Either something is true or it is not

In Jack DeBaun’s letter of September 29, he stumbles over himself in an attempt to avoid committing yet another logical fallacy. An appeal to a scientific consensus is still the fallacy of appeal to authority if it is used to try to prove something is true because “experts” say it is true.

A scientific consensus about climate change, while it is something to be considered, is not proof that an argument is sound. Either a thing is true or it is not. Truth is absolute. A majority can voice their opinions, but they do not get to decide what is true. At one time, the majority of alchemists believed that lead could be turned into gold. (That may be why alchemy is largely a thing of the past!) So even if there is a consensus among climate scientists regarding human-caused global warming, it does not mean that they are right.

DeBaun often gives references to websites with an overt anti-Christian bias, and in his latest letter he flirts with another type of ad hominem fallacy. He infers that Gerardus Bouw and Roy Spencer are both wrong because their statements have been influenced by their religious beliefs. The problem with this type of thinking is that while religion may have an influence on their thinking, it has no effect whatsoever on the veracity of their statements. Again, either a thing is true or it is not, regardless of education, training, or the religious beliefs of the person making the statement.

MONTE HEIL

Sagle