recently posted a little gem over at BlackBurton -
“I’ve been sitting on this topic for a while, and have decided that it needs to come out. The topic of this blog post is ‘debunking’. Some may claim that debunking is an art. Instead, debunking is a fallacy. I am officially coining the ‘fallacy of debunking’. What is debunking? How is it a fallacy? Why should this fallacy be avoided in philosophical discussions? And if you are reading this post, the discussion is philosophical".
I think you’re taking the title of this blog a little too literally. The title, “Debunking Surrendra Gangadean” is not to be taken as a personal attack on someone’s character, but was used strategically for site-promotion, to make it easy to find on most search engines and to gain exposure so that those wishing to seek information on the subject can identify a resource free from the censorship of Surrendra Gangadean and his church. The purpose of the blog is to provide resources to those who wish to challenge, investigate, and fully understand the type of apologetics posited by Surrendra Gangadean, and mindlessly regurgitated by his followers.
Perhaps you haven’t noticed that Debunking Surrendra Gangadean isn’t about ‘philosophy’ but exposing the unconstitutional teaching of Christian apologetics in a publicly funded community college.
“Debunking is a method used to oppose a position through derision.”
Fair enough. Debunking is a rhetorical method used to highlight specific fallacies within offending argumentation, sometimes reducing the argument to absurdity, also known as reductio ad absurdum.
“Debunking may be an acceptable method used to show up snake oil salesmen, but this is not a legitimate method within the realm of philosophical argumentation.”
Is that so? Perhaps you should take that up with Aristotle, Kelly.
Firstly, you’re using a sweeping generalization to encompass all acts of debunking. Debunking need not contain derision or scoffing in order to be a valid process, quite the contrary, actually. Debunking has a set of rules, which are outlined as followed:
1.) Present core facts pertinent to the argument – i.e. “Every professor in the Philosophy department at PVCC who uses Gangadean’s textbook as a resource is a member of Westminster Fellowship”
2.) Before any mention of the fallacy, provide an explicit warning that the upcoming material is false.
3.) State the myth
4.) Provide an alternative explanation using the core facts
Debunking is a logical process that requires thought, skill, and care in order to effectively demonstrate the nature of fallacious claims. Here is a resource outlining the process of debunking, with citations to numerous, reputable, academic resources: link!
“The method of objecting through scoffing and derision is often employed because the one deriding has no logical means of objecting to the disagreeable position. The debunker does not resort to reason, the legitimate means of public discourse, but to personal attack.”
Assertions, assertions. The very act of reducing an argument to its absurd conclusion, or identifying the fallacies contained within the argumentation, requires the use of logic and reason, so yeah, you’re wrong. Also, try not to equivocate a method of exposing fallacious reasoning with a ‘personal attack’. I have zero interest in you personally. My only concern is in exposing your unethical teaching methods and uncovering the link between your apologetics, your philosophy classes, and your church. This isn’t even remotely personal, Hun.
“In philosophy this is called an ad hominem attack – or an attack against the person, rather than what the person has said. So the fallacy of debunking is attacking a position through derision, or ridicule, without addressing the content of the position, especially when sound arguments are presented."
Let’s review - “ad hominem is one of the most frequently misidentified fallacies, probably because it is one of the best known ones. Many people seem to think that any personal criticism, attack, or insult counts as an ad hominem fallacy. Moreover, in some contexts the phrase "ad hominem" may refer to an ethical lapse, rather than a logical mistake, as it may be a violation of debate etiquette to engage in personalities. So, in addition to ignorance, there is also the possibility of equivocation on the meaning of "ad hominem". link!
Now let’s look at some examples:
Kelly’s blog post is absurd because she’s a pseudo philosopher. – Ad hominem
Kelly’s blog post is self contradictory because she is attempting to debunk debunking. Additionally, because she was unable to identify the fallacies and the contradictory nature of her post, she’s a pseudo philosopher. – Uncouth - yes. Ad hominem - no.
“When an argument, or several arguments, for a position have been put forth, the principle of charity would have an opponent address the premises of the argument. Critically analyzing the premises of an argument, and reasons for the premises, takes thoughtfulness, care, and skill. These are virtues a debunker bypasses, and so never engages in rational dialog.”
First, I'm under no delusion that I’m your ‘opponent’. I’m no more a philosopher than you are, Kelly. I’m simply someone who has had experience with the antics that take place within Surrendra Gangadean’s church and philosophy classes. I’m under no obligation to ‘address the premises of your arguments’; pointing out your fallacious reasoning and unethical teaching methods is sufficient. Furthermore, the act of claiming a debunker bypasses, and so never engages in rational dialog is a straw man, it holds no objective understanding of the true nature of debunking. Attempting to reduce a skeptical investigation of an argument to an ad hominem, by attributing your own bias of thoughtlessness and lack of skill to the practice, superficially negates the true nature of debunking in order to assert your own ideas under the guise of philosophical fallacies.
“Instead, they are like a bully on the playground demanding your lunch money, “or else”. The debunker neither does the work of actively thinking through the position with which they object, nor do they provide a counterargument. Rather, they resort to the only recourse left when one does not like the conclusion to a sound argument – name-calling and the use of force.”
Straw man, argument from incoherence – who knows. Either way, I sincerely hope you don’t believe that exposing a farce is “bullying”. Also, ‘demanding your lunch money, “or else”’ – are you serious? I want absolutely nothing of you other than the admission that you intentionally teach in a manner which is unconstitutional, and proselytize to students, thereby recruiting them to your Calvinist sect led by Surrendra Gangadean. After all, that is the truth. Do you deny it? Are the members of your church former students invited to attend Westminster Fellowship after expressing interest in learning more about the ‘philosophy’ you teach? Can you give us a percentage of how many current/former students attend Westminster Fellowship?
“To avoid the fallacy of debunking, one ought to address the argument at hand. Failure to do so implies that either:
1.) nothing is clear to reason, reason is not a reliable means for knowing, and skepticism is a fall back position, in which case force is the only means of getting one’s way,or:
2.) reason is reliable, but the debunker has no good counterargument, and so force is the only means of getting one’s way, or:
3) reason is reliable, and a sound argument is compelling, and when one does not find the conclusion to a sound argument agreeable, one either has to change his/her proir position and assent to the conclusion to said sound argument, or use physical or psychological force to resist the force of reason.“
1.) nothing is clear to reason, reason is not a reliable means for knowing, and skepticism is a fall back position, in which case force is the only means of getting one’s way,or:
2.) reason is reliable, but the debunker has no good counterargument, and so force is the only means of getting one’s way, or:
3) reason is reliable, and a sound argument is compelling, and when one does not find the conclusion to a sound argument agreeable, one either has to change his/her proir position and assent to the conclusion to said sound argument, or use physical or psychological force to resist the force of reason.“
I’m gonna go with 4.) False trichotomy , Kelly.
“Philosophy, and the commitment to the use of reason to engage one another in the public sphere, is opposed to the use of force.”
I agree. Who is using ‘force’?
“Human beings are rational, and to fail to address individuals as such dehumanizes both the debunker, and the debunkee. Debunking bypasses reason and resorts to force, therefore philosophy is opposed to the method of debunking in philosophical argumentation."
Again with that word: ‘force’. Who is forcing you to visit this blog, Kelly? I have an idea - let’s talk about how philosophy is opposed to censorship and apologetics, mmkay?
“Anonymous debunking is even more egregious than garden variety debunking. It is the equivalent of a philosophical drive by. So please, all you anonymous debunkers out there – come into the light of the public sphere of rational discourse, and engage the arguments. If you disagree, please provide counterarguments. And please use your real names – it humanizes you.”
Philosophical drive by? lol! Oh noes - beware of my Uzi of reason. Tsk, tsk, Kelly. Remember: It’s not who is to say but, rather, what is to say.
A claim does not have to have an identifiable human persona in order to be true or false, what validates a claim is the merit of its reason and the absence of fallacies. So, to appeal to humanization in order to legitimize your fear of being contradicted is scape-goating.
The bottom line, it seems, is that you don’t much appreciate our ‘tone’ over here at Debunking Surrendra Gangadean, and because it has offended your delicate, refined sensibilities, you’ve chosen to take on the absurd task of debunking debunking.
Your basic argument is that debunking isn’t ‘philosophy’ because ‘debunkers’ are bullies, unable to reason in a logical manner and should, therefore, be disregarded. That is an ad hominem attack, Kelly. Again, the validity of a logical process does not rest on humanization nor on name-calling, but on the truth of the premises. To use name-calling to circumvent the truth within the claims is the perfect example of misrepresentation of an argument - a straw man.
Overall, to say debunking is thoughtless and to delude its logical foundation to “personal attacks” without providing evidence of the truth of your claim, means you are asserting a baseless claim. To debunk requires the statement of core facts, and supporting facts to substantiate the validity of the stated claim. However, simply stating personal opinions, devoid of any objective evidence, does not permit a reasonable, logical refutation of debunking.
Unlike Kelly's blog, this blog is free of censorship and posting requirements that demand personal identification in order to be taken seriously. Any individual who feels they have an opinion to express, is free to do so fully with anonymity. If I have presented any incorrect or nonfactual information within this blog, please feel free to state your objections to any of these statements, I have no intentions of misrepresenting information or providing biased opinions. This blog is for objective facts regarding Gangadean’s church and his teaching methods. Additionally, if you would like to share a personal story, feel free to do so in the open or with full confidentiality, without fear of retaliation or censorship.
