| Ad Hoc Rescue |
|
You are here:
Meaning
>
Christian Witness
>
Encyclopedia of Logical Fallacies
>
Flawed Evidence
>
Ad Hoc Rescue
|
Logical Fallacy of Ad Hoc Rescue / Ad Hoc HypothesisAd hoc rescue is one of the many smokescreens that are used to cover the fact that the reasoning is based on one of the three fallacies of Agrippa's trilemma. Whenever a logical fallacy is committed, the fallacy has its roots in Agrippa's trilemma. All human thought (without Divine revelation) is based on one of three unhappy possibilities. These three possibilities are infinite regression, circular reasoning, or axiomatic thinking. This problem is known as Agrippa's trilemma. Some have claimed that only logic and math can be known without Divine revelation; however, that is not true. Without Divine revelation, neither logic nor math can be known. Science is also limited to the pragmatic because of the weakness on human reasoning, which is known as Agrippa's trilemma. The logical fallacy of ad hoc rescue occurs when someone is desperate to hang onto some part of their worldview that is out of sync with reality, so, facing facts that contradict the worldview, they use ad hoc stories to rescue their worldview. In other words, they make up stories to explain away reality. The story of molecules-to-man evolution is constantly rescued by just-so stories whenever it runs into snags. Many of the things that formerly were claimed to be the very things, that, if observed, would falsify the story of molecules-to-man evolution have been observed but explained away using the logical fallacy of ad hoc rescue. This is also true of Big Bang stories, the Bible has errors stories, billions-of-years stories, etc. Examples of Logical Fallacy of Ad Hoc Rescue / Ad Hoc Hypothesis
Bill Nye uses that logical fallacy of the red herring along with the logical fallacy of misleading vividness. All of this has nothing to do with the question that was asked. Not only that, but Bill has rewritten history. Kelvin was looking for the source of light from the Sun. He rejected any kind of fuel that could be consumed like a giant fireplace because if the Sun were made of coal, it would have burned up in about 1,500 years—which didn’t match the Bible. Kelvin believed that the findings of observation would match the Bible. Nevertheless, Bill’s thought is more confused than that. Kelvin also calculated an upper possible age for the Earth of 100 million years based on how long it would take the core to cool. Some contemporary scientists calculated an upper limit of 10 million years. This was upsetting to evolutionists, of course. A rescuing mechanism in the form of an ad hoc hypothesis was developed. This ad hoc hypothesis is that radioactivity supplies the extra heat necessary to keep the Earth core hot over 4.5 billion years. We are not dogmatically claiming to know that the Earth is 6,000 years old. We know that God created the Heavens and the Earth in six days and we know the number of generations between Adam and Christ. That's about it. Even though a plain reading of Scripture seems to indicate a young Earth; even though there is zero observed evidence and only circular reasoning and speculations that support old Earth stories, we can't even deny the possibility that God could have done something that Scripture doesn't hint at and that has left no scientific evidence. It is possible. It just is not worth the time to think about it.
Bethe actually just proposed that stars are powered by nuclear fusion. Bill stretched this into discovering the process by which stars create all these elements.
Bill’s claim that the elements were created when stars exploded is not proven by any observation, so Bill is committing a hysteron proteron fallacy. This is also a false cause and effect fallacy, since Bill is claiming that the stars caused the elements to exist, but there is no evidence that they did. In fact, there is good evidence that they did not. The thought process is being misrepresented. What actually happened was that the theorists were not able to come up with any kind of story that could explain how a Big Bang could possibly produce anything more than three light elements. So they had a problem in that almost all elements had no explanation. The ad hoc rescue story was that those elements were created when stars explode. The story doesn’t work real well, but when people want to eliminate God, any excuse will do.
This statement is a lie for the same reason as the last statement was a lie. There are actually huge scientific problems with microwave background radiation and the Big-Bang story. (see the articles listed below.) When those came up, an ad hoc hypothesis known as inflation was used to rescue the Big-Bang story. Ad hoc hypotheses can be made up to defend anything. Anything! Therefore, Bill’s claim is false. Bill would NOT abandon his sacred cow under any circumstances. He would most likely be willing to drop the Big Bang story if he could find a better story that eliminates God better than the Big Bang. Atheists and Agnostics hold their beliefs to shield themselves from God. We know, by revelation, that they are being willingly ignorant and that it is because they love darkness rather than light. The fact is that you can’t prove the Sun to someone who doesn’t want to acknowledge it.
Models are simply stories to try to explain something. In this case, they are ad hoc rescuing mechanisms. They are not to be confused with observation and deductive reasoning.
In trying to explain away the problem of soft tissue in fossils that are supposed to be tens of thousands to millions of years old: "These results suggest that present models of fossilization processes may be incomplete and that soft tissue elements may be more commonly preserved, even in older specimens, than previously thought." These quotes are from a paper titled: "Soft tissue and cellular preservation in vertebrate skeletal elements from the Cretaceous to the present." There is no mention in the paper that there might be a possibility that the million-of-years story may be in error. The presupposition is so strong that it ignores the evidence. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1685849/
Sandy is using the logical fallacy of ad hoc rescue because he doesn’t want to look at the facts regarding evolution. He wants to believe what his teachers told him, that it is settled science and there is not need to think about it anymore.
How can we know anything about anything? That’s the real question |
Other Pages in this sectionProof by Fallacy Evidence Surrogate Error in Observation Misrepresenting the Facts Distorted Evidence Unverified Evidence Hysteron Proteron Unsubstantiated Inference Assuming Facts Not In Evidence Wishful Thinking Appeal to Worldview Slippery Slope Limited Scope Mind Reading Shoehorning Confirmation Bias Sacred Cow Fantasy Projection Group Think Context Imposition Psychologist\'s Fallacy Amazing Familiarity Stolen Concept Weak Inference Proof by Theoretical Stories Anecdotal Evidence Dismissing All Personal Testimony Rewriting History Proof by Model Proof by Assumption Personal Incredulity Argument by Lack of Imagination Argument by Imagination Capturing the Naive Argument from Personal Astonishment Special Pleading Variant Imagization Self-Exclusion Unintended Self-Inclusion Ad Personam Proof by Repeated Assertion Cherishing the Zombie Argumentum Ad Lapidem Understatement Tautology Declaring Victory Assumption Correction Assumption Questionable Criteria Summary Dismissal Thought-Terminating Cliche Truism Perfectionist Fallacy Worst Case Scenario Fallacy Unwarranted Extrapolation Untestability Subjectivist Fallacy Bizarre Hypothesis Least Plausible Hypothesis Extravagant Hypothesis Privileging the Hypothesis Canceling Hypotheses Appeal to False Faith False Appeal to Heaven Inaccurate Models Hedging Politician\'s \"We\" Appeal to Nature Experimenter Bias Crucial Experiment Hearsay Hindsight Bias Fallacy of the Beard Argument from Fallacy Inflation of Conflict Infinite Regress Reification Personification Slothful Induction Superstitious Thinking Meaningless Question Proving Non-Existence Argumentum ad Imaginibus Statement of Conversion Outdated Information Argument by Laziness Alien Fallacy Quantum Physics Fallacy Fallacious Abstraction Appeal to the Unknown Grasping at Straws Pragmatism Fake Hope Appeal to Intuition Appeal to Mystery Argument from Design Untestability Imaginary Evidence Monopolizing the Question Fallacy of Antecedent Faulty Predictor Pretentious Antecedent Pretentious Premise Recently Viewed |
