click here to learn more about being redeemed from sin and set free to serve God in spirit and in truth. click here to learn more about holiness click here to learn more about being changed into the same image click here to learn more about sowing and reaping click here to learn more about the free gift of righteousness. click here to learn more about how faith gives us access to grace and grace does the works. click here to learn more about faith and how it comes. click here to learn more about acknowledging Jesus click here to learn more about how God speaks Who will you listen to?  Click here to learn more. click here to learn more about the pattern of God. click here to learn more about the pattern of God for individuals, marriage, and family. click here to learn more about the pattern of God for the local church click here to learn more about the Church universal
 
SeekFind Logo            Home     >   Meaning     >   Christian Witness     >   Encyclopedia of Logical Fallacies     >   Fallacies of Omission     >   Denialism
  

Logical Fallacy of Denialism / Denial


 
 

Logical Fallacy of Denialism

The logical fallacy of denialism occurs when known reality is ignored or denied.

Examples of the Logical Fallacy of Denialism

Sandy: "The First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics are no problem for molecules-to-man evolution, since there are exceptions to the Second Law."

Rocky: "There can be no exceptions to a Law of Science, because one exception eliminates the Law. The so-called exceptions are simply limitations of the Second Law. There can be local increases in a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical or the degree of order in the system, but only at an even greater loss of the same throughout the entire system. No exception has ever been observed. It works in both open and closed systems. So, if the Universe were infinitely old, then it would be in a heat death. And the First Law of Thermodynamics disallows the Universe creating itself."

Sandy: "There still has to be a way this could happen and science will discover it one day."

Rocky: "You do realize that your prophecy is not science, don’t you?"

Sandy is in denial of the facts.

Sandy: "I don’t care about those Bible verses. I’m a good person. There is no such thing as sin or Hell, and every person is basically good. No one has to be saved from anything, least of all from themselves."

Sandy is in denial of the facts. To qualify as denialism, it must be a denial of things that can be defined as known facts, and the facts must have first been presented. It is a fact that God speaks through the Bible and through believers who are speaking by the Holy Spirit. When anyone will not acknowledge what He is saying, they are denying Him.

George Wald, Nobel Laureate: "One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet we are here—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation."

This article does not run the odds that a self-replicating life form would just pop into existence. The article only goes as far as the protein, but protein cannot survive until the cell structure, information, coded information systems, and all the amazing mechanisms needed for life and replication. The forming of a single protein is off-the-charts impossible, but a life form, a cell, can it even be calculated? (Article)

Fallacy Abuse

Rational Wiki, an Atheist web site that supposes itself to be rational: "Major scientific targets of denialism include evolution, global warming, the link between HIV and AIDS, the link between smoking and lung cancer, and the lack of a link between vaccination and autism."

In order to make this Fallacy Abuse work, the irrational wiki seeks to control the definition of denial, or denialism as follows: Denialism is the refusal to accept well-established theory, law, fact or evidence. The reality is that irrational wiki's definition makes every scientist who has every made a true scientific breakthrough of any kind guilty of the logical fallacy of denialism, while it claims that all the people who were shown to be wrong after laughing at such scientists as Louis Pasture, to be right at the time for sticking to their failed paradigms. In addition, the irratianal wiki mixes several things in the list that should never have been listed together. There is a link between smoking and lung cancer. There is a link between HIV and AIDS. The rest of the items on their list would need to be shown to be absolute truth before denying them would be the logical fallacy of denialism, however, they have not been shown to be absolutely true. Not even close. As far as molecules-to-man evolution is concerned, there is absolutely no evidence that proves that it actually happened, and there is absolute proof that it did not happen. That absolute proof that it did not happen is revelation from God, the Almighty, Who cannot lie.

Rocky: "Actually, the stories of molecules-to-man evolution are mere stories and are not scientific facts as you claim."

Sandy: "You are in denial. In science, denialism has been defined as the rejection of basic concepts that are undisputed and well-supported parts of the scientific consensus on a topic in favor of ideas that are both radical and controversial. A common example is Young Earth creationism and its dispute with the evolutionary theory."

Rocky: "Actually, denialism is the denial of empirically verifiable reality. Empiricallly verifiable reality is only that which can be known by means of observation or experimentation, that is, by actual experience. If you are going to make such a claim, you  ought to at least be able to provide empirically verifiable observation and experimentation that proves that the story of molecules-to-man evolution (sometimes called evolutionism) actually happened."

The following two paragraphs appeared in the ever changing, ever inaccurate, struggle for message control that is known as wikipedia.org:

In human behavior, denialism is exhibited by individuals choosing to deny reality as a way to avoid dealing with an uncomfortable truth.[1] Author Paul O'Shea remarks, "[It] is the refusal to accept an empirically verifiable reality. It is an essentially irrational action that withholds validation of a historical experience or event".[2] Author Michael Specter defined group denialism as “when an entire segment of society, often struggling with the trauma of change, turns away from reality in favor of a more comfortable lie.”[3]

In science, denialism has been defined as the rejection of basic concepts that are undisputed and well-supported parts of the scientific consensus on a topic in favor of ideas that are both radical and controversial.[4] It has been proposed that the various forms of denialism have the common feature of the rejection of overwhelming evidence and the generation of a controversy through attempts to deny that a consensus exists.[5][6] A common example is Young Earth creationism and its dispute with the evolutionary theory.[7]

Note that, if this were a realistic definition of the word, denialism, then every scientific breakthrough would be based on denialism. Some brave scientists would have to break through the scientific consensus--which is always wrong to some degree. By the Wikipedia definition, every such scientist would be irrational, that is, insane. Every great scientist who ever discovered anything would be insane for having done so. You must ask yourself whether or not this is a rational way to define the word, denialism, then.

Note that the definition is internally inconsistent, since it defines denialism as the rejection of basic concepts that are undisputed, and then, at the same time, declares that the scientists who support young earth creationism dispute with the scientists who support old Earth molecules-to-man evolutionism—although this internal inconsistency is somewhat hidden by presupposing that the scientists who support old Earth, molecules-to-man evolutionism are right.

Note that the word, reality, was linked to the following: Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined.[1] In a wider definition, reality includes everything that is and has been, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible. A still more broad definition includes everything that has existed, exists, or will exist.

This could not include any theory, since a theory can never be proven to be the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined.

Note that the word, empirically, was linked to the following: Empirical evidence (also empirical data, sense experience, empirical knowledge, or the a posteriori) is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation.[1]

This could not include a theory, since no theory or theology can ever be observed or proved by experimentation. A theory is always an explanation that goes beyond the knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation. For instance, the Big-Bang-Billions-of-Years-No-Flood-Molecules-to-Man story would require direct observation to prove that it happened. It

Note that the phrase, scientific consensus, is linked to the following: Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.[1]

That part of the wikipedia page contained the following errors:

The term, general agreement, was undefined, but the term, general agreement, means universal agreement. So, a general agreement is, by nature, unanimous. The definition is in conflict with itself, or else it is a case of special pleading and the logical fallacy of persuasive definition.

Mirriam-Webster Dictionary, defines consensus as: a general agreement about something : an idea or opinion that is shared by all the people in a group. Therefore, a scientific consensus would require: an idea or opinion that is shared by all scientists. If some scientists disagree, then there is no consensus. However, it is common in the Atheistic religion to envoke the "No True Scottsman" fallacy to eliminate all scientists who don't fall in line with the sacred cow. In reality, there is no consensus among scientists regarding the dispute between Young Earth creationism and evolutionism.

These few excerpts from a Wikipedia.com page give a great example of how many fallacies that are nested together can have a tendency to overwhelm the mind and keep critical thinking from functioning.

Note that the page was then edited to read:

In science, denialism has been defined as the rejection scientific facts. If it were denialism to deny basic concepts that are undisputed and well-supported parts of the scientific consensus on a topic in favor of ideas that are both radical and controversial, then every scientific breakthrough would constitute denialism.[4] It has been proposed that the various forms of denialism have the common feature of the rejection of overwhelming evidence and the generation of a controversy through attempts to deny that a consensus exists.[5][6] A common example is the dispute between young earth creationists and molecules-to-man evolutionists. [7] However, that example is in conflict with the definition of denialism that "basic concepts that are undisputed."

It was immediately changed back to the irrational version of fallacy abuse. Apparently, structures have been put into place for message control of sacred cows.



Author/Compiler
Last updated: Sep, 2014
 
 

Logical Fallacy of Denialism / Denial



Main Menu

Foundations

Home

Meaning

Bible

Dictionary

History

Toons & Vids

Quotations

Sitemap



There are 38 sub-topics of "Fallacies of Omission"

Logical Fallacy of Stacking the Deck / Cherry Picking / Cherry Picking Data / Suppressed Evidence / Fallacy of Incomplete Evidence / Argument from Selective Observation / Argument by Half-Truth / Card Staking / Fallacy of Exclusion

Logical Fallacy of Ambiguity Effect

McNamara Fallacy

Head in the Sand / Ostrich Fallacy

Suppression of the Agent Fallacy

Fading Affect Bias / FAB

"What I Don't Know Is Not Important" / Unteachable Fallacy

Logical Fallacy of Argument by Selective Refutation

Logical Fallacy of A-Priorism

Logical Fallacy of Audiatur Et Altera Pars / Failure to State Assumptions

Error of Ignoring Historical Example

Logical Fallacy of Overlooking Secondary Consequences

Uncontrolled Factors Fallacy

Missing Link Fallacy

Logical Fallacy of Moving the Goal Posts / Gravity Game / Raising the Bar

Gravity Game Fallacy

Logical Fallacy of Argument by Demanding Impossible Perfection / Unfalsifiable Claims / Demanding Impossible Evidence

Unfalsifiable Claims Fallacy / Unfalsifiability / Untestibility

The Invincible Ignorance Fallacy

Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Ignorance / Ad Ignorantiam / Argument from Ignorance / Argument from a Lack of Evidence

Logical Fallacy of Ad Ignorantiam Question

God of the Gaps Fallacy

Logical Fallacy of Argument from Silence / Argumentum Ex Silentio

Logical Fallacy of No True Scotsman (a type of stacking the deck)

No True Scientist Fallacy

Fallacy of Opposition

Frozen Abstraction Fallacy

Falsified Inductive Generalization Fallacy

Logical Fallacy of Argument from the Negative

Logical Fallacy of a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid / Accident Fallacy

Converse Accident Fallacy / Reverse Accident Fallacy

Best-in-Field Fallacy

Abductive Fallacy / Retroduction Fallacy / Retroductive Fallacy

Logical Fallacy of Denialism / Denial

Logical Fallacy of Reductionism / Oversimplification

Persimplex Responsum Fallacy / Very Simple Answer Fallacy / Very Simple Solution Fallacy

Logical Fallacy of Reductionism / Oversimplification

Taboo Fallacy

Child Pages

Most Recently edited pages:

Answer to Critic

Appeal to Possibility

Circular Reasoning

Argument to the Future

Insignificant Cause

Word Magic

Love Between a Man and Woman

Author/Compiler

Colossians 2

Righteousness & Holiness

Don't Compromise

Sin

Proof by Atheism

Scriptures About Marriage

Genuine Authority

The Reason for Rejecting Truth

Witness on the Internet

Flaky Human Reasoning

How Do You Know?

15-minutes to Understand Logic




Featured Articles:


The Real Purpose of the Church

The Real Purpose of Life

From Glory to Glory

REAL Faith--What it IS & IS NOT

REAL Love--What it IS & IS NOT

How to be Led by God

How to Witness

Wisdom: Righteousness & Reality

Holiness & Mind/Soul

Redemption: Free From Sin

Real Reality

Stories Versus Revelation

Understanding Logic

Logical Fallacies

Circular Reasoning-Who is Guilty?

How Can We Know Anything?

God's Word

God's Process

God's Pattern

Mind Designed to Relate to God

Answers for the Confused

Fossil Record Says: "Creation"

Avoid These Pitfalls

Public School's Religion

Twisting Science

Evolutionism

Public School Failures

Twisting History


Put a Link To This Page on Your Site.
HTML Code:


Links:
SeekFind.net ~ Logical Fallacy of Denialism / Denial
Logical Fallacy of Denialism / Denial


How can we know anything about anything? That's the real question

more info: mouseover or click

The complexity of Gods Way understood in a single diagram
Obey your flesh and descend into darkness