HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Cerridwen » Journal
Page: 1

Cerridwen

Profile Information

Gender: Female
Hometown: Las Vegas, Nevada
Home country: United Corporate States of the US
Current location: Las Vegas, Nevada
Member since: Thu Jun 24, 2004, 10:32 AM
Number of posts: 13,231

About Me

Hairy, scary, pro-abortion, 'rad fem', doing my best to piss off the "religious" right and MRAs everywhere.

Journal Archives

Thank you for your help! (edited w/answer; Gish Gallop)

Gish Gallop

The Gish Gallop, named after creationist Duane Gish, is the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood in real time. The term was coined by Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education. Sam Harris describes the technique as "starting 10 fires in 10 minutes."

The formal debating term for this is spreading. It arose as a way to throw as much rubbish into five minutes as possible. In response, some debate judges now limit number of arguments as well as time. However, in places where debating judges aren't there to call bullshit on the practice (like the Internet) such techniques are remarkably common.


-----------------

Another piece I found at the RationalWiki link is:

Argumentum ad tl;dr

A related distraction technique, familiar to readers of A Storehouse of Knowledge, involves swamping an opponent in long-winded screeds of text to artificially inflate the appearance of depth and quality of information presented. Quite often, the actual content of several paragraphs can be summed up in a sentence. While the Gish Gallop floods an opponent with many, but relatively short points, argumentum ad tl;dr flings text walls so massive and impenetrable that even Victor Hugo would blush. Both tactics, however, have exactly the same purpose: to bury and obfuscate the core points that need to be discussed under a quantity of superfluous information. A user might well think that these techniques show that they know what they're talking about, but in the end they act simply as distractions. Note that both are different (but not mutually exclusive) from argumentum ad nauseam, which bolsters the apparent credibility of the argument simply by repeating the same thing over and over and over and over again.

For example, Jason Lisle's blog posts and "research paper" about the anisotropic synchrony convention prattle on endlessly about relativistic physics, hiding the fact that his fundamental assumptions were, to say the least, a little far-fetched. Similarly, engineer Dewey Larson has written numerous books on his theories about matter, going on for pages and pages about the need for critical thinking and letting evidence fit hypotheses, when what he actually proposes in these weighty self-published tomes can be summed up in one sentence.


That also looks very familiar. "Scholars" from aei, heritage foundation, and various other r/w "think tanks," publish many articles using that same form.



--------------My original OP/request for help------------------

Subject line: Help finding a post from the past few days, please.

I'm pretty sure it was posted in the last few days. It was not in an OP but was a reply in a thread.

There is a name for the tactic of rapidly (?) stating lie after lie after lie, twisting facts into lies and calling it "truth," thereby making it impossible to refute each and every lie. I'm sorry I don't remember the exact description.

Someone posted the name of that tactic.

If you were that person or know of that post, please provide a link. If you know the name of that type of "debate tactic," please provide that.

Thank you.

Go to Page: 1