|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 is in denial of the facts.
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.
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)
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.
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. 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". 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.”
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. 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. A common example is Young Earth creationism and its dispute with the evolutionary theory.
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. 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.
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.
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. 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. A common example is the dispute between young earth creationists and molecules-to-man evolutionists.  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.
Last updated: Sep, 2014
Toons & Vids
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
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
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
Answer to Critic
Appeal to Possibility
Argument to the Future
Love Between a Man and Woman
Righteousness & Holiness
Proof by Atheism
Scriptures About Marriage
The Reason for Rejecting Truth
Witness on the Internet
Flaky Human Reasoning
How Do You Know?
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
Stories Versus Revelation
Circular Reasoning-Who is Guilty?
How Can We Know Anything?
Mind Designed to Relate to God
Answers for the Confused
Fossil Record Says: "Creation"
Avoid These Pitfalls
Public School's Religion
Public School Failures