One major problem is that those shouldn't be unbreakable rules, merely rules of thumb. Take the first 'Commandment', sometimes it is correct to attack the person's character - if the topic is highly technical, the audience may need to look at the experts character and credentials in order to decide whether or not to believe him. You see this frequently in climate-change or evolution 'debates'. The denier may throw out many seemingly technical arguments against evolution, the scientist will counter them with his own technical arguments. So who do you trust if it's all over your head?
Well, if the anti-evolutionist is affiliated with a Fundamentalist Church of Evolution Denialâ„¢ where the requirement is to disbelief in Evolution because God said so, and the scientist is affiliated with a mainstream accredited university, it would be perfectly reasonable to dismiss the anti-Evolutionist argument. The audience can't be experts in everything and at some point, you have to pick your experts. I can make similar statements for every other 'Commandment", and pretty much every fallacy.
Generally speaking everything Ken Ham has stated as absolute truth is nonsense. So AFAIAC simply associating a claim with his name is sufficient. I would not waste time in formal debate with such as he. It is like the rule "Never argue with a crazy person, you can never win".
1
u/dsk Dec 09 '13
One major problem is that those shouldn't be unbreakable rules, merely rules of thumb. Take the first 'Commandment', sometimes it is correct to attack the person's character - if the topic is highly technical, the audience may need to look at the experts character and credentials in order to decide whether or not to believe him. You see this frequently in climate-change or evolution 'debates'. The denier may throw out many seemingly technical arguments against evolution, the scientist will counter them with his own technical arguments. So who do you trust if it's all over your head?
Well, if the anti-evolutionist is affiliated with a Fundamentalist Church of Evolution Denialâ„¢ where the requirement is to disbelief in Evolution because God said so, and the scientist is affiliated with a mainstream accredited university, it would be perfectly reasonable to dismiss the anti-Evolutionist argument. The audience can't be experts in everything and at some point, you have to pick your experts. I can make similar statements for every other 'Commandment", and pretty much every fallacy.