| Hyperbole |
|
You are here:
Meaning
>
Christian Witness
>
Encyclopedia of Logical Fallacies
>
Relevance Fallacies of Distraction
>
Hyperbole
|
Logical Fallacy of HyperboleThe logical fallacy of hyperbole occurs when a claim is made with extreme exaggeration. Examples of the Logical Fallacy of Hyperbole
Bill Nye is using the logical fallacy of ad hominem and unsupported assertion. Bill Nye expresses this argument as a personal conflict between himself and Ken Ham rather than dealing with the evidence. Bill Nye is using the logical fallacy of hyperbole here. Only Ken Ham, in Bill Nye's statement, believes God when God says that the Bible is His Word and that it is without error.
Not surprisingly, this quote was linked to an even more bazaar quote in the ultra-left-wing Salon: "Creationists’ absurd “Cosmos” demand: Give us equal airtime!" Patheos, Right Wing Watch, SecularHumanism, and many others parroted the same hyperbole. What really happened? A reporter, Janet Mefferd, asked whether they would interview scientiest themselves during the show or do they ever give a creationist any time. Danny Faulkner, a scientist, answered, "Well, no, the creationists aren't even on the radar screen for them. They wouldn't even consider us plausible at all. I don't recall having seen any interviews with people. That may yet come. But it's based upon the narration for the host and various types of little video clips of various things, cartoons and things like that." All of this was very matter-of-fact. There was no whining or lamenting as the hyperbole stated in many major media outlets. Janet Mefferd redirected, thinking that it would make more sense to say something like, "Some scientists say this. Others disagree." Then, she notes that that's not even allowed. Danny Faulkner answered, "No, not even the recognition that abiogenesis, that belief in that is contrary to good science. I was struck in the first episode where he talked about science how that all ideas are discussed; everything's up for discussion; it's all on the table. And I thought to myself, No. Consideration of special creation is definitely not open for discussion." Faulkner was simply pointing out the obvious. It's a big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man show. Why should they allow any other views? No TV Christian preacher would allow a big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man to use their air time.
How can we know anything about anything? That’s the real question |
Other Pages in this sectionAvoiding the Issue Misleading Vividness Dodging the Question Irrelevant Conclusion Irrelevant Question Parade of the Horribles Appeal to Motives Red Herring Answering a Question with a Question Answering a Different Question Non-Support Quibbling Admit a Fault to Cover a Denial Arguing a Minor Point and Ignoring the Main Point Appeal to pity Galileo Wannabe (Pity) Appeal to Novelty Appeal to High Tech Traditional Wisdom The Way We Have Always Done It Appeal to Desperation Straw Man Fallacy Extension In a Certain Respect and Simply Appeal to Extremes Quote Out of Context Misquoting Accent by Emphasis Accent by Abstraction Contextomy Misinterpretation Playing Dumb Arcane Explanation Exaggeration Irrelevant Thesis Burden of Proof Uneven Burden of Proof Burden of Proof Fallacy Fallacy Argument to Moderation Fallacy Abuse Confusing an Explanation with Proof Moralism Ought-Is Is-Ought Naturalistic Fallacy Notable Effort Political Correctness False Compromise Lip Service Tokenism Argument by Denial Diminished Responsibility Contrarian Argument Recently Viewed |
