Some Tips on Writing Critically in Philosophy

    The following are some tips that students might find helpful when writing philosophy, or writing anything that requires critical and rigorous analysis of text. The DOs and DON'Ts of argumentation are best understood by analyzing arguments in which we find many Don'ts.

    The text we will be looking at is an extract from the ICS page--the Institute for Creation Research.

    The article can be found here

     

    The title of the article is: "Can Science Prove the Bible?"

    CONTENTS

     

     

    PROOF


    Tip #1: We Don't prove books any more than we prove Mickey Mouse or chairs. The only candidates for proof are affirmations that allegedly express facts.
       For instance, what's wrong with this sentence: "I proved you"? What does that mean? Nothing. We don't prove objects--we prove the truth of propositions that express facts and we prove the falsity of meaningful propositions that do not express facts.

    So what's wrong with the question, "Can Science Prove the Bible?".

    Proof is for mathematics and formal logic--where one can PROVE theorems (not facts about the physical world). For instance, you can prove, given some presuppositions regarding transitivity, a that if one schema is equivalent to a second, and the second is equivalent to a third, then the first is equivalent to the third. This is the only acceptable way to talk about proof. If this isn't the kind of proof you have in mind, do dot use the term "proof".

    Now let's consider what's wrong with the article.

    The bible-proving question

    "...can we prove the Bible? No not in a strict scientific sense..."

     

    Critique: See above for the scientific sense of 'proof'.

      "...especially as it relates to the unobserved past."

    Now that we know how not to use the term "proof", let's have some fun and apply our knowledge.

    The bible is rejected as evidence by scientists not because we can't prove that what it says is true (if something needed to be capable of proof in order to be a scientific hypothesis, the only sciences around would be mathematics and logics). Scientists do not look to the bible as a source of evidence for claims about our history for other reasons.

    For one thing, if you are trying to argue that god created the earth, and if the only reason you believe this is that a book told you so, then in order to convince a non-believer (an atheist, for instance), you need to find some independent evidence for thinking that your claim is true. Independent evidence doesn't rely on the conclusion you're arguing for. You want to convince people that the conclusion is true via good argument, not trick them into believing it, or get them to agree with you without thinking things through first.

    You can either try to find evidence for the hypothesis that the bible is a reliable source, or for the hypothesis that god created the earth. There is no such independent evidence. There is just one kind of reason to believe that god created the earth, and that a god exists: faith. There's nothing wrong with faith, as far as I know, but it doesn't make for good arguments!

    Believingthat something is true based solely on faith, is epistemically the same as believing that there is an invisible alien standing in the corner of the room. You can chose to believe, but if you have no 'rational' or good reasons for doing so, why believe.

    (Actually, this is a bad analogy, since you are better off--epistemically--believing that there is an alien. This is true for at least two reasons: First, there is some evidence of life on Mars; and (ii) being committed to the alien claim does not necessarily commit you to believing that the alien is all-powerful, all-good, all-knowing etc. So it is more parsimonious/economical to believe in the existence of the invisible alien than it is to believe in god.)

    Begging the question

    So the article continues:

      "Science can understand much about how a cell operates, but how did it originate? Science has begun to decipher rudimentary elements of the genetic code, but who wrote the code?"

    This is a BIG no-no: DO NOT presuppose that someone wrote the code if you are trying to argue that someone wrote the code!

    The question is, "how did the code come to have the structure that it does?" To assume that someone wrote it begs the question. They are trying to convince us that someone wrote it--that evolutionary theory is false. So they must not assume their conclusion is true in the course of the argument!

    Calling the kettle black

    I.e., criticizing a position for making the same mistake your own position makes
    (we can call this 'the pot calling the kettle black fallacy'--it is not a formal fallacy, but it is to be avoided at all costs)

      "Empirical science is limited to the present the way things are and the way they work and can only speculate about their ultimate origins."

    Both empirical science, and creationism, are "limited to the present"--to what can be observed, measured, and tested here and now (or what has been observed in the past that we know of now). No one (except maybe god, of course, but even this is arguably wrong) could travel to the past and observe what happened in 'the beginning'. So if evolution is flawed because it is 'limited to the present', then so is creationism. The difference here between evolutionary theory and creationism lies in the degrees of speculation going on. But that is the topic for another web page (which is, by the way, coming soon).

    The straw man fallacy
      "Only rank arrogance and misunderstanding of the nature of science would lead one to think that his observations in the present of the way things operate could prove theories about non-reproducible origin events in the unobserved past."

    Scientists tend to know what the term 'proof' means. As such, the straw man fallacy has been committed here. The creationist has made it look like scientists are claiming to do something absurd--proving theories about what happened in the past. Clearly, no scientist (or philosopher, I hope) thinks that a claim about something that happened millions or billions of years ago can be proven true.

    The ad hominem fallacy

    Do not call people names if you want to criticize their arguments!
    If you do, you are guilty of attacking the person, not the arguments.

    Just as detectives want 'just the facts', philosophers want 'just the arguments'.

      "Only rank arrogance and misunderstanding of the nature of science would lead one to think that his observations in the present of the way things operate could prove theories about non-reproducible origin events in the unobserved past."


    In the above quote, the critic calls his opponents 'arrogant' and implies that they are not very bright if they believe that "observations in the present of the way things operate could prove theories about non-reproducible origin events in the unobserved past". As we saw, scientists do not believe this. Attacking the person for something they don't believe (to top it all off!) is really, really bad. It's the straw man fallacy coming to haunt us again.

    If you ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO argue fallaciously (perhaps because your paper is due tomorrow morning or something like that), try using only one fallacy at a time so people will be less likely to notice. But seriously, don't use fallacious reasoning in philosophy.

    Gender-biased Language

    "...would lead one to think that his observations..."

    Political issues aside, the new convention in philosophy is to avoid giving imaginary people the male gender. It just seems arbitrary, and someone might wonder, "why is it a he and not a she? Did I miss something? I thought this was a point about all people...does it apply only to men?"

    But it's OK to give imaginary people the female gender. I don't know why this is a good thing, exactly, but it's a convention. So try to fit in.

    Vagueness

     

    Don't think that if you use terms that are vague enough, people will think you must be right about something...

    EXAMPLE:

      "By way of analogy, consider today's super computers. For all their complexity in hardware and software they are not as complete as the smallest living cell with its multitude of working parts and genetic code."

      What does it mean to say that computers are "not as COMPLETE as cells"? Maybe this is supposed to mean that cells are more complex. But complex how? It can't really have anything to do with completeness, since my pen is a very complete thing in some sense. It has all the parts required for carrying out its function, for instance. This is a specific sense in which it is complete. However, in this sense, everything is complete. So when you try to be less vague, and your point just seems to vanish, you can be pretty sure you need to revise your initial vague claim!

    Faulty analogy, and more question begging
      "What if a ' thinking' computer comes to the independent conclusion that it originated by purely natural means, with no outside intelligence involved? Would that change the fact that a team of computer scientists built it and programmed it?

      Obviously not."

    A few fallacies have been committed here. First, this is a bad analogy. But worst of all, the only way to make this a good analogy is to beg the question!. See, if we assume that we were created by a god, then obviously we conclude that we are very much like the computer (which was created by man). But if we assume this, we can't argue that it's false that we're we were created by god -- you don't argue for a conclusion that is also something you just assumed! Argument is largely about providing good reasons for accepting conclusions--it is not about assuming that conclusions are true. If you want to convince me that there is a god, would you succeed by getting me to assume from the start that there is a god?

    Obviously not.

    Another straw man:

      "To understand [the computer's] origin (a quite different enterprise than its operation) it would need to consult its creator's owner's manual which would also explain procedures to follow to function best."

    That's right. To use a good metaphor, scientists do consult the owner's manual in the sense that they look to nature in order to understand the origins of life. To assume that they don't do things like this is to create straw men out of scientists.

    Justified belief vs. faith

    "And that's how we view the Bible. It doesn't need to be proven, it just needs to be believed and obeyed."


    Do not believe things only because you want to, or because you 'feel like it'-- it is bad epistemology, and bad philosophy in general. Use your reason and good reasons. That is,

    form beliefs based on evidence-- have a good reason to believe what you believe.

    Don't believe that there are aliens just because you like the X-Files. Believe it for good reasons.

    You cannot be epistemically justified in believing a claim unless you have some reasons for believing it. Saying that you have faith in Mulder is not a good reason. Use reason by appealing to good reasons and good arguments. Clearly, you shouldn't obey commands that you think are supposed to be obeyed only because you feel like thinking they should be obeyed. For instance, I might think the voices coming from the television order me to kill someone. That's not a good reason to think I should kill someone.

    Testing hypotheses

      "We can and should put it to the test (I Thessalonians 5:21)."

    Quick (and important) note: Objects are not testable, hypotheses are.

    "Since [the bible] is correct, it will pass that test, and far surpass all false 'owner's manuals,' like naturalistic evolution. When the Bible is used as the guide to focus our research and interpret our data, the results are conclusions which make sense."

    Many hypotheses can 'explain away' the data. For instance, we can say that the invisible alien in the corner created the earth. This is certainly compatible with the data, but it doesn't mean that the hypothesis is plausible.

    Finally, the 'scientific' theories that creationists invoke to explain the origins of man (like flood geology) are not well-corroborated by the evidence. One good reason why scientists reject flood geology is that its hypotheses are not independently testable. (See Phillip Kitcher's "Abusing Science" for insightful discussion of this point.)

    Applying what we've learned

      "Competing naturalistic views may necessitate claims that cells coalesce from 'primeval soup' or that DNA codes write themselves, but these are unscientific and unnecessary. They are as 'foolish' as the "wise" computer which declares itself free from its designer's authority (Romans 1:22)."

    Fallacies present here:
    1. Bad analogy; (the computer analogy from above)
    2. Attacking the person; (we have foolish beliefs)
    3. Straw man. ((i) "write themselves"? Nothing and no one writes the codes; (ii) for the computer analogy seem like a good one, you would have to assume that we believed things we don't really believe--see above.)

    I have overlooked some fallacies. Can you find them?

    Important Philosophy Terms

    IMPORTANT TERMS

    ARGUMENT

    If you don't know what an argument is, there isn't much you can do in philosophy. The basic argument involves premises and a conclusion. We can name, or number, these premises 'P1', 'P2', etc., and the conclusion, 'C':

    (P1)  All dogs have 4 legs.
    (P2)  All 4-legged dogs are furry.
    (P3)  Bobo is a 4-legged dog.
    (C)   So Bobo is furry.

    To bring the reader's attention to the fact that you're about to state a conclusion, use terms like, 'therefore', 'hence', 'so'. As long as you are clear about what your conclusion is andwhat your premises are, feel free to use as many conclusion-indicating words as you wish. It's better to be repetitive than to be unclear.

    Being unclear is the most shameful sin a philosopher can commit.

    ASSUMPTIONS/PRESUPPOSITIONS

    In an argument, an assumption is just what you would expect: if you assume P, you just assume, for the sake of that argument, that P is true. It's OK to do this -- unless you assume P in order to argue that P is true! That's an example of begging the question -- a fallacy that you don't want to be caught commiting in a philosophy assignment!

    BAD ANALOGY

    The best way to explain a bad analogy is to make one. An argument based on a bad analogy is this one:

              • Evil people belong in jail
              • Dogs are like people
              • SO evil dogs should go to jail


              Are dogs really like people? If so, the argument is based on a reasonable analogy. If not, it's not!

    FACTS

    The fact expressed by "there a particle in that device" is just the fact that there is a particle in the device.) If we can show that a given fact is the case (with the highest degree of certainty attainable), then we have PROVEN that the proposition expressing the fact is true.

     

     

Diana Palmieri