Gish gallops are extensively used in modern propaganda. The audience won’t remember details, but will remember “there were a whole lot of problems for Theory X, and the scientist didn’t really have answers.”.Your opponent will often seem defensive: offering rebuttals that may seem arcane to non-scientists.Because of specialization in science, no one will have knowledge of all the “problem cases” you can dredge up.The audience is left with the impression that your opponent can’t respond to the other problems.Even if your opponent shoots down one or two arguments, you’re still left with a dozen untouched arguments.It takes much more time to offer an accurate account of the science. A falsehood can be quickly and appealingly stated.Quantity is offered as a substitute for quality.It’s impossible for your opponent to respond to all the misleading/false claims in the limited amount of time allowed in a debate.The audience is left with the impression that there’s a huge amount of evidence on your side.The tactic is nevertheless often quite effective, for the following reasons : Even though it is a real rhetorical technique, and regardless of what one thinks of creationism, the naming of it after Gish is use of vilification to smear an opponent.įor example, a person using the Gish gallop might attempt to support their stance by bringing up, in rapid succession, a large number of vague claims, anecdotal statements, misinterpreted facts, and irrelevant comments. The term was coined by anthropologist Eugenie Scott who named after the creationist Duane Gish, who according to her used the technique frequently against proponents of evolution. It appears Gish did not use or advocate the use of a "Gish gallop" (From his debating booklet)
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |