| Revision as of 17:48, 7 June 2018 editKanbei85 (talk | contribs)215 edits Removing POV warning subsequent to corrective changes← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:49, 7 June 2018 edit undoTronvillain (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users11,186 edits cr: rf formatNext edit → | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| == Technique and counter measures == | == Technique and counter measures == | ||
| During a Gish gallop, a debater confronts an opponent with a rapid series of many specious arguments, half-truths, and misrepresentations in a short space of time, which makes it impossible for the opponent to refute all of them within the format of a formal debate.<ref>{{ |
During a Gish gallop, a debater confronts an opponent with a rapid series of many specious arguments, half-truths, and misrepresentations in a short space of time, which makes it impossible for the opponent to refute all of them within the format of a formal debate.<ref name="Logan2000">{{harvnb|Logan|2000|p=4}}</ref> In practice, each point raised by the "Gish galloper" takes considerably more time to refute or fact-check than it did to state in the first place.<ref name=>{{harvnb|Hayward|2015|p=67}}</ref> The technique wastes an opponent's time and may cast doubt on the opponent's debating ability for an audience unfamiliar with the technique, especially, if no independent fact-checking is involved,<ref name="grant2011">{{harvnb|Grant|2011|p=74}}</ref> or, if the audience has limited knowledge of the topics. | ||
| Generally, it is more difficult to use the Gish gallop in a structured debate than in a free-form one.<ref name="johnson">{{harvnb|Johnson|2017|p=14-15}}</ref> If a debater is familiar with an opponent who is known to use the Gish gallop, the technique may be countered by preempting and refuting the opponent's commonly used arguments first, before the opponent has an opportunity to launch into a Gish gallop.<ref name="grant2015">{{harvnb|Grant|2015|p=55}}</ref> | Generally, it is more difficult to use the Gish gallop in a structured debate than in a free-form one.<ref name="johnson">{{harvnb|Johnson|2017|p=14-15}}</ref> If a debater is familiar with an opponent who is known to use the Gish gallop, the technique may be countered by preempting and refuting the opponent's commonly used arguments first, before the opponent has an opportunity to launch into a Gish gallop.<ref name="grant2015">{{harvnb|Grant|2015|p=55}}</ref> | ||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
| *{{cite book|first=C.J.S.|last=Hayward|title=The Seraphinians: '"Blessed Seraphim Rose" and His Axe-Wielding Western Converts|publisher=Zest Books|year=2015|series=The Collected Works of C.J.S. Hayward|place=San Francisco|ref=harv}} | *{{cite book|first=C.J.S.|last=Hayward|title=The Seraphinians: '"Blessed Seraphim Rose" and His Axe-Wielding Western Converts|publisher=Zest Books|year=2015|series=The Collected Works of C.J.S. Hayward|place=San Francisco|ref=harv}} | ||
| *{{cite web|series=Perspectives on Harmful Speech Online|editor-last=Gasser|editor-first=Urs|publisher=]|last=Johnson|first=Amy|title=The Multiple Harms of Sea Lions|page=14|url=https://cyber.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.harvard.edu/files/2017-08_harmfulspeech.pdf|year=2017|ref=harv}} | *{{cite web|series=Perspectives on Harmful Speech Online|editor-last=Gasser|editor-first=Urs|publisher=]|last=Johnson|first=Amy|title=The Multiple Harms of Sea Lions|page=14|url=https://cyber.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.harvard.edu/files/2017-08_harmfulspeech.pdf|year=2017|ref=harv}} | ||
| *{{cite news |last=Logan |first=Paul |date=25 February 2000 |title=Scientists Offer Creationist Defense |url=https://www.newspapers.com/image/342086921/ |newspaper=Albuquerque Journal |department=West Side Journal |volume=120 |issue=56 |page=4 |via=]}} | |||
| *{{cite book|last=Scott|first=Eugenie|url=https://ncse.com/book/export/html/1914|title=Confronting Creationism|series=Reports of National Center for Science Education|volume=24/6|year=2004|authorlink=Eugenie Scott|ref=harv}} | *{{cite book|last=Scott|first=Eugenie|url=https://ncse.com/book/export/html/1914|title=Confronting Creationism|series=Reports of National Center for Science Education|volume=24/6|year=2004|authorlink=Eugenie Scott|ref=harv}} | ||
| *{{cite web|url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/debating/globetrotters.html|title=Debates and the Globetrotters|last=Scott |first=Eugenie|year=1994|publisher=]|accessdate=2017-10-06|authorlink=Eugenie Scott|ref=harv}} | *{{cite web|url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/debating/globetrotters.html|title=Debates and the Globetrotters|last=Scott |first=Eugenie|year=1994|publisher=]|accessdate=2017-10-06|authorlink=Eugenie Scott|ref=harv}} | ||
Revision as of 17:49, 7 June 2018
| An editor has nominated this article for deletion. You are welcome to participate in the deletion discussion, which will decide whether or not to retain it.Feel free to improve the article, but do not remove this notice before the discussion is closed. For more information, see the guide to deletion. Find sources: "Gish gallop" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR%5B%5BWikipedia%3AArticles+for+deletion%2FGish+gallop%5D%5DAFD |
"Gish gallop" is a technique used during debating that focuses on overwhelming one's opponent with as many arguments as possible, without regard for accuracy or strength of the arguments.
The term was coined by Eugenie C. Scott and named after the creationist Duane T. Gish, who she claimed used the technique frequently against opponents on the topic of evolution.
Technique and counter measures
During a Gish gallop, a debater confronts an opponent with a rapid series of many specious arguments, half-truths, and misrepresentations in a short space of time, which makes it impossible for the opponent to refute all of them within the format of a formal debate. In practice, each point raised by the "Gish galloper" takes considerably more time to refute or fact-check than it did to state in the first place. The technique wastes an opponent's time and may cast doubt on the opponent's debating ability for an audience unfamiliar with the technique, especially, if no independent fact-checking is involved, or, if the audience has limited knowledge of the topics.
Generally, it is more difficult to use the Gish gallop in a structured debate than in a free-form one. If a debater is familiar with an opponent who is known to use the Gish gallop, the technique may be countered by preempting and refuting the opponent's commonly used arguments first, before the opponent has an opportunity to launch into a Gish gallop.
See also
Notes
- Scott 2004, p. 23
- Scott 1994
- Logan 2000, p. 4
- Hayward 2015, p. 67
- Grant 2011, p. 74
- Johnson 2017, p. 14-15
- Grant 2015, p. 55
References
- Grant, John (2011). Denying Science: Conspiracy Theories, Media Distortions, and the War Against Reality. Prometheus Books. ISBN 9781616144005.
{{cite book}}: Invalid|ref=harv(help) - Grant, John (2015). Debunk it: How to Stay Sane in a World of Misinformation. San Francisco: Zest Books. ISBN 978-1-936976-68-3.
{{cite book}}: Invalid|ref=harv(help) - Hayward, C.J.S. (2015). The Seraphinians: '"Blessed Seraphim Rose" and His Axe-Wielding Western Converts. The Collected Works of C.J.S. Hayward. San Francisco: Zest Books.
{{cite book}}: Invalid|ref=harv(help) - Johnson, Amy (2017). Gasser, Urs (ed.). "The Multiple Harms of Sea Lions" (PDF). Perspectives on Harmful Speech Online. Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society. p. 14.
{{cite web}}: Invalid|ref=harv(help) - Logan, Paul (25 February 2000). "Scientists Offer Creationist Defense". West Side Journal. Albuquerque Journal. Vol. 120, no. 56. p. 4 – via Newspapers.com.
- Scott, Eugenie (2004). Confronting Creationism. Reports of National Center for Science Education. Vol. 24/6.
{{cite book}}: Invalid|ref=harv(help) - Scott, Eugenie (1994). "Debates and the Globetrotters". Talk Origins Archive. Retrieved 2017-10-06.
{{cite web}}: Invalid|ref=harv(help)