- Joined
- May 6, 2016
- Messages
- 1,908
- Reaction score
- 489
- Location
- Colorado
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Ad hoc is latin for "for this". In debate, it's basically making excuses.
In the scientific world, a good theory not only correctly models how something works (or happened) but can also be used to make future discoveries. Ad hocs do not do this and are meant as an escape hatch to get out of a failed argument.
The problem was perfectly summed up by Carl Sagan with the short story about the "dragon in my garage"
What's especially irksome is that when you've talked your opponent into a corner, they pull this trick on you. One common variant is if the experts disagree with you, discredit the experts by calling them shills or close minded.
Here are some examples:
Socialist: Capitalism is unstable and will collapse soon
Me: Then why does history show that your system ends up being the one that collapses?
Socialist: It wasn't real socialism (bonus points if they praised it as a working example of socialism beforehand) / Capitalists sabotaged it / Gorbachev ruined everything
Creationist: All the proof points towards the fact that the world is only 6,000 years old.
Me: What about the starlight problem?
Creationist: Light was faster in the past.
Climate change denier: Global warming is fake news
Me: 97% of scientists say otherwise
denier: They were obviously paid to say that.
Me: By who and what's with this conspiracy.
denier: They want to destroy America's economy with expensive renewable energy.
Socialist: Capitalism is making everything worse with inequality growing.
Me: Actually, the data shows that extreme poverty is going down.
Socialist: The World Bank messes with the numbers.
Person 1: GMOs are harmful.
Person 2: The majority of scientists say otherwise and there are studies proving it.
Person 1: They're just corporate shills.
Antivax: There's no proof that vaccines work.
Me: Then why have diseases declined after the vaccines were invented?
Antivax: That's all due to improved sanitation and medical practices.
Christian: If you want a problem to go away, pray and you'll receive.
Me: There's a study showing that prayer does not reduce illness.
Christian: God doesn't play by man's rules.
This is not to say that all explaining is fallacious. In fact, pretty much every hypothesis started as such (at least the ones which started out with indirect evidence as opposed to observation). Speculation is perfectly acceptable. The problem is when it becomes unfalsifiable.
In the scientific world, a good theory not only correctly models how something works (or happened) but can also be used to make future discoveries. Ad hocs do not do this and are meant as an escape hatch to get out of a failed argument.
The problem was perfectly summed up by Carl Sagan with the short story about the "dragon in my garage"
What's especially irksome is that when you've talked your opponent into a corner, they pull this trick on you. One common variant is if the experts disagree with you, discredit the experts by calling them shills or close minded.
Here are some examples:
Socialist: Capitalism is unstable and will collapse soon
Me: Then why does history show that your system ends up being the one that collapses?
Socialist: It wasn't real socialism (bonus points if they praised it as a working example of socialism beforehand) / Capitalists sabotaged it / Gorbachev ruined everything
Creationist: All the proof points towards the fact that the world is only 6,000 years old.
Me: What about the starlight problem?
Creationist: Light was faster in the past.
Climate change denier: Global warming is fake news
Me: 97% of scientists say otherwise
denier: They were obviously paid to say that.
Me: By who and what's with this conspiracy.
denier: They want to destroy America's economy with expensive renewable energy.
Socialist: Capitalism is making everything worse with inequality growing.
Me: Actually, the data shows that extreme poverty is going down.
Socialist: The World Bank messes with the numbers.
Person 1: GMOs are harmful.
Person 2: The majority of scientists say otherwise and there are studies proving it.
Person 1: They're just corporate shills.
Antivax: There's no proof that vaccines work.
Me: Then why have diseases declined after the vaccines were invented?
Antivax: That's all due to improved sanitation and medical practices.
Christian: If you want a problem to go away, pray and you'll receive.
Me: There's a study showing that prayer does not reduce illness.
Christian: God doesn't play by man's rules.
This is not to say that all explaining is fallacious. In fact, pretty much every hypothesis started as such (at least the ones which started out with indirect evidence as opposed to observation). Speculation is perfectly acceptable. The problem is when it becomes unfalsifiable.