Post by Swamp Gas on Jan 23, 2011 19:46:43 GMT -5
rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Gish_gallop
Gish Gallop
From RationalWiki
The Gish Gallop is an informal name for a rhetorical technique in debates that involves drowning the opponent in half-truths, lies, straw men, and bullshit to such a degree that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood that has been raised, usually resulting in many involuntary twitches in frustration as the opponent struggles to decide where to start. It is named after creationism activist and professional debater Duane Gish.
Contents
[hide]
* 1 Spurious argument from authority
* 2 Use by creationists
* 3 Use by bloggers
o 3.1 Examples
* 4 See also
* 5 External links
* 6 Footnotes
[edit] Spurious argument from authority
It is often used as an indirect argument from authority, as it often appears to paint the "galloper" as an expert in a broad range of subjects and the opponent as an incompetent bumbler who didn't do their homework before the debate. (Such emphasis on style over substance is why many scientists disdain public debates as a forum for disseminating opinions.)
[edit] Use by creationists
The evolution of living organisms is a large and complex subject, and even professionals cannot study more than a small part of it during their whole careers. Since many debates involve a three quarter hour presentation with a half hour rebuttal, correcting all the Creationist misinformation under these conditions is difficult or impossible. Generally creationists are more than willing to debate when the debating rules favor them in this way.
Since they have no scientific model of their own to present, they will spend all of their time in what is known affectionately as the "Gish Gallop", in which they skip around from topic to topic spewing out an unceasing blizzard of baloney and unsupported assertions about evolutionary theory, leaving the poor evolutionist to attempt to catch up and correct them all.[1]
Where possible it is best to
...narrow the debate down to a single topic--the age of the earth, or the fossil record--and then debate it through to its logical conclusion. This defeats the Gish Gallop, and also prevents the common creationist tactic of suddenly changing the subject whenever he or she gets uncomfortable.[1]
It is also important to challenge creationists whenever they make unsupported claims.
[edit] Use by bloggers
A variant of the Gish Gallop is employed by bloggers who post an endless series of dubious assertions - each of which can be countered, but to no effect, as it will be buried under the cascade of dubious posts.
[edit] Examples
The following show prime examples of the "Gish Gallop". They are usually characterized by being "lists", titled "100 reasons why..." or similar. Thus, the points raised in the gallop are often very short and non-specific. It takes a lot of effort to fully refute everything and it is far easier for the galloper to add another question than it is for the respondent to formulate a suitable answer, which is the point behind the tactic.
* Ask Darwinists
- 25 mostly meaningless questions. Some of which are just the same thing repeated for a different example.
* Talk:Christian Science
- you read that right; even RationalWiki has a Gish Gallop on it.
* 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe
- Yep. 101 evidences. Countable nouns be damned!
* 100 reasons that climate change is natural
- 100 reasons, each reason with about 20 words in it!
* You may be a fundamentalist atheist if....
- 423 examples. The 423rd being "if you write this website a letter which includes a rebuttal to the above" - and at 423 points, they probably have a point.
YEC website owner Philip J. Rayment has been making full use of the Gish Gallop technique over on A Storehouse of Knowledge. He has improved the technique even further by introducing an annoying green "quote template" to further fragment discussion.[2].
Gish Gallop
From RationalWiki
The Gish Gallop is an informal name for a rhetorical technique in debates that involves drowning the opponent in half-truths, lies, straw men, and bullshit to such a degree that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood that has been raised, usually resulting in many involuntary twitches in frustration as the opponent struggles to decide where to start. It is named after creationism activist and professional debater Duane Gish.
Contents
[hide]
* 1 Spurious argument from authority
* 2 Use by creationists
* 3 Use by bloggers
o 3.1 Examples
* 4 See also
* 5 External links
* 6 Footnotes
[edit] Spurious argument from authority
It is often used as an indirect argument from authority, as it often appears to paint the "galloper" as an expert in a broad range of subjects and the opponent as an incompetent bumbler who didn't do their homework before the debate. (Such emphasis on style over substance is why many scientists disdain public debates as a forum for disseminating opinions.)
[edit] Use by creationists
The evolution of living organisms is a large and complex subject, and even professionals cannot study more than a small part of it during their whole careers. Since many debates involve a three quarter hour presentation with a half hour rebuttal, correcting all the Creationist misinformation under these conditions is difficult or impossible. Generally creationists are more than willing to debate when the debating rules favor them in this way.
Since they have no scientific model of their own to present, they will spend all of their time in what is known affectionately as the "Gish Gallop", in which they skip around from topic to topic spewing out an unceasing blizzard of baloney and unsupported assertions about evolutionary theory, leaving the poor evolutionist to attempt to catch up and correct them all.[1]
Where possible it is best to
...narrow the debate down to a single topic--the age of the earth, or the fossil record--and then debate it through to its logical conclusion. This defeats the Gish Gallop, and also prevents the common creationist tactic of suddenly changing the subject whenever he or she gets uncomfortable.[1]
It is also important to challenge creationists whenever they make unsupported claims.
[edit] Use by bloggers
A variant of the Gish Gallop is employed by bloggers who post an endless series of dubious assertions - each of which can be countered, but to no effect, as it will be buried under the cascade of dubious posts.
[edit] Examples
The following show prime examples of the "Gish Gallop". They are usually characterized by being "lists", titled "100 reasons why..." or similar. Thus, the points raised in the gallop are often very short and non-specific. It takes a lot of effort to fully refute everything and it is far easier for the galloper to add another question than it is for the respondent to formulate a suitable answer, which is the point behind the tactic.
* Ask Darwinists
- 25 mostly meaningless questions. Some of which are just the same thing repeated for a different example.
* Talk:Christian Science
- you read that right; even RationalWiki has a Gish Gallop on it.
* 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe
- Yep. 101 evidences. Countable nouns be damned!
* 100 reasons that climate change is natural
- 100 reasons, each reason with about 20 words in it!
* You may be a fundamentalist atheist if....
- 423 examples. The 423rd being "if you write this website a letter which includes a rebuttal to the above" - and at 423 points, they probably have a point.
YEC website owner Philip J. Rayment has been making full use of the Gish Gallop technique over on A Storehouse of Knowledge. He has improved the technique even further by introducing an annoying green "quote template" to further fragment discussion.[2].
