrong person.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"You can slam a revolving door. But you fail to understand that there is a difference between what is possible and what is probable."
I understand the difference, but one must always expect the unexpected.
"Then don't complain when people ignore you."
That's why people DON'T ignore me, and just for the record, I have never said anything that implies in the least that I dislike being ignored.
"Your making a lot of big assertions."
I know. I have strong veiws, it's what makes me me.
"I don't know little girl, do you believe in anything outside your fantasy world? If you want to deny reality, fine. Just leave us sane people alone."
I do not defy reality, so much as I accept that we do not know what constitutes reality. It's not just science, y'know? Aslo, occultism does not mean fantasy, kid.
"Then I'd recommend getting that out of your vocab before you say it to the wrong person."
No, I'm quite looking forward to the day I say it to the wrong person.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
"I understand the difference, but one must always expect the unexpected."
But at the same time you give any possibilities credibility without any test in reality.
"I know. I have strong veiws, it's what makes me me."
Assertions alone don't carry truth value behind them.
"I do not defy reality, so much as I accept that we do not know what constitutes reality. It's not just science, y'know? Aslo, occultism does not mean fantasy, kid."
And your using the fact that we cannot know everything as a reason to reject what we do know because it may contain error? Argument from ignorance much.
Still I get the sense that your not arguing JUST from ignorance, I think your trying a chewbacca defense too.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"But at the same time you give any possibilities credibility without any test in reality."
Yes, I do. Because anything could be possible, not likely, but possible. I mean, afterall, what right to we have to attempt to understand the workings of the world/universe/multiverse/whatever-it-is-we're-talking-about-here?
"Assertions alone don't carry truth value behind them."
Nothing carries truth in this world anymore, and truth is not always valuable.
"And your using the fact that we cannot know everything as a reason to reject what we do know because it may contain error? Argument from ignorance much."
Now, see, this is where you misunderstand me: I do not, personally, beleive we know anything.
As Socrates said, I know only that I know nothing.
"Still I get the sense that your not arguing JUST from ignorance, I think your trying a chewbacca defense too."
I'm not trying to confuse you, I am merely expressing my veiws. Perhaps, when encountering things other than your precious science, your undoubtebly narrow mind does not know how to react.
Also, I had to google Chewbacca defense. It's from south park, correct? How pitiful that you have to live your life through popculture.
TBH, though, I lost interest in this a few posts back. I mean, we aren't going to agree, so really there's no point in us discussing this further.
Ciao!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"Yes, I do. Because anything could be possible, not likely, but possible. I mean, afterall, what right to we have to attempt to understand the workings of the world/universe/multiverse/whatever-it-is-we're-talking-about-here?\"
Because we live in it, and it has practical applications. You rather be a know nothing and live like a wild animal or would you prefer to have technology and understanding of the world around you?
"Nothing carries truth in this world anymore, and truth is not always valuable."
Basically your arguing that: [link]
Plenty of things carry truth in this world, just many are uncomfortable and/or hard to accept. And sure, there are many lies but that doesn't by extention mean that everything is a lie.
"Now, see, this is where you misunderstand me: I do not, personally, beleive we know anything."
Reality denialist? Wow, that's a new one. *Writes this down*
"As Socrates said, I know only that I know nothing."
Which is a paradox, and that misses the point, the point of it is that it is arrogant to claim to know everything perfectly. Nor does he say that everything is unknowable just that he cannot >know< with 100% accuracy.
"I'm not trying to confuse you, I am merely expressing my veiws. Perhaps, when encountering things other than your precious science, your undoubtebly narrow mind does not know how to react."
So speaks the pinhead, but I digress. You just seem to think radically differently (even to the extent of being irrational).
"Also, I had to google Chewbacca defense. It's from south park, correct? How pitiful that you have to live your life through popculture."
I don't actually watch southpark, that's just the popular name for the defense.
Has nothing to do with threatening to rip your opponent's arms off if they beat you at chess or its equivalents, though it operates on similar principle.
In war, if the opposing side pulls back and raises the white flag, you've won. Some people like to think that this strategy also works in the art of debate - that if you can get the opposing side to shut up, you're right by default.
The sad part? It works. Not just in media, but in real life, too. In fact, most political systems are based on doing this. No, seriously.
A Chewbacca Defense is part of an argument that intentionally or unintentionally has the effect of confusing the opponent so that they will stop arguing with you. If they are too chicken to continue the argument, the point they are trying to argue must be equally as flimsy, right? Right?
Sometimes a Chewbacca Defense is not so easy to spot, as there's often debates that aren't supposed to be so but are rather drawn out. Or are just held by lousy debaters. Key signs of a Chewbacca Defense include:
* Being accused of loving or hating X, where X is a subject rather unrelated to the debate.
* Being insulted, except when it's a relevant point that happened to be insulting. (e.g.: Saying to someone that they couldn't get into MENSA because they have a tested IQ of 75 is insulting but also very relevant)
* Having a point repeated over and over again, unless it's clear that that point has been continuously ignored rather than countered.
* Any time a person raises their voice or doesn't give the opponent a chance to talk back. This is nearly always a sure sign of a Chewbacca Defense, because there's no other reason to do so in a debate.
o That is unless you provoke another person to do so, usually by talking over them until they are forced to yell. Then you act as though they were yelling out of the blue.
The common Chewbacca Defense is based on the following misconceptions and/or fallacies:
* If you can prove the other side wrong, it makes you right.
* If you can word your statements and arguments in a way that is too confusing, intelligent-sounding, or nonsensical for the opponent to respond to, it makes them wrong and it makes you right.
* If you can shock or confuse your opponent and make them think you are a lost cause and not worth arguing with, you are right.
* If you can make an opponent look bad, their logic must be equally as bad, and therefore you are right. (See also: Godwins Law)
* If you are more popular than your opponent, it makes them wrong and it makes you right.
* If you just keep arguing and shouting, even if everyone else (not just everyone else in the debate - everyone else in the world) thinks you are not just wrong, but insane, until everyone else just gets tired of listening to you spew nonsense, you're the last man standing, and, by default, you are right.
* And of course, that Chewbacca lives on Endor.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
<= Prev | | Next =>