junk tanks

"Junk tanks" are closely allied to "hate tanks" in their donation-soliciting attempts to drive a wedge between facts and opinions.

The logo of the classic example of Entrenched American Ignorance, Anti-Discovery junk tank is parodied at right. "The Wedge Document" outlines the ultra-right-wing socio-political agenda of this bastion of misdirection, misrepresentation, and anti-science ignorance. In addition to their ignorance of science, these ultra-right wing anti-science advocates are ignorant of the actual socioeconomic pressures at play in the relaxation of society away from rigid, puritanical values.

Whereas the Anti-Discovery Institute promotes intelligent [sick] design theory, the midleadingly named Answers in Genesis promotes YEC pseudoscience. The material promoted by AiG constitutes some outright falsehoods, particularly in their Creation Museum.

It is a testament to the "junk" that passes for thinking in these "tanks" that founders and contributors actually believe that there is a one-to-one causative relationship between the scientific advances in understanding that began with Darwin and secular liberalism. To read "The Wedge Document" is to see the deluded paranoia that holds that an awareness that we are members of the animal kingdom immediately and irreparably removes any moral sense.

In the rigid, black-or-white "thinking" characteristic of bigotry, only punishment, to wit eternal punishment, could ensure that members of society will behave in moral or ethical ways. Such moralistic "thinking" is at a developmentally younger, lower moral level than more flexible moral thinking that acknowledges gray areas in assessment of what constitutes moral reasoning and socially appropriate behaviour.

Speaking of diminished moral sense, proponents of intelligent [sick] design theory perjured themselves when they declared in court that they, "do not speculate on the nature of the designer".

They must have thought that all listeners are as easily duped and as unconcerned with truth as their devotees when they made these palpably false denials. Even the briefest Internet search would reveal the inextricable, intentional connection between ‘intelligent [sick] design theory’ and fundamentalist Christian belief in creationism.

It is quite obvious that the pretentiously-titled Fellows of the so-called Discovery Institute are deliberately misrepresenting their true intentions, because to admit that intelligent [sick] design theory is merely creationism in disguise would be to admit that this so-called theory has no scientific merit. To admit that ‘intelligent [sick] design theory’ is creationism in disguise would further be to admit that the platform's purpose, which is so patently without scientific merit, is merely an overdressed attempt to insert religion into the classroom. This attempt is in deliberate contravention to the intent of the US Constitution, which set out to maintain a separation between Church and State.

Even in Bible Belt states, parents have proven so outraged at the betrayal of their childrens' education by pre-stacked, design-biased school boards, that parents have tossed the ‘intelligent [sick] design’ moles out on their ears at school-board election time.

The obvious fear of scientific knowledge evinced by the creationist platform bears testimony to the awareness, of even the least science literate, that the discoveries of science provide a superior explanation for the natural world than does the God of the Gaps. Not, of course, that those who applaud mendacity would ever be so honourable as to admit this truth.

Quo Vadis?
...section index...

hate tanks

I believe that those who make a mission of targetting the rights of others or of denying facts in order to promote a rigid, hateful agenda are suffering from either: a personality disorder, a characterological defect, some degree of psychological damage, the aftermath of indoctrination unopposed by reason, or a combination of these.

Some seriously damaged individuals, like Cho Seung-hui, resort to overt violence when overwhelmed by internal demons. Others resort to hate propaganda, often taking advantage of the Internet, principles of free speech, or rap music to spread their antisocial message.

Let's start with the Internet, which provides inexpensive opportunities for hate-propagation crawled blindly by search engines. Some websites are set up so as to appear to be the e-carnation of legitimate organizations promoting something positive. Closer scrutiny typically reveals that these websites focus only on attacking the rights of minority groups or of belittling science in the name of religious dogma.

It could be argued that my mimbling and wimbling provides yet another example of hate-propagation. I readily admit that I am irritated by illogic, ignorance, and bigotry. However, all of these irritants are correctible negatives – that is, illogic ought, for the sake of society and the responsible individual, to be replaced by logic, ignorance by knowledge, and bigotry by tolerance.

As for religious practice, there are milder forms of religious belief that are compatible with logic and tolerance. If individuals need some form of spiritual succor, denominations exist that are not associated with literal insistence upon rigid dogmatism and intolerance, and that permit a peaceful coexistence between logic, knowledge, and spiritual comfort.

Here's an example:
"founded in 1982 with one overriding mission: to generate empirical research on issues that threaten the traditional family, particularly homosexuality, AIDS, sexual social policy, and drug abuse . . . published scientific material."

Positive buzz-words: empirical research, published scientific material, traditional family.
Negative buzz-words: homosexuality, AIDS, sexual social policy, and drug abuse.
Secondary gain: "donations accepted"

The individuals responsible for these attacks probably delude themselves that they are acting in the interests of society and not out of hatred. Those who read and contribute to such sites may delude themselves that they are good, Christian people.

As a member of a traditional family, I am in no way threatened by homosexuality and much less at risk from AIDS than from the traditional killers (heart disease, cancer, etc.). The hate tank in question appears to be promoting only an anti-gay message, and shows no signs of promoting legitimate, empirical, scientific research.

Quo Vadis?
...section index...

Argumentum ad hominem

"Against" the man, To the man, Argumentum ad hominem
This is probably the commonest fallacious argument of all in debates about emotion-laden issues – attacking the messenger.

Addressing the qualities or qualifications of "the man" might not be fallacious if "the man" clearly displays prejudices in his/her opinion. Pointing out the clear biases of a hate propagandist such as Dr. Paul Cameron (of FRI) is legimate when, for example, he distorts statistics in an attempt to disguise a hate message as being a fact-supported argument.

In the face of dubious statistics, suspicious "facts", or claims that an unlikely position is supported by empirical research, it is worth looking into the qualifications and possible biases of the individual making the claim.

The possibility always remains that the conclusion drawn by a highly biased debater may be the correct conclusion. However, arguments that display prejudices are automatically suspect.

Equally, the conclusions of an arguer who is not an expert in the area under discussion may be correct, but such an arguer would need to make the premises and logic of his/her argument quite clear in order to compensate for the possibility that his/her argument is not authoritative. Nevertheless, to question the messenger's expertise is not necessarily an ad hominem fallacy, though it is an ad hominem - a legitimate ad hominem.

On the other hand, to call the opposing debater 'an ignorant idiot' might feel justified in view of one's frustration with his or her obdurate denial of one's own version of reality, or more likely of expert knowledge. However, it is not a good argument against his or her premises, argument, or conclusion. He or she might be correct, or you might both be mistaken. However, such an assessment ought to be based on the merits of his or her, or your argument.

Fallacious ad hominems employ a variety of attacks: directly abusive, circumstantial, and accusations of "poisoning the well".

Quo Vadis?
...section index...