Evolution and the Texas Sharp Shooter Fallacy

[Clueless Morgan]

I'm in a email discussion with a Mormon about religion and science and in the process of me trying to explain to her the kinds of things that should be required to accept an extraordinary claim as true we got onto the topic of the Texas Sharp Shooter Fallacy and she made the following statement (my bolding):

From what I understand, a genuine sharpshooter fallacy would occur when a hypothesis is formulated based on observational data and then the original observational data is used as it's only proof.  The theory of evolution started out as a hypothesis trying to explain observational data - that didn't make it a sharpshooter fallacy as continual observations since then have supported the hypothesis.

I've already addressed the sharpshooter stuff in my email, but I'm having trouble explaining in a short way how Darwin developing his theory of evolution is not him committing the sharpshooter fallacy.

The best I've come up with so far amounts to something like "Darwin made observations while on the Beagle, yes.  He based a hypothesis on those observations, yes.  And then he spent years testing that hypothesis before publishing Origins, and his original observations were far from his 'only proof'."

It's short but I was trying to come up with something more pithy and just a couple sentences long.

Anyone got a suggestion?

[Nope]

I'm in a email discussion with a Mormon about religion and science and in the process of me trying to explain to her the kinds of things that should be required to accept an extraordinary claim as true we got onto the topic of the Texas Sharp Shooter Fallacy and she made the following statement (my bolding):

From what I understand, a genuine sharpshooter fallacy would occur when a hypothesis is formulated based on observational data and then the original observational data is used as it's only proof.  The theory of evolution started out as a hypothesis trying to explain observational data - that didn't make it a sharpshooter fallacy as continual observations since then have supported the hypothesis.

I've already addressed the sharpshooter stuff in my email, but I'm having trouble explaining in a short way how Darwin developing his theory of evolution is not him committing the sharpshooter fallacy.

The best I've come up with so far amounts to something like "Darwin made observations while on the Beagle, yes.  He based a hypothesis on those observations, yes.  And then he spent years testing that hypothesis before publishing Origins, and his original observations were far from his 'only proof'."

It's short but I was trying to come up with something more pithy and just a couple sentences long.

Anyone got a suggestion?

I think that your explanation is pretty good just like it is.

[Minimalist]

The moron...excuse me, mormon, needs to study this.

The steps of the scientific method are to:

• Ask a Question
  
• Do Background Research
  
• Construct a Hypothesis
  
• Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
  
• Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
  
• Communicate Your Results
  

All science begins with a question which leads to a hypothesis.  The hypothesis is then tested.

Be happy that she understands that the ToE has been supported by 150 years of of continuing research.  Puts her way ahead of the creatards.

[vorlon13]

Damn, Mormons have such a tenuous and feeble grip on reality as it is.  Their befuddlement and gullibility is the stuff of legends.


While you have her attention, see if she can explain why the account of Joseph Smith's first visitation, written in his own hand, is not the official version. 

[Clueless Morgan]

I think that your explanation is pretty good just like it is.

I'm trying for a more pithy response, tho.    That one is just so... inelegant to me.

The moron...excuse me, mormon, needs to study this.

---

The steps of the scientific method are to:

• Ask a Question
  
• Do Background Research
  
• Construct a Hypothesis
  
• Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
  
• Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
  
• Communicate Your Results
  

All science begins with a question which leads to a hypothesis.  The hypothesis is then tested

---

That's the other contentious issue right now.  The Ex-Mormon who is also participating gave her an example of how the scientific method can be used to test why a remote control isn't working and she responded by saying that it wasn't an example of the scientific method because (I paraphrase) "you're not learning anything new from that experiment, nor are you adding to the body of science", and then carries on in her next email about how she's "casually" using the scientific method to prove her god is true/real in exactly the same way she previously said you couldn't use the scientific method.

Be happy that she understands that the ToE has been supported by 150 years of of continuing research.  Puts her way ahead of the creatards.

That's what you think.  

She's talking out of both sides of her mouth with her above-bolded statement; in a previous email she said quite plainly that she believes in intelligent design and that she doesn't accept evolution because she doesn't think that's how God did it.  Now she's trying to have her cake and eat it, too.  And I'm gonna call her on it.

[Minimalist]

Handy that you can now shove her own words up her ass.

[Pyrrho]

The moron...excuse me, mormon, needs to ...

[Clueless Morgan]

This is what I've come up with so far:

Her:

The theory of evolution started out as a hypothesis trying to explain observational data - that didn't make it a sharpshooter fallacy as continual observations since then have supported the hypothesis.

Me:

… So you accept evolution now?

And no, the Theory of Evolution did not start out as a hypothesis trying to explain observational data, it was a hypothesis formulated after making an observation.  Once Darwin had formulated his hypothesis, he then went about collecting the actual data that would support or refute that hypothesis.  It was after years of collecting such data that Darwin published On The Origin of Species.  And, might I add, his initial observations about the various beak shapes of the finches on the Galapagos Islands was not even discussed in Origins.  The Darwin's Theory of Evolution did not commit the sharpshooter fallacy.

And I currently have this meme copied into my word document - if only to amuse myself - because this is the face I make every time I read her emails:


What do y'all think?  Succinct enough?  Explanatory enough?

[Thumpalumpacus]

You're doing well. Wouldn't change a thing.

[brewer]

Might try micro evolution argument.