Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

William Lane Craig and the Gish-Gallop Fallacy

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • William Lane Craig and the Gish-Gallop Fallacy

    I don't know how many times I've heard from skeptics that Dr. William Lane Craig wins his debates because he "Gish-Gallops". That is, that he takes on the technique of recently passed biochemist and YEC advocate Duane Gish, and throws out as much misinformation as possible to confound his opponents in a strange debate tactic that leaves his debate partners in a tizzy by information overload. It's such a well known accusation thrown at Dr. Craig that he is prominently mentioned on the "rational wiki" as one of the "Abusers of this technique"

    Watching some of Dr. Craig's older videos I was fascinated by how consistent he's been in the last 20-25 years. He has pretty much repeated the exact same talking points throughout his career. Practically verbatim. There is almost no excuse whatsoever to lay this fallacy of Gish-Gallop on Dr. Craig. None at all. All one would need to do to debate Dr. Craig effectively is watch any number of his debates and counter those arguments that he routinely uses over the course of 2 and a half decades. In fact, as I understand it, finally one debate opponent did just that in Kevin Scharp,. Upon a miscommunication with the Veritas Forum, Dr. Craig assumed he was going to get into a laid back, conversational debate. He was not at all expecting Scharp to do his homework, but found to his surprise that professor Scharp actually did research on all of his online debates and posed a formidable opponent. Fascinating stuff.

    For the benefit of those who assume that Dr. Craig is still guilty of this fallacy, I present two videos. This thread isn't to debate the topics he brings up, but to simply put to rest that Dr. Craig throws out too much information for his opponents to counter. Clearly, if the same debate opponent throws out the same 6 or so arguments over almost 30 years, no matter the debate, he cannot reasonably be accused of "Gish-Galloping". That's all I intend to prove here. Say what you want about his methods, but he is not guilty of this one particular fallacy.

    Debate against Frank Zindler 1993.



    Debate against Lewis Wolpert 2007

    Last edited by Adrift; 08-20-2016, 12:27 AM.

  • #2
    Originally posted by Adrift View Post
    Watching some of Dr. Craig's older videos I was fascinated by how consistent he's been in the last 20-25 years. He has pretty much repeated the exact same talking points throughout his career. Practically verbatim. There is almost no excuse whatsoever to lay this fallacy of Gish-Gallop on Dr. Craig.
    I have never watched Gish debate anyone, so I can't comment on the validity of the comparison, but I fail to see how Craig's consistency proves his innocence. I have seen several of Craig's debates, and he does do what his adversaries accuse him of doing, regardless of what label should be attached to it. I would not call it a fallacy, though, because strictly speaking, it is not a fallacy, because it has nothing to do with the logic of his arguments.

    I do agree that Craig's opponents routinely act as though they had no idea what they were getting themselves in for, but that is to their discredit. A Gish gallop, if Craig's tactic should be called that, can be rebutted effectively by someone who knows it's coming, but someone of Craig's intelligence can probably guess pretty well whether a prospective opponent will see it coming before he agrees to have a debate with them.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
      I have never watched Gish debate anyone, so I can't comment on the validity of the comparison, but I fail to see how Craig's consistency proves his innocence. I have seen several of Craig's debates, and he does do what his adversaries accuse him of doing, regardless of what label should be attached to it. I would not call it a fallacy, though, because strictly speaking, it is not a fallacy, because it has nothing to do with the logic of his arguments.

      I do agree that Craig's opponents routinely act as though they had no idea what they were getting themselves in for, but that is to their discredit. A Gish gallop, if Craig's tactic should be called that, can be rebutted effectively by someone who knows it's coming, but someone of Craig's intelligence can probably guess pretty well whether a prospective opponent will see it coming before he agrees to have a debate with them.
      Okay, so I'm going to discount this post, since you don't seem to know what you're posting on, as you've never seen the so-called Gish-Gallop, and you have no idea if Craig indulges in such. Fair nuff. Not sure why you felt the need to waste time posting, but, uh, thanks anyways?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Adrift View Post
        Not sure why you felt the need to waste time posting
        The point I mainly wanted to make was: "I fail to see how Craig's consistency proves his innocence."

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
          The point I mainly wanted to make was: "I fail to see how Craig's consistency proves his innocence."
          Agreed. I understand Gish was consistent too, and there were instances where someone would show he was wrong, and he conceded the point, but then made the same claims in subsequent debates.
          My Blog: http://oncreationism.blogspot.co.uk/

          Comment


          • #6
            I believe the accusation of Craig relying on some sort of 'Gish-Gallop' fallacy(?), is to much of a nebulous meaningless subject. First, in and of itself I do not consider it a fallacy. You are saying he is using some sort of 'Gish-Gallop' technique in his debates, which is not meaningful.

            It is more relevant to deal with the specific problems concerning his Debate techniques and the specific fallacies he uses in his debates. As far as I am concerned the biggest problem with Craig's debates is he makes some assumptions concerning science that are not legitimate assumptions of science.
            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

            go with the flow the river knows . . .

            Frank

            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
              The point I mainly wanted to make was: "I fail to see how Craig's consistency proves his innocence."
              Dr. Craig usually uses only about five arguments in his debates. Has been using pretty much the same five arguments for well over 25 years. If you fail to see how that sort of consistency proves innocence, then carry on I suppose. There's unlikely anything more I can add.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                is to much of a nebulous meaningless subject.
                too

                You are saying he is using some sort of 'Gish-Gallop' technique in his debates, which is not meaningful.
                I'm actually claiming the opposite.

                As far as I am concerned the biggest problem with Craig's debates is he makes some assumptions concerning science that are not legitimate assumptions of science.
                That's nice. That isn't the topic of the thread though.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                  too
                  Yeah!

                  Anyway, good thread, Adrift - I went to hear Duane Gish when I was pretty young, hadn't kept up with him, and didn't know he passed. I don't know enough about this to contribute, so I'll just say thanks for the info.
                  The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Well, the Gish Gallop lies is trying to present as many different arguments as possible and presenting as many different subject as possible. WLC doesn't try to cram in as many different arguments as possible, but limits the arguments to no more than 5, and never changes the topic repeatedly.

                    Interestingly, Andrew Copson made a similar claim about WLC on British radio during one of WLCs speaking tours in the UK, but yet proceeded to say that he hoped his fellow atheists would attend these debates to: "refute him [WLC] from the floor."
                    My Amazon Author page: https://www.amazon.com/-/e/B0719RS8BK

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Rational Gaze View Post
                      Well, the Gish Gallop lies is trying to present as many different arguments as possible and presenting as many different subject as possible. WLC doesn't try to cram in as many different arguments as possible, but limits the arguments to no more than 5, and never changes the topic repeatedly.

                      Interestingly, Andrew Copson made a similar claim about WLC on British radio during one of WLCs speaking tours in the UK, but yet proceeded to say that he hoped his fellow atheists would attend these debates to: "refute him [WLC] from the floor."
                      FWIU, a Gish Gallop is more about throwing out and endless series of supposed often unrelated facts that are all but impossible to refute in the time allotted even if the other debater could do so.

                      I'm always still in trouble again

                      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                        FWIU, a Gish Gallop is more about throwing out and endless series of supposed often unrelated facts that are all but impossible to refute in the time allotted even if the other debater could do so.
                        This reminds me of the Chewbacca defense.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Crackerjack View Post
                          This reminds me of the Chewbacca defense.
                          Had to look that up

                          In a Gish Gallup you hope to leave the audience with the impression that the other side didn't have a reasonable rebuttal to certain points because they didn't offer one. Of course, as noted, time constraints make that impossible.

                          I'm always still in trouble again

                          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                            Had to look that up

                            In a Gish Gallup you hope to leave the audience with the impression that the other side didn't have a reasonable rebuttal to certain points because they didn't offer one. Of course, as noted, time constraints make that impossible.
                            Rational Wiki says that the Gish Gallup is a key characteristic of the Chewbacca defense.

                            Comment

                            Related Threads

                            Collapse

                            Topics Statistics Last Post
                            Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                            39 responses
                            159 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post whag
                            by whag
                             
                            Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                            21 responses
                            129 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                            Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                            80 responses
                            426 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post tabibito  
                            Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                            45 responses
                            303 views
                            1 like
                            Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                            Working...
                            X