This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Clpo13 (talk | contribs) at 15:32, 8 June 2018 (→References: harv ref). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 15:32, 8 June 2018 by Clpo13 (talk | contribs) (→References: harv ref)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (June 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
"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 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
- Sonleitner 2004
- 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.
{{cite news}}: Invalid|ref=harv(help) - Sonleitner, Frank J. (November–December 2004). "Winning the Creation Debate". Reports. 24 (6). National Center for Science Education: 36–38.
{{cite journal}}: Invalid|ref=harv(help)CS1 maint: date format (link) - 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)