For those more familiar with formal classifications of logical fallacies, I was wondering if there was an official one for the abuse of the ad hoc hypothesis.
Ad Hoc Hypothesis isn't in and of itself a logical fallacy. It is sometimes used in science when a hypothesis needs to be adjusted to account for discrepancies. There can be a legitimate use for it, just like sometimes there are slippery slopes and correlation is sometimes known to be linked to causation. It's when these things are based on spurious assumptions or abused to arrive at a pre-conceived notion that they become logical fallacies.
The kind of abuse I'm talking about is where a person has a cherished belief that he wants to protect from being disproven. He then improvises as many ad hocs as are needed in order to dismiss each piece of contrary evidence that's offered. These ad hocs are typically pulled out of the air and aren't based on any evidence (or may even be wildly unlikely). It's a bit like the logical fallacy of moving the goal posts around combined with a shifting of the burden of proof.
Ad hocs are relentlessly made up until the abuser "wins" either by throwing out more than can be debunked, all contrary evidence is dismissed or the other person gets tired and goes home.
Example:
"Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great (who died in 4 BC)"
"But Luke says Mary was pregnant during the administration of Quirinius (who came to that position in 6 AD)"
"Well, maybe Quirinius had an earlier administration in Syria at the time of Herod the Great"
"But that would go against Roman tradition for the same governor to serve twice in the same province."
"Well, maybe they made an exception for Quirinius."
"But we know where Quirinius was at that time and it wasn't in Syria. He was governor of another province (in the middle of modern day Turkey)."
"Well maybe he was called in to manage the earlier census in 8-9 BC"
"But that wouldn't make him governor of Syria"
"Maybe Luke meant administrator when he wrote that Quirinius was 'hegemon'".
"But Judea at that time was run as a tributary to Rome. Rome wouldn't have performed any census there. Judea paid tribute and Rome could give a rat's ass how they did so."
"Well, maybe Rome performed a census in Judea anyway. They could do as they liked with the power they had."
"But then Jesus would have been too old. He started his ministry when he was 'about 30'. John the Baptist didn't even start his ministry until 29 AD."
"Well, maybe Herod the Great dragged his heels on the census, causing it to actually take place in 5 BC."
"Jesus would have still been too old."
"Well, maybe when Luke wrote 'about 30', he meant more like around 35."
"But..."
"Well, maybe..."
"But..."
"Well, maybe..."
Ad nauseum.
So does anyone know the formal classification of this fallacy?
Ad Hoc Hypothesis isn't in and of itself a logical fallacy. It is sometimes used in science when a hypothesis needs to be adjusted to account for discrepancies. There can be a legitimate use for it, just like sometimes there are slippery slopes and correlation is sometimes known to be linked to causation. It's when these things are based on spurious assumptions or abused to arrive at a pre-conceived notion that they become logical fallacies.
The kind of abuse I'm talking about is where a person has a cherished belief that he wants to protect from being disproven. He then improvises as many ad hocs as are needed in order to dismiss each piece of contrary evidence that's offered. These ad hocs are typically pulled out of the air and aren't based on any evidence (or may even be wildly unlikely). It's a bit like the logical fallacy of moving the goal posts around combined with a shifting of the burden of proof.
Ad hocs are relentlessly made up until the abuser "wins" either by throwing out more than can be debunked, all contrary evidence is dismissed or the other person gets tired and goes home.
Example:
"Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great (who died in 4 BC)"
"But Luke says Mary was pregnant during the administration of Quirinius (who came to that position in 6 AD)"
"Well, maybe Quirinius had an earlier administration in Syria at the time of Herod the Great"
"But that would go against Roman tradition for the same governor to serve twice in the same province."
"Well, maybe they made an exception for Quirinius."
"But we know where Quirinius was at that time and it wasn't in Syria. He was governor of another province (in the middle of modern day Turkey)."
"Well maybe he was called in to manage the earlier census in 8-9 BC"
"But that wouldn't make him governor of Syria"
"Maybe Luke meant administrator when he wrote that Quirinius was 'hegemon'".
"But Judea at that time was run as a tributary to Rome. Rome wouldn't have performed any census there. Judea paid tribute and Rome could give a rat's ass how they did so."
"Well, maybe Rome performed a census in Judea anyway. They could do as they liked with the power they had."
"But then Jesus would have been too old. He started his ministry when he was 'about 30'. John the Baptist didn't even start his ministry until 29 AD."
"Well, maybe Herod the Great dragged his heels on the census, causing it to actually take place in 5 BC."
"Jesus would have still been too old."
"Well, maybe when Luke wrote 'about 30', he meant more like around 35."
"But..."
"Well, maybe..."
"But..."
"Well, maybe..."
Ad nauseum.
So does anyone know the formal classification of this fallacy?
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
