Greg the Grouper
Active Member
Through some conversations of my own, and through watching various debates, I've come to believe that science deniers of all stripes oftentimes fall back on a specific method of argumentation that I will refer to as the Philosophical Swiss Army Knife, or PSAK. The specific form that the PSAK takes may vary based on the specific science denier in question as well as the specific topic being discussed, but typically possesses the following characteristics:
1. The PSAK is an ad hoc rationalization invoked to explain away inconsistencies, grievous errors, misrepresentations, and blatant lies.
2. The PSAK is considered self-evident by the person invoking it. Someone that invokes the PSAK will typically consider it unnecessary to substantiate the PSAK, and will oftentimes use the PSAK to directly or indirectly justify the PSAK itself.
3. The PSAK cannot be inferred from the conversation itself.
4. The PSAK will act as "the heart of the matter", forming the bedrock of every argument from the moment that it is invoked.
5. The PSAK, in some way shape or form, explains all skepticism regarding the PSAK.
A perfect example of the Philosophical Swiss Army Knife is the means by which many Creationists invoke God. A good example of this in action can be found in a debate between Matt Dillahunty and Sye Ten Bruggencate. In this debate, Sye Ten Bruggencate argues that Matt Dillahunty cannot substantiate any claim, because in order to do so he must rely on his senses and his capacity for reason, neither of which he can independently justify. Naturally, this kind of reasoning could effectively be turned back on Sye. However, to undermine such attempts, Sye argues that he is capable of substantiating his claims because his claims have been verified by God.
Naturally, this changes nothing: Sye cannot by his own reasoning demonstrate that God has verified his claims, and even if he could, he would be unable to explain why God could be considered an exception to this line of reasoning. This, however, means nothing before God in Sye's eyes: God is perfect, is capable of anything (unless being capable of anything becomes inconvenient, as it does during the Q&A section of the aforementioned debate), and explains everything including the things that God fails to explain.
Such is the PSAK: a tool to be used for any and every situation, one that is capable of fixing nothing.
1. The PSAK is an ad hoc rationalization invoked to explain away inconsistencies, grievous errors, misrepresentations, and blatant lies.
2. The PSAK is considered self-evident by the person invoking it. Someone that invokes the PSAK will typically consider it unnecessary to substantiate the PSAK, and will oftentimes use the PSAK to directly or indirectly justify the PSAK itself.
3. The PSAK cannot be inferred from the conversation itself.
4. The PSAK will act as "the heart of the matter", forming the bedrock of every argument from the moment that it is invoked.
5. The PSAK, in some way shape or form, explains all skepticism regarding the PSAK.
A perfect example of the Philosophical Swiss Army Knife is the means by which many Creationists invoke God. A good example of this in action can be found in a debate between Matt Dillahunty and Sye Ten Bruggencate. In this debate, Sye Ten Bruggencate argues that Matt Dillahunty cannot substantiate any claim, because in order to do so he must rely on his senses and his capacity for reason, neither of which he can independently justify. Naturally, this kind of reasoning could effectively be turned back on Sye. However, to undermine such attempts, Sye argues that he is capable of substantiating his claims because his claims have been verified by God.
Naturally, this changes nothing: Sye cannot by his own reasoning demonstrate that God has verified his claims, and even if he could, he would be unable to explain why God could be considered an exception to this line of reasoning. This, however, means nothing before God in Sye's eyes: God is perfect, is capable of anything (unless being capable of anything becomes inconvenient, as it does during the Q&A section of the aforementioned debate), and explains everything including the things that God fails to explain.
Such is the PSAK: a tool to be used for any and every situation, one that is capable of fixing nothing.