Logical Fallacies 27: The Faulty Comparison

Video here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ihmyzu-bHpg&feature=watch_response

            Let us take a moment to consider an argument from Kent Hovind: It is clearly absurd to suggest that sky-scrapers are descended from spider webs, so evolution cannot be true.

            Ah, but wait.  Let’s clarify.  This argument uses the word “evolution” in the biological sense of the word, not the general sense.  So what’s the difference?

            Well, in the general sense, evolution refers to the occurrence of something changing over time for any reason whatsoever.  To borrow an example from Bill Maher, in Religulous, many buildings which were disco techs in the ‘70’s were converted into comedy clubs in the ‘80’s and still had the disco ball hanging from the ceiling.  Then a lot of them were converted into strip clubs in the ‘90’s and as of the early mid-2000’s, most of these were now Starbucks coffee shops.  A building which was an elementary school in the 1980’s is now an apartment complex.  These have changed over time.

            In the U.S., the musical and clothing styles which characterized the 1920’s were not the same as those which characterized the 1930’s, which were likewise different from those which characterized the ‘40’s and the ‘50’s and the ‘60’s, etc.  These have all changed over time and these are each examples of evolution in the general sense of the word.

            The biological sense is different.  First of all, it is called the biological sense of the word because it uses the word exclusively as it pertains to biology.  Biology is the scientific study of life and living things.  When we first began using the word “evolution” in the biological context, it was because it had become apparent to us that life has changed over time.  It was not yet apparent to us that it still is changing.  That would have to wait.

            When we talk about evolution in the Darwinian sense, we mean evolution as explained by Darwin’s theory: life changing over time by way of descent with modification.  When we talk about it in the sense of the modern school of thought, we are referring to the tendency of life to change over time as a result of mutation and natural selection.  Look at Kirk Douglas and his son Michael Douglas.  Look at Kent Hovind and his son Eric Hovind.  Look at Bush Sr. and his son Bush Jr. (or as I prefer to call them, Dumb and Dumber).  In each case, there’s a resemblance, so if you had no prior knowledge of the two and you saw them side by side, you would be well founded in guessing that they are related somehow.

            That resemblance, though, has its limits.  It’s not absolute.  One would never mistake the one for an older or younger version of the other.  Therefore, in each case, within a single generation, life has perceptibly changed.

            So getting back to Hovind’s argument, let’s try comparing a building or a spider web to its ancestors or descendents in search of resemblance.

            (awkward pause)

            Where do you propose we begin with that?  Do you see the problem with this?  Evolution, in the modern biological sense of the word, applies exclusively to things which reproduce.  Reproduction opens the door for evolution.  The whole reason it’s absurd to suggest that sky-scrapers are descended from spider webs is that sky-scrapers and spider webs don’t reproduce.  Living things do.  Living things.  Life.  That’s why this is a concept of the science which dedicates itself to the study of life and living things.

            Therefore, there’s no way one can accurately compare things which do reproduce to things that don’t when it comes to establishing the veracity of a process utterly dependent upon reproduction.  Here we have a fallacy called the faulty comparison.

            To explore another example, I first have to explain a fundamental scientific concept called the Blind Principle.  Odds are, most of the people watching this video are familiar with it in some form, but you might not happen to know that it’s called the Blind Principle, so I’ll be glad to explain.

            Picture yourself helping a friend study for a test.  You are sitting on one side of the table and your friend is sitting on the other.  Let’s pretend it’s on the subject of International Affairs.  You have a few sheets of paper stapled together in front of you, each of which is divided into two columns.  In one column is listed every country in the world and in the other is listed each country’s capitol.  Here you are quizzing your friend on his or her ability to name the capitol upon hearing the country or the country upon hearing the capitol.  What precautions do you have to take in order to test that properly?

            Well, since this is a test of your friend’s ability to name this from memory, you have to make sure that he or she can’t name them any other way.  You have to be careful not to hold the papers in your hand so low that your friend can see the information on them.  You also have to be careful that there isn’t a source of light behind you so bright that it enables your friend to read the information through the paper.

            It might also be a good idea to ensure that the information isn’t displayed on the wall behind you or written on your friend’s hand.  In other words, you have to make the necessary blind considerations.  You have to ensure that your friend can recall the information in question blind.  Here we have the blind principle.

            This is why, come test time, if your friend relies on the answers written on his or her hand or a concealed index card or tries to copy off someone else’s paper, this is called cheating.  It violates the blind principle and invalidates the test results.

            Now consider this in a geological setting.  Let’s pretend we have a geologist working at a dig and extracting rock samples from a layer several meters underground.  The appropriate way for this geologist to go about this is to extract several samples from the same layer, package each separately, and send each sample to a different laboratory to be radiometrically dated, perhaps using a different dating method in each case, perhaps using the same one.  Some dating methods have a tendency to provide projections that are just a little on the high side, and others are just a little on the low side, so for this example, let’s make them all the same method.  At this point, it’s a good idea to make certain that the different laboratories are not in contact with one-another while conducting the dating.

            If we have this happening to eight different samples, at eight different laboratories, out of contact with one another at the time, each testing with the same method, and that method works, then we should get about the same age projections from each laboratory.  If we get about the same projections from seven of them, but the projection from one is vastly different, that implies that a mistake was made in the testing at that one particular lab, or that the sample given to that lab was not properly handled and was subsequently contaminated.  If we find a wide variety of vast disagreement between the different results from each lab, that would imply either that the dating method in question doesn’t work, or that the geologist who extracted the samples was sloppy and managed to contaminate each and every one of them.  Maybe he or she forgot to wear gloves when handling the samples.

            But if each lab is in contact at the time, we have no way to know if agreement among their results testifies to the actual age of the rock samples and the accuracy of the dating method in question, or if it’s because this communication biased the people working at these labs.  To rid ourselves of this terrible uncertainty, we must keep them out of contact at the time.  We must apply the Blind Principle.

            Now consider this in a cultural context.  Civilization A and civilization B begin out of contact with one another, unaware of one another.  Each develops a fairly complete, cogent, cultural identity, under blind conditions; that is, completely unaware of the development of the other civilization, and subsequently devoid of any influence from that civilization.  Each develops their own unique styles of art, language, literature, architecture, and religion.  Then suddenly, one day, they come into contact with one another.

            Well of course, having developed out of contact with one another, each has a separate language, and therefore, a language barrier impedes their efforts to communicate.  Since it’s my example, I’m going to make them fairly benevolent, tolerant civilizations, which regard one other more with open curiosity than suspicion.  Subsequently, there will be those among them compelled by that curiosity to work on tearing down that language barrier.

            Some concepts will surmount the language barrier with relative ease.  Each will probably have a direct translation for words like, “sky,” “ground,” “sun,” “moon,” “warm,” “cold,” “name,” etc.

            Other concepts will have a great deal of difficulty surmounting the language barrier.  Each language will probably not have direct translations for individual names, styles of art, literature, and architecture, works of art, literature, and architecture, sports, etc.

            Objective concepts will translate very easily.  Subjective concepts will not.

            One word which each language will probably have a direct translation for is “wind.”  Each civilization, having encountered wind while out of contact with one another, has encountered the need to name it, and will probably have no difficulty translating it as soon as they find the right word.  But the words which won’t translate so easily will include the names of the gods worshipped by each civilization.

            Each civilization will probably have members who will testify to experiences they have had in which they have gotten worked into a state of vigorous exertion and high emotion, and maybe had a few convulsions and subsequently eye-witnessed the gods they have believed in.  Modern science has an elegantly simple explanation for this.  If you get yourself worked up enough, psyched up enough, you can make yourself see anything.

            The existence of wind is demonstrable with a weathervane.  Independent, blind verification is available with two or three adjacent weathervanes.  If the weathervane in question includes a windmill in its design, changes in the speed at which that windmill spins indicate changes in the speed at which the wind is blowing.  Changes in the direction the weathervane is pointing provide you with all the information you could possibly use about the direction the wind is blowing in that one particular spot.

            Now consider, when I ask Christians how they know that Christ exists, they sometimes respond by asking how I know that the wind exists.  This is how I know.  I know from the fact that the existence of wind withstands the blind test while the existence of Christ does not.  I know from the fact that you don’t have to get yourself psyched up to perceive, and even measure the wind.  You don’t have to work yourself into a state of vigorous exertion and high emotion.

            I know from the fact that, before Christopher Columbus came to the Americas, there was a Sioux word for wind, but not for Christ, while there were also no English words for Wakan Tanka.  Wind is objective while Christ and Wakan Tanka are both subjective.  To be able to perceive either Christ or Wakan Tanka in this state of high emotion, you have to believe already.  Not so, with the wind.

            If you want to establish the veracity of something, you can’t go comparing an elegantly simple concept which withstands the blind principle with a much more far-fetched concept which doesn’t.  This is what makes this a faulty comparison.

            “Every state, says an inquisitor, has established some religion.  No two, say I, have established the same.”  --Thomas Jefferson