![]() This organization was set up in 2002 in response to the American Academy of Pediatrics’ support for adoption by LGBT couples. An infamous example is the American College of Pediatricians. The habit of small bands of people with fringe views setting up professional-sounding bodies with pretentious names to give their views a veneer of credibility is familiar to debunkers of pseudoscience. Its board members include a retired air-line pilot (George Hill), two lawyers (John Geisheker and Zenas Baer) and two nurses (Gillian Longley and Michaelle Wetteland). With respect to the examples above, the first is a body of people opposed to circumcision, but which refuses to reveal how many members it has, and how many are actually medical doctors. Ultimately it should be the evidence itself that settles the matter. And with experts on both sides in the circumcision debate, saying opposite things, they cannot all be right. Whilst it certainly helps to be an expert, and an expert’s opinion should carry more weight than a non-expert’s, it does not follow that the expert is automatically right. The letter by 38, mostly European, physicians criticizing the AAP for “cultural bias”.Įxplanation: The argument assumes that just because the one making a claim has relevant expertise or credentials, the claim must therefore be true. Taken to extremes it descends into crude character assassination, as seen in scurrilous accusations on websites like Intact Wiki against critics of intactivism. This is one of intactivists’ favourite fallacies, it being so much easier to attack the person than the evidence. A few are a little technical but have been used by intactivists, so merit inclusion.Įxample: Circumcision proponent X is biased, gay, not qualified, a “circumfetishist”, profiting, etc.Įxplanation: Attacking the person, not the argument. Some might even be more than one fallacy at the same time. Here are some of the common ones, listed by fallacy type, followed by examples and explanation. Like all pseudo-scientists, intactivists commit a wide range of logical fallacies in pursuit of their agenda.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |