<?xml version="1.0"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
	<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Tyl110</id>
	<title>Conservapedia - User contributions [en]</title>
	<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Tyl110"/>
	<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Tyl110"/>
	<updated>2026-11-12T05:59:58Z</updated>
	<subtitle>User contributions</subtitle>
	<generator>MediaWiki 1.35.14</generator>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Cigarette&amp;diff=770890</id>
		<title>Talk:Cigarette</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Cigarette&amp;diff=770890"/>
		<updated>2010-04-20T20:23:12Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Tyl110: /* Is it really necessary... */ new section&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;''Cigarettes have been allegedly spiked with addictive substances to hook the consumer on buying more of them and making it more difficult to kick the habit.''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Citation? [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 11:15, 27 August 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nicotine perhaps? [[User:Johnjoe|Johnjoe]] 11:57, 28 August 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nicotene occurs naturally in tobacco.  This sentence needs to be removed if it can't be supported. [[User:PhilScheur|PhilScheur]] 09:05, 29 April 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:According to a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cigarette#Manufacturing terrible site] cigarettes do in fact have additional additives which make them more addictive. That said, these don't appear to be added to hook users, rather to make the nicotine more volatile and the cigarette have a more stimulating effect. I'm not sure about the source they've used, I've only had a quick look at it but it doesn't seem to directly support the argument. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 10:06, 29 April 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Is it really necessary... ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
...to include usage instructions on how to smoke? To the best of my knowledge, this isn't a how-to site.--[[User:Tyl110|Tyl110]] 16:23, 20 April 2010 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Tyl110</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Logical_fallacy&amp;diff=770888</id>
		<title>Logical fallacy</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Logical_fallacy&amp;diff=770888"/>
		<updated>2010-04-20T20:20:59Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Tyl110: /* Proof by authority */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;A '''logical fallacy''' is an error in [[formal logic|logical]] reasoning. While the common usage of the word ''fallacy'' would include ''any'' error in [[reason]]ing, in logic a fallacy is defined as a particularly [[deceit|deceptive]] argument which seems correct, but upon further examination is found to be incorrect.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;copi&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Copi, Irving M. and Carl Cohen. &amp;quot;Introduction to Logic, 12e&amp;quot;. Pearson Education: 2005&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The maker of such an argument, however, need not be aware of its fallacious nature.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Logical fallacies fall into two general categories: formal fallacies and informal fallacies. Formal fallacies apply to [[deductive argument]]s, and are those which relate to an improper application of a rule, whereas informal fallacies apply to [[inductive argument]]s, and are those which involve the improper use of the content of an argument.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are four categories of informal fallacies: fallacies of relevance, fallacies of defective or weak induction, fallacies of presumption, and fallacies of ambiguity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A logical fallacy ''is not'' the same as [[lie|lying]]. A ''lie'' in logic is a [[premise]] that one offers while knowing that it is false. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Fallacies of Relevance==&lt;br /&gt;
Fallacies of relevance are fallacies which are due to a lack of a relevant logical connection between [[premise]] and [[conclusion]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appeal to force===&lt;br /&gt;
An appeal to [[force]] (Lat: ''argumentum ad baculum'') is an argument which uses a threat of [[violence]] or force as a justification for the conclusion. An appeal to force argument follows the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*If person A does not accept P, then Q&lt;br /&gt;
*Q is a threat of force&lt;br /&gt;
*Therefore P is true&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: &amp;quot;If you do not pay me $30 I will break your leg. Therefore you owe me $30.&amp;quot; It is fallacious because no amount of force can change the truth or falsity of the initial proposition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appeal to pity===&lt;br /&gt;
Also called [[emotion]]al appeal, (Lat: ''ad misericordiam'') this fallacy is characterized by a use of emotion as a justification for the conclusion. An appeal to [[pity]] follows the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Person A argues P&lt;br /&gt;
*Person B agrees P, but adds X, where X is an emotional argument unconnected to P&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: &amp;quot;Yes, [[police|officer]], I realize I was speeding, but you shouldn't give me a ticket because I was racing to see my wife who is in the [[hospital]].&amp;quot; While this argument uses an emotional appeal to convince the officer not to hand out a citation, there is no logical connection between the premise (&amp;quot;you shouldn't give me a ticket&amp;quot;) and the conclusion (&amp;quot;I was racing to see my wife&amp;quot;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Appeals to pity are very commonly seen in business. A factory manager may make the following argument: &amp;quot;our factory's overheads are too high, and we cannot maintain our business if we continue here. Therefore we should relocate to an area where labour is cheaper.&amp;quot; An appeal to pity would be of the following type: &amp;quot;but our workers have bills to pay, families to support, we cannot fire them.&amp;quot; That statement may be true, but is fallacious because it is not relevant to the manager's argument.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appeal to Consequences===&lt;br /&gt;
An ''appeal to consequences'' is an attempt to motivate belief with an appeal either to the good consequences of believing or the bad consequences of disbelieving. This may or may not involve an appeal to force. Such arguments are clearly fallacious. There is no guarantee, or even likelihood, that the world is the way that it is best for us for it to be. Belief that the world is the way that it is best for us for it to be, absent other evidence, is therefore just as likely to be false as true.  The following is an example:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* If you believe in evolution, then you'll be miserable, thinking that life is meaningless&lt;br /&gt;
* Therefore, evolution is false&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This argument commits the ''appeal to consequences'' fallacy because it provides no evidence for its conclusion; all it does is appeal to the consequences of believing in evolution.  Evolution is not disproven solely because it leads to bad consequences for those who believe in it.  The following is a similar example:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* If you believe in evolution, then you'll be more respected in academic circles&lt;br /&gt;
* Therefore, evolution is true&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This makes an appeal to the positive consequences of believing in evolution, without actually providing any proof of evolution itself.  Just because belief in evolution makes you more respected by [[liberal]] professors, this does not mean that evolution is correct.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===''Argumentum ad hominem''===&lt;br /&gt;
: ''Main Article: [[Ad hominem]]''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''Ad hominem'' arguments (Lat: &amp;quot;argument directed toward the man&amp;quot;) fall into two forms: ''ad hominem'' abusive and ''ad hominem tu quoque'' (circumstantial).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====''Ad hominem'' abusive====&lt;br /&gt;
An ''ad hominem'' is an argument which tries to disprove another argument by attacking the person who made it, rather than by focusing on the actual logical reasoning. The goal of an ''ad hominem'' argument is usually to take focus off of the actual argument by calling attention to a flaw of the person making it. This form of argument follows the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Person A argues that P&lt;br /&gt;
*Person A is Q&lt;br /&gt;
*Q is some derogatory description not related to the argument at hand&lt;br /&gt;
*Therefore P is false&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====''Ad hominem tu quoque''====&lt;br /&gt;
A ''tu quoque'' argument (Lat: &amp;quot;you're another&amp;quot;) is one which argues that, because someone does that which they are arguing against, that person must be wrong. This form of argument follows the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Person A argues that P should not happen&lt;br /&gt;
*Person A does P&lt;br /&gt;
*Therefore Person A's argument is incorrect&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: &amp;quot;You can't tell me not to eat cheeseburgers, I just saw you eating one last week!&amp;quot; Another common example is often found in business: &amp;quot;why are you punishing me for dumping waste in the river? My opponent does the exact same thing and you don't punish him!&amp;quot; In this case, dumping waste into the river is wrong (and illegal) regardless of how it is enforced for any other company.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====''Poisoning the well''====&lt;br /&gt;
Poisoning the well is a particular type of ''ad hominem'' argument. It consists of attempts to discredit a speaker (and, by extension, their argument) by criticizing unrelated opinions that they hold. The argument follows this form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Person A makes argument X&lt;br /&gt;
*Person B counters that person A also believes Y, where Y is something unacceptable, foolish, or easily disprovable, but unrelated to X&lt;br /&gt;
*Person A is wrong about Y&lt;br /&gt;
*Therefore person A must also be wrong about X&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When spelled out in the above form, the fallacy is easily seen, but it is used very frequently in political debate where skillful use of rhetoric can mask the underlying fallacy. The argument is fallacious because a person's opinions on one subject do not affect the truth or falsity of their statements on other subjects.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Genetic fallacy===&lt;br /&gt;
In general, this is the attempt to assert or reject a theory by citing its origins as either reputable or disreputable. The usual expression of this fallacy is &amp;quot;consider the source!&amp;quot; Thus it becomes a form either of ''argumentum ab auctoritate'' or of ''argumentum ad hominem'', depending on whether one seeks to verify or disprove the theory by this method. This type of argument follows the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*If P then Q&lt;br /&gt;
*Q is true&lt;br /&gt;
*P is false&lt;br /&gt;
*Therefore Q is false&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the origin of ''evidence'' or of ''premises'' is relevant to the reliability of the same, then asking a hearer to &amp;quot;consider the source&amp;quot; is valid. Judges in courts of [[law]], for example, routinely reject as unreliable the testimony of any witness who has demonstrably lied about a point that matters in the case at hand. The facts that such a witness is asserting might still be true, but they cannot stand without corroboration from another, more reliable witness.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But when corroboration is established, the origins of a conclusion, however tainted, become irrelevant.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As an example, [[Gregor Mendel]] established the genetic theory that remains current today, even though Mendel's experimental technique was badly flawed, and he even stands accused of falsifying key data. But succeeding [[science|scientists]], using accepted methods of verification and statistical assessment, have achieved results consistent with this theory. Thus the theory remains valid even though Mendel's original presentation was fraudulent. Any attempt today to discredit Mendel's theory on account of Mendel's sloppy methods would be an example of a genetic fallacy.&amp;lt;ref name=Genetic&amp;gt;[http://www.fallacyfiles.org/genefall.html Genetic Fallacy] on [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ The Fallacy Files]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Proof by numbers===&lt;br /&gt;
Also known as &amp;quot;appeal to the people&amp;quot; (Lat: ''ad populum''), this is an argument that a person bases on the numbers of people holding to its conclusion, rather than on the premises that might support that conclusion. An appeal to the people follows the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Most people believe P&lt;br /&gt;
:Therefore P is true&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Ninety nine point nine percent of all respondents can't be wrong&amp;quot; is the classic phraseology of this fallacy One does not effectively disprove such an argument by challenging the numbers. Instead, one reminds the other person that the numbers of people holding to any given conclusion are irrelevant to establishing the truth or falsehood of that conclusion. [[History]] is in fact replete with multiple examples of conclusions that memorable [[science|scientists]] and other great discoverers have shown to be false even though large numbers of people believed them. [[Antoine Lavoisier]], who disproved &amp;quot;phlogiston&amp;quot; as the principle of fire, was one such person. [[Christopher Columbus]] and [[Ferdinand Magellan]] are two others. After all, millions of people believed in the roman gods, but they were proven wrong.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Special pleading===&lt;br /&gt;
: ''Main Article: [[Special pleading]]''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Special pleading]] means applying to other people a set of standards that one is not willing to apply to oneself, without offering sufficient grounds, called the ''relevant difference'', to support such exemption. Special pleading follows the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*If Person X is in set P then Q happens to person X&lt;br /&gt;
*Person A is in set P&lt;br /&gt;
*Person A cites R circumstance, unrelated to P or Q&lt;br /&gt;
*Therefore Person A is not subject to Q&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: a political or military leader who urges his subjects (or those under his command) to observe &amp;quot;iron rations&amp;quot; without similarly depriving himself leaves himself open to a charge of special pleading.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Fallacies of Defective or Weak Induction==&lt;br /&gt;
Fallacies of defective or weak induction are fallacies which are due to a lack of understanding for how well premises lead to a conclusion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Argument from silence===&lt;br /&gt;
''Argument from silence'' (in [[Latin]], ''argumentum ab silencio'') or ''argument from ignorance'' (Lat: ''ad ignorantium'') is an assertion which states that, because there is no evidence to support a given argument, the opposite must be true. The fallacy follows the form:&lt;br /&gt;
*If P then Q&lt;br /&gt;
*P cannot be shown true&lt;br /&gt;
*Therefore Q is false&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: &amp;quot;Nobody has ever seen God, so clearly he doesn't exist&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This fallacy is often associated with and best remembered by the phrase: &amp;quot;the absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===False cause===&lt;br /&gt;
False cause (Lat: ''non causa pro causa'') is a fallacy which arises when a poor cause/effect link is used within an argument, especially if coincidence or chance are not taken into account. The fallacy follows the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*P causes Q (faulty reasoning)&lt;br /&gt;
*P is true&lt;br /&gt;
*Therefore Q is true&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: &amp;quot;I used to be a well paid teacher until I started being a tougher grader. When my students' grades went down, so did my salary. Therefore, I must have been paid based on my students' grades.&amp;quot; While this sounds like a logical explanation, not all factors are taken into account. For example, the teacher's school could have been subject to budget cuts, or maybe the teacher was overpaid at first and now his salary corrects his true worth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====''Post hoc ergo propter hoc''====&lt;br /&gt;
''Post hoc ergo propter hoc'' (Lat: &amp;quot;after the thing, therefore because of the thing&amp;quot;) is a subcategory of false cause fallacies. In this type of argument, a close temporal proximity is used as a justification of a cause/effect relationship. ''Post hoc ergo propter hoc'' arguments follow the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*P happened, and then Q happened&lt;br /&gt;
*Therefore P caused Q&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: &amp;quot;Right around the time the sun goes up my alarm clock goes off, so the sun causes my alarm clock to go off.&amp;quot; Clearly this is not the case.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Non sequitur===&lt;br /&gt;
: ''Main Article: [[Non sequitur]]''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A ''non sequitur'' (Lat: &amp;quot;It does not follow&amp;quot;) is an argument which moves from a premise to a conclusion without showing a valid connection, or sometimes any connection at all. This form of argument follows the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*P&lt;br /&gt;
*Therefore R is true&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: &amp;quot;Crime rates are high, so we should increase the penalty for drug possession.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Overgeneralization===&lt;br /&gt;
Overgeneralization (also called hasty generalization or converse accident) is an error in reasoning which comes about by making a logical leap far greater than what the data allows. Overgeneralization follows the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*P is Q&lt;br /&gt;
*P is in R&lt;br /&gt;
*Therefore R is Q&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: &amp;quot;I just read that three kids were arrested yesterday for drug possession. Teens in this country are really going downhill!&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overgeneralization the central problem in trying to conclude something about a population from a non-representative sample, or about a larger group from a non-representative subset of that group.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Proving too much====&lt;br /&gt;
Proving too much is a form of overgeneralization in which one attempts to use a set of premises to sustain more conclusions than he can reasonably sustain using the argument presented.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Proof by authority===&lt;br /&gt;
Also known as ''argumentum ab auctoritate'' (&amp;quot;argument proceeding from clout&amp;quot;) or ''argumentum ad verecundiam'' (&amp;quot;appeal to unqualified authority&amp;quot;), this is an argument that a person bases on authority, either his own or that of another person, rather than on the merits of the position. When the authority involved is a relevant source who has access to more information about the topic than the people discussing it, then the argument becomes a ''citation.'' However, a valid citation must be in an area of study, research, or mental discipline in which the authority being cited is a recognized [[expert]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*P says Q&lt;br /&gt;
*P is an authority in his field&lt;br /&gt;
*Therefore Q is true&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A classic example of argument from unqualified authority is a reference to a celebrity or religious leader for their opinion on a matter of science or public policy, when that celebrity or cleric has never adequately studied the subject. A standard argument from authority is often used by evolutionists.  A notable scientist claims that evolution is true, and based on that the average person is expected to believe in it as well. This becomes fallacious if the &amp;quot;notable scientist&amp;quot; has never considered alternatives which also provide the answers to the asked questions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Fallacies of Presumption==&lt;br /&gt;
Fallacies of presumption are fallacies in which an unstated or shaky presumption is made.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Accident===&lt;br /&gt;
The fallacy of accident occurs when a generalization is inappropriately applied to an individual. A fallacy of accident follows the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Some P are Q&lt;br /&gt;
*R is in P&lt;br /&gt;
*Therefore R is Q&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: &amp;quot;You are from [[Ohio]], which is a [[red state]], so you must be a [[Republican]]&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Contradiction===&lt;br /&gt;
:''Main article: [[Contradiction]]''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A contradiction is a statement that contradicts its own terms. [[Aristotle]] famously stated that contradictions cannot exist. In any case of a contradiction, some of the premises must be false. A contradiction is an argument which includes in its reasoning:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*P&lt;br /&gt;
*Not P&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Loaded question===&lt;br /&gt;
: ''Main Article: [[Loaded question]]''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A [[loaded question]] is a question that assumes facts, usually unflattering, that are not in evidence, with the intent of trapping the other person into admitting those facts. The classic loaded-question example is &amp;quot;When did you stop beating your wife?&amp;quot; Another example is, &amp;quot;Do you disbelieve in [[global warming]], which 99.9 percent of all reputable scientists now accept?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Proof by assertion===&lt;br /&gt;
Proof by assertion is an argument that states something as true without offering supporting evidence or attempting to construct a valid argument. This form of argument follows the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*P is true&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Often the argument is simply repeated over and over, and no evidence for support is given.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Proof by assertion can also be broken down into several subcategories of fallacies: circular reasoning, infinite regression, manufacturing facts from a theory, and your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Circular reasoning====&lt;br /&gt;
:''Main article: [[Circular reasoning]]''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Circular reasoning]], also called begging the question (Lat: petitio principii), is a form of proof by assertion in which one asserts a premise, then asserts a conclusion from that premise (directly or indirectly), and then tries to show that the last conclusion ''supports'' the original premise.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Infinite regression====&lt;br /&gt;
: ''Main Article: [[Infinite regression]]''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An infinite regression results when one asserts that a given event caused another, and yet that first event requires another, identical event, to cause ''it.'' An infinite regression follows the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*P&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; causes Q&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Q&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; causes P&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*P&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; causes Q&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Q&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; causes P&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*And so on, forever&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: [[Panspermia]], an alternative to [[abiogenesis]] as a proposition about the origin of life, suffers from the infinite-regression flaw so long as it fails to state positively what conditions could have brought about an origin of life on a planet other than the earth, ''other than'' the alleged mechanism of the &amp;quot;seeding&amp;quot; of life on the earth itself.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Manufacturing facts from a theory====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Manufacturing facts from a theory is the assertion as fact of an undemonstrated, unobserved idea for no better reason than that a given theory requires that fact.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the early stages of formulating a model, this sort of behavior is acceptable. But when repeated efforts to demonstrate such a new fact have failed, the proper logical response is to discard or revise the theory, and not merely to assume that the &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot; still exists and someone hasn't tried hard enough to find it. This is especially true when someone develops evidence that the inferred &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot; could not possibly exist.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong====&lt;br /&gt;
: ''Main article: [[Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong]]'' &amp;lt;!-- note: a Google search for this phrase show that it is exclusive to CreationWiki (well, and now Conservapedia) --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This fallacy occurs when one theory is judged by the premises and assumptions of another theory, rather than against its own premises and assumptions. This form of fallacy follows the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Theory A says that if P then Q&lt;br /&gt;
*Theory B says that if P then R&lt;br /&gt;
*Therefore theory A is wrong&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: &amp;quot;Dinosaurs died 65,000,000 years ago, so the earth couldn't have been created 6,000 years ago.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
It should be noted that although the above argument by itself is a fallacy, strong evidence supporting the death of dinosaurs 65 million years ago, as well as other evidence, would result in the argument being a proof by contradiction, not necessarily a fallacy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Straw man===&lt;br /&gt;
:''Main article: [[Straw man fallacy]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A straw man fallacy occurs by first incorrectly attributing an argument to someone, disproving this argument, then claiming that the person was wrong. A straw man argument follows the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*If P then Q&lt;br /&gt;
*Person A says P&lt;br /&gt;
*Therefore Q&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Straw man arguments can sometimes be hard to detect, because a valid statement may be used in a distorted fashion. For example:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Person A believes that a military program should be cut&lt;br /&gt;
*Person B argues that since Person A wants to cut military funding, he wants to leave the country defenseless to attack&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is fallacious reasoning, because there is no way to know ''why'' person A believes what he does, and Person B has used one reason which suits his own purpose. For example, it's quite possible that Person A wants to cut the program because he wants to change the funding to something which he thinks does a ''better'' job at defending the country.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Tautology===&lt;br /&gt;
:''Main article: [[tautology]]''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A [[tautology]] ([[Greek]] '''ταυτα''' ''tauta'', &amp;quot;these&amp;quot;) is an argument that becomes a repetition of a definition. Literally it means &amp;quot;the study of this&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;the study of these.&amp;quot; Such an argument, or statement, can prove nothing beyond itself and is useless as a premise.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Fallacies of Ambiguity==&lt;br /&gt;
Fallacies of ambiguity are fallacies which arise from ambiguity in language used.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Amphiboly===&lt;br /&gt;
Amphiboly is an ambiguity which arises though loose or awkward phrasing:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: &amp;quot;Save soap and waste paper&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Composition===&lt;br /&gt;
The fallacy of composition occurs when the parts of a whole are incorrectly used to describe the whole.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: &amp;quot;Since one of the battleships is ready to deploy, the whole fleet is ready to deploy&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Conflation===&lt;br /&gt;
Conflation is the treatment of two different concepts as one. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: &amp;quot;Comparing apples to oranges&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Division===&lt;br /&gt;
The fallacy of division occurs when it is argued that what is true for the whole must be true for its parts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: &amp;quot;That company is very important. Since Joe works at that company, he must be very important.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Equivocation===&lt;br /&gt;
Equivocation is the use of word with multiple meanings, and then using a different meaning in the conclusion than in the premise.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: &amp;quot;The coach said we should eat light, so take your heavy coat off.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Moving the Goalposts===&lt;br /&gt;
[[Moving the goalposts]] is jargon used almost exclusively by evolutionists to decline to answer a question that is the logical next step in their argument.  This next step is avoided by evolutionists by claiming that their critics are &amp;quot;moving the goalposts.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, Darwinists claim that asking how the theory of evolution explains the origin of life is &amp;quot;moving the goalposts,&amp;quot; even though it is a logical question to ask.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Related References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creationwiki.org/Logical_fallacy Logical fallacy] by [[CreationWiki]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.creationsafaris.com/crevbd.htm The Baloney Detector]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp SGU-Top 20 Fallacies]&lt;br /&gt;
*&amp;quot;The Fine Art of Baloney Detection.&amp;quot;  Sagan, Carl.  ''The Demon-Haunted World, Science As a Candle in the Dark.'' Ballantine: New York, 1996; pp 201-218.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See Also ==&lt;br /&gt;
* '''[[Liberal logic]]'''&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Conservapedia:Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Liberalism}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Logic]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Logical Fallacies]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Tyl110</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Logical_fallacy&amp;diff=770887</id>
		<title>Logical fallacy</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Logical_fallacy&amp;diff=770887"/>
		<updated>2010-04-20T20:19:16Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Tyl110: /* Proof by numbers */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;A '''logical fallacy''' is an error in [[formal logic|logical]] reasoning. While the common usage of the word ''fallacy'' would include ''any'' error in [[reason]]ing, in logic a fallacy is defined as a particularly [[deceit|deceptive]] argument which seems correct, but upon further examination is found to be incorrect.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;copi&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Copi, Irving M. and Carl Cohen. &amp;quot;Introduction to Logic, 12e&amp;quot;. Pearson Education: 2005&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The maker of such an argument, however, need not be aware of its fallacious nature.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Logical fallacies fall into two general categories: formal fallacies and informal fallacies. Formal fallacies apply to [[deductive argument]]s, and are those which relate to an improper application of a rule, whereas informal fallacies apply to [[inductive argument]]s, and are those which involve the improper use of the content of an argument.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are four categories of informal fallacies: fallacies of relevance, fallacies of defective or weak induction, fallacies of presumption, and fallacies of ambiguity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A logical fallacy ''is not'' the same as [[lie|lying]]. A ''lie'' in logic is a [[premise]] that one offers while knowing that it is false. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Fallacies of Relevance==&lt;br /&gt;
Fallacies of relevance are fallacies which are due to a lack of a relevant logical connection between [[premise]] and [[conclusion]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appeal to force===&lt;br /&gt;
An appeal to [[force]] (Lat: ''argumentum ad baculum'') is an argument which uses a threat of [[violence]] or force as a justification for the conclusion. An appeal to force argument follows the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*If person A does not accept P, then Q&lt;br /&gt;
*Q is a threat of force&lt;br /&gt;
*Therefore P is true&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: &amp;quot;If you do not pay me $30 I will break your leg. Therefore you owe me $30.&amp;quot; It is fallacious because no amount of force can change the truth or falsity of the initial proposition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appeal to pity===&lt;br /&gt;
Also called [[emotion]]al appeal, (Lat: ''ad misericordiam'') this fallacy is characterized by a use of emotion as a justification for the conclusion. An appeal to [[pity]] follows the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Person A argues P&lt;br /&gt;
*Person B agrees P, but adds X, where X is an emotional argument unconnected to P&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: &amp;quot;Yes, [[police|officer]], I realize I was speeding, but you shouldn't give me a ticket because I was racing to see my wife who is in the [[hospital]].&amp;quot; While this argument uses an emotional appeal to convince the officer not to hand out a citation, there is no logical connection between the premise (&amp;quot;you shouldn't give me a ticket&amp;quot;) and the conclusion (&amp;quot;I was racing to see my wife&amp;quot;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Appeals to pity are very commonly seen in business. A factory manager may make the following argument: &amp;quot;our factory's overheads are too high, and we cannot maintain our business if we continue here. Therefore we should relocate to an area where labour is cheaper.&amp;quot; An appeal to pity would be of the following type: &amp;quot;but our workers have bills to pay, families to support, we cannot fire them.&amp;quot; That statement may be true, but is fallacious because it is not relevant to the manager's argument.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appeal to Consequences===&lt;br /&gt;
An ''appeal to consequences'' is an attempt to motivate belief with an appeal either to the good consequences of believing or the bad consequences of disbelieving. This may or may not involve an appeal to force. Such arguments are clearly fallacious. There is no guarantee, or even likelihood, that the world is the way that it is best for us for it to be. Belief that the world is the way that it is best for us for it to be, absent other evidence, is therefore just as likely to be false as true.  The following is an example:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* If you believe in evolution, then you'll be miserable, thinking that life is meaningless&lt;br /&gt;
* Therefore, evolution is false&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This argument commits the ''appeal to consequences'' fallacy because it provides no evidence for its conclusion; all it does is appeal to the consequences of believing in evolution.  Evolution is not disproven solely because it leads to bad consequences for those who believe in it.  The following is a similar example:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* If you believe in evolution, then you'll be more respected in academic circles&lt;br /&gt;
* Therefore, evolution is true&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This makes an appeal to the positive consequences of believing in evolution, without actually providing any proof of evolution itself.  Just because belief in evolution makes you more respected by [[liberal]] professors, this does not mean that evolution is correct.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===''Argumentum ad hominem''===&lt;br /&gt;
: ''Main Article: [[Ad hominem]]''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''Ad hominem'' arguments (Lat: &amp;quot;argument directed toward the man&amp;quot;) fall into two forms: ''ad hominem'' abusive and ''ad hominem tu quoque'' (circumstantial).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====''Ad hominem'' abusive====&lt;br /&gt;
An ''ad hominem'' is an argument which tries to disprove another argument by attacking the person who made it, rather than by focusing on the actual logical reasoning. The goal of an ''ad hominem'' argument is usually to take focus off of the actual argument by calling attention to a flaw of the person making it. This form of argument follows the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Person A argues that P&lt;br /&gt;
*Person A is Q&lt;br /&gt;
*Q is some derogatory description not related to the argument at hand&lt;br /&gt;
*Therefore P is false&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====''Ad hominem tu quoque''====&lt;br /&gt;
A ''tu quoque'' argument (Lat: &amp;quot;you're another&amp;quot;) is one which argues that, because someone does that which they are arguing against, that person must be wrong. This form of argument follows the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Person A argues that P should not happen&lt;br /&gt;
*Person A does P&lt;br /&gt;
*Therefore Person A's argument is incorrect&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: &amp;quot;You can't tell me not to eat cheeseburgers, I just saw you eating one last week!&amp;quot; Another common example is often found in business: &amp;quot;why are you punishing me for dumping waste in the river? My opponent does the exact same thing and you don't punish him!&amp;quot; In this case, dumping waste into the river is wrong (and illegal) regardless of how it is enforced for any other company.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====''Poisoning the well''====&lt;br /&gt;
Poisoning the well is a particular type of ''ad hominem'' argument. It consists of attempts to discredit a speaker (and, by extension, their argument) by criticizing unrelated opinions that they hold. The argument follows this form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Person A makes argument X&lt;br /&gt;
*Person B counters that person A also believes Y, where Y is something unacceptable, foolish, or easily disprovable, but unrelated to X&lt;br /&gt;
*Person A is wrong about Y&lt;br /&gt;
*Therefore person A must also be wrong about X&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When spelled out in the above form, the fallacy is easily seen, but it is used very frequently in political debate where skillful use of rhetoric can mask the underlying fallacy. The argument is fallacious because a person's opinions on one subject do not affect the truth or falsity of their statements on other subjects.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Genetic fallacy===&lt;br /&gt;
In general, this is the attempt to assert or reject a theory by citing its origins as either reputable or disreputable. The usual expression of this fallacy is &amp;quot;consider the source!&amp;quot; Thus it becomes a form either of ''argumentum ab auctoritate'' or of ''argumentum ad hominem'', depending on whether one seeks to verify or disprove the theory by this method. This type of argument follows the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*If P then Q&lt;br /&gt;
*Q is true&lt;br /&gt;
*P is false&lt;br /&gt;
*Therefore Q is false&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the origin of ''evidence'' or of ''premises'' is relevant to the reliability of the same, then asking a hearer to &amp;quot;consider the source&amp;quot; is valid. Judges in courts of [[law]], for example, routinely reject as unreliable the testimony of any witness who has demonstrably lied about a point that matters in the case at hand. The facts that such a witness is asserting might still be true, but they cannot stand without corroboration from another, more reliable witness.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But when corroboration is established, the origins of a conclusion, however tainted, become irrelevant.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As an example, [[Gregor Mendel]] established the genetic theory that remains current today, even though Mendel's experimental technique was badly flawed, and he even stands accused of falsifying key data. But succeeding [[science|scientists]], using accepted methods of verification and statistical assessment, have achieved results consistent with this theory. Thus the theory remains valid even though Mendel's original presentation was fraudulent. Any attempt today to discredit Mendel's theory on account of Mendel's sloppy methods would be an example of a genetic fallacy.&amp;lt;ref name=Genetic&amp;gt;[http://www.fallacyfiles.org/genefall.html Genetic Fallacy] on [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ The Fallacy Files]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Proof by numbers===&lt;br /&gt;
Also known as &amp;quot;appeal to the people&amp;quot; (Lat: ''ad populum''), this is an argument that a person bases on the numbers of people holding to its conclusion, rather than on the premises that might support that conclusion. An appeal to the people follows the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Most people believe P&lt;br /&gt;
:Therefore P is true&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Ninety nine point nine percent of all respondents can't be wrong&amp;quot; is the classic phraseology of this fallacy One does not effectively disprove such an argument by challenging the numbers. Instead, one reminds the other person that the numbers of people holding to any given conclusion are irrelevant to establishing the truth or falsehood of that conclusion. [[History]] is in fact replete with multiple examples of conclusions that memorable [[science|scientists]] and other great discoverers have shown to be false even though large numbers of people believed them. [[Antoine Lavoisier]], who disproved &amp;quot;phlogiston&amp;quot; as the principle of fire, was one such person. [[Christopher Columbus]] and [[Ferdinand Magellan]] are two others. After all, millions of people believed in the roman gods, but they were proven wrong.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Special pleading===&lt;br /&gt;
: ''Main Article: [[Special pleading]]''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Special pleading]] means applying to other people a set of standards that one is not willing to apply to oneself, without offering sufficient grounds, called the ''relevant difference'', to support such exemption. Special pleading follows the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*If Person X is in set P then Q happens to person X&lt;br /&gt;
*Person A is in set P&lt;br /&gt;
*Person A cites R circumstance, unrelated to P or Q&lt;br /&gt;
*Therefore Person A is not subject to Q&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: a political or military leader who urges his subjects (or those under his command) to observe &amp;quot;iron rations&amp;quot; without similarly depriving himself leaves himself open to a charge of special pleading.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Fallacies of Defective or Weak Induction==&lt;br /&gt;
Fallacies of defective or weak induction are fallacies which are due to a lack of understanding for how well premises lead to a conclusion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Argument from silence===&lt;br /&gt;
''Argument from silence'' (in [[Latin]], ''argumentum ab silencio'') or ''argument from ignorance'' (Lat: ''ad ignorantium'') is an assertion which states that, because there is no evidence to support a given argument, the opposite must be true. The fallacy follows the form:&lt;br /&gt;
*If P then Q&lt;br /&gt;
*P cannot be shown true&lt;br /&gt;
*Therefore Q is false&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: &amp;quot;Nobody has ever seen God, so clearly he doesn't exist&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This fallacy is often associated with and best remembered by the phrase: &amp;quot;the absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===False cause===&lt;br /&gt;
False cause (Lat: ''non causa pro causa'') is a fallacy which arises when a poor cause/effect link is used within an argument, especially if coincidence or chance are not taken into account. The fallacy follows the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*P causes Q (faulty reasoning)&lt;br /&gt;
*P is true&lt;br /&gt;
*Therefore Q is true&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: &amp;quot;I used to be a well paid teacher until I started being a tougher grader. When my students' grades went down, so did my salary. Therefore, I must have been paid based on my students' grades.&amp;quot; While this sounds like a logical explanation, not all factors are taken into account. For example, the teacher's school could have been subject to budget cuts, or maybe the teacher was overpaid at first and now his salary corrects his true worth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====''Post hoc ergo propter hoc''====&lt;br /&gt;
''Post hoc ergo propter hoc'' (Lat: &amp;quot;after the thing, therefore because of the thing&amp;quot;) is a subcategory of false cause fallacies. In this type of argument, a close temporal proximity is used as a justification of a cause/effect relationship. ''Post hoc ergo propter hoc'' arguments follow the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*P happened, and then Q happened&lt;br /&gt;
*Therefore P caused Q&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: &amp;quot;Right around the time the sun goes up my alarm clock goes off, so the sun causes my alarm clock to go off.&amp;quot; Clearly this is not the case.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Non sequitur===&lt;br /&gt;
: ''Main Article: [[Non sequitur]]''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A ''non sequitur'' (Lat: &amp;quot;It does not follow&amp;quot;) is an argument which moves from a premise to a conclusion without showing a valid connection, or sometimes any connection at all. This form of argument follows the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*P&lt;br /&gt;
*Therefore R is true&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: &amp;quot;Crime rates are high, so we should increase the penalty for drug possession.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Overgeneralization===&lt;br /&gt;
Overgeneralization (also called hasty generalization or converse accident) is an error in reasoning which comes about by making a logical leap far greater than what the data allows. Overgeneralization follows the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*P is Q&lt;br /&gt;
*P is in R&lt;br /&gt;
*Therefore R is Q&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: &amp;quot;I just read that three kids were arrested yesterday for drug possession. Teens in this country are really going downhill!&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overgeneralization the central problem in trying to conclude something about a population from a non-representative sample, or about a larger group from a non-representative subset of that group.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Proving too much====&lt;br /&gt;
Proving too much is a form of overgeneralization in which one attempts to use a set of premises to sustain more conclusions than he can reasonably sustain using the argument presented.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Proof by authority===&lt;br /&gt;
Also known as ''argumentum ab auctoritate'' (&amp;quot;argument proceeding from clout&amp;quot;) or ''argumentum ad verecundiam'' (&amp;quot;appeal to unqualified authority&amp;quot;), this is an argument that a person bases on authority, either his own or that of another person, rather than on the merits of the position. When the authority involved is a relevant source who has access to more information about the topic than the people discussing it, then the argument becomes a ''citation.'' However, a valid citation must be in an area of study, research, or mental discipline in which the authority being cited is a recognized [[expert]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*P says Q&lt;br /&gt;
*P is an authority in his field&lt;br /&gt;
*Therefore Q is true&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A classic example of argument from unqualified authority is a reference to a celebrity or religious leader for their opinion on a matter of science or public policy, when that celebrity or cleric has never adequately studied the subject. A standard argument from authority is often used by evolutionists.  A notable scientist claims that evolution is true, and based on that the average person is expected to believe in it as well.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Fallacies of Presumption==&lt;br /&gt;
Fallacies of presumption are fallacies in which an unstated or shaky presumption is made.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Accident===&lt;br /&gt;
The fallacy of accident occurs when a generalization is inappropriately applied to an individual. A fallacy of accident follows the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Some P are Q&lt;br /&gt;
*R is in P&lt;br /&gt;
*Therefore R is Q&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: &amp;quot;You are from [[Ohio]], which is a [[red state]], so you must be a [[Republican]]&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Contradiction===&lt;br /&gt;
:''Main article: [[Contradiction]]''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A contradiction is a statement that contradicts its own terms. [[Aristotle]] famously stated that contradictions cannot exist. In any case of a contradiction, some of the premises must be false. A contradiction is an argument which includes in its reasoning:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*P&lt;br /&gt;
*Not P&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Loaded question===&lt;br /&gt;
: ''Main Article: [[Loaded question]]''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A [[loaded question]] is a question that assumes facts, usually unflattering, that are not in evidence, with the intent of trapping the other person into admitting those facts. The classic loaded-question example is &amp;quot;When did you stop beating your wife?&amp;quot; Another example is, &amp;quot;Do you disbelieve in [[global warming]], which 99.9 percent of all reputable scientists now accept?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Proof by assertion===&lt;br /&gt;
Proof by assertion is an argument that states something as true without offering supporting evidence or attempting to construct a valid argument. This form of argument follows the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*P is true&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Often the argument is simply repeated over and over, and no evidence for support is given.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Proof by assertion can also be broken down into several subcategories of fallacies: circular reasoning, infinite regression, manufacturing facts from a theory, and your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Circular reasoning====&lt;br /&gt;
:''Main article: [[Circular reasoning]]''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Circular reasoning]], also called begging the question (Lat: petitio principii), is a form of proof by assertion in which one asserts a premise, then asserts a conclusion from that premise (directly or indirectly), and then tries to show that the last conclusion ''supports'' the original premise.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Infinite regression====&lt;br /&gt;
: ''Main Article: [[Infinite regression]]''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An infinite regression results when one asserts that a given event caused another, and yet that first event requires another, identical event, to cause ''it.'' An infinite regression follows the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*P&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; causes Q&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Q&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; causes P&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*P&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; causes Q&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Q&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; causes P&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*And so on, forever&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: [[Panspermia]], an alternative to [[abiogenesis]] as a proposition about the origin of life, suffers from the infinite-regression flaw so long as it fails to state positively what conditions could have brought about an origin of life on a planet other than the earth, ''other than'' the alleged mechanism of the &amp;quot;seeding&amp;quot; of life on the earth itself.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Manufacturing facts from a theory====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Manufacturing facts from a theory is the assertion as fact of an undemonstrated, unobserved idea for no better reason than that a given theory requires that fact.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the early stages of formulating a model, this sort of behavior is acceptable. But when repeated efforts to demonstrate such a new fact have failed, the proper logical response is to discard or revise the theory, and not merely to assume that the &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot; still exists and someone hasn't tried hard enough to find it. This is especially true when someone develops evidence that the inferred &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot; could not possibly exist.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong====&lt;br /&gt;
: ''Main article: [[Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong]]'' &amp;lt;!-- note: a Google search for this phrase show that it is exclusive to CreationWiki (well, and now Conservapedia) --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This fallacy occurs when one theory is judged by the premises and assumptions of another theory, rather than against its own premises and assumptions. This form of fallacy follows the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Theory A says that if P then Q&lt;br /&gt;
*Theory B says that if P then R&lt;br /&gt;
*Therefore theory A is wrong&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: &amp;quot;Dinosaurs died 65,000,000 years ago, so the earth couldn't have been created 6,000 years ago.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
It should be noted that although the above argument by itself is a fallacy, strong evidence supporting the death of dinosaurs 65 million years ago, as well as other evidence, would result in the argument being a proof by contradiction, not necessarily a fallacy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Straw man===&lt;br /&gt;
:''Main article: [[Straw man fallacy]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A straw man fallacy occurs by first incorrectly attributing an argument to someone, disproving this argument, then claiming that the person was wrong. A straw man argument follows the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*If P then Q&lt;br /&gt;
*Person A says P&lt;br /&gt;
*Therefore Q&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Straw man arguments can sometimes be hard to detect, because a valid statement may be used in a distorted fashion. For example:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Person A believes that a military program should be cut&lt;br /&gt;
*Person B argues that since Person A wants to cut military funding, he wants to leave the country defenseless to attack&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is fallacious reasoning, because there is no way to know ''why'' person A believes what he does, and Person B has used one reason which suits his own purpose. For example, it's quite possible that Person A wants to cut the program because he wants to change the funding to something which he thinks does a ''better'' job at defending the country.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Tautology===&lt;br /&gt;
:''Main article: [[tautology]]''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A [[tautology]] ([[Greek]] '''ταυτα''' ''tauta'', &amp;quot;these&amp;quot;) is an argument that becomes a repetition of a definition. Literally it means &amp;quot;the study of this&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;the study of these.&amp;quot; Such an argument, or statement, can prove nothing beyond itself and is useless as a premise.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Fallacies of Ambiguity==&lt;br /&gt;
Fallacies of ambiguity are fallacies which arise from ambiguity in language used.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Amphiboly===&lt;br /&gt;
Amphiboly is an ambiguity which arises though loose or awkward phrasing:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: &amp;quot;Save soap and waste paper&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Composition===&lt;br /&gt;
The fallacy of composition occurs when the parts of a whole are incorrectly used to describe the whole.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: &amp;quot;Since one of the battleships is ready to deploy, the whole fleet is ready to deploy&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Conflation===&lt;br /&gt;
Conflation is the treatment of two different concepts as one. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: &amp;quot;Comparing apples to oranges&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Division===&lt;br /&gt;
The fallacy of division occurs when it is argued that what is true for the whole must be true for its parts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: &amp;quot;That company is very important. Since Joe works at that company, he must be very important.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Equivocation===&lt;br /&gt;
Equivocation is the use of word with multiple meanings, and then using a different meaning in the conclusion than in the premise.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: &amp;quot;The coach said we should eat light, so take your heavy coat off.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Moving the Goalposts===&lt;br /&gt;
[[Moving the goalposts]] is jargon used almost exclusively by evolutionists to decline to answer a question that is the logical next step in their argument.  This next step is avoided by evolutionists by claiming that their critics are &amp;quot;moving the goalposts.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, Darwinists claim that asking how the theory of evolution explains the origin of life is &amp;quot;moving the goalposts,&amp;quot; even though it is a logical question to ask.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Related References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creationwiki.org/Logical_fallacy Logical fallacy] by [[CreationWiki]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.creationsafaris.com/crevbd.htm The Baloney Detector]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp SGU-Top 20 Fallacies]&lt;br /&gt;
*&amp;quot;The Fine Art of Baloney Detection.&amp;quot;  Sagan, Carl.  ''The Demon-Haunted World, Science As a Candle in the Dark.'' Ballantine: New York, 1996; pp 201-218.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See Also ==&lt;br /&gt;
* '''[[Liberal logic]]'''&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Conservapedia:Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Liberalism}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Logic]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Logical Fallacies]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Tyl110</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Logical_fallacy&amp;diff=770886</id>
		<title>Logical fallacy</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Logical_fallacy&amp;diff=770886"/>
		<updated>2010-04-20T20:18:46Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Tyl110: /* Proof by numbers */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;A '''logical fallacy''' is an error in [[formal logic|logical]] reasoning. While the common usage of the word ''fallacy'' would include ''any'' error in [[reason]]ing, in logic a fallacy is defined as a particularly [[deceit|deceptive]] argument which seems correct, but upon further examination is found to be incorrect.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;copi&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Copi, Irving M. and Carl Cohen. &amp;quot;Introduction to Logic, 12e&amp;quot;. Pearson Education: 2005&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The maker of such an argument, however, need not be aware of its fallacious nature.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Logical fallacies fall into two general categories: formal fallacies and informal fallacies. Formal fallacies apply to [[deductive argument]]s, and are those which relate to an improper application of a rule, whereas informal fallacies apply to [[inductive argument]]s, and are those which involve the improper use of the content of an argument.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are four categories of informal fallacies: fallacies of relevance, fallacies of defective or weak induction, fallacies of presumption, and fallacies of ambiguity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A logical fallacy ''is not'' the same as [[lie|lying]]. A ''lie'' in logic is a [[premise]] that one offers while knowing that it is false. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Fallacies of Relevance==&lt;br /&gt;
Fallacies of relevance are fallacies which are due to a lack of a relevant logical connection between [[premise]] and [[conclusion]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appeal to force===&lt;br /&gt;
An appeal to [[force]] (Lat: ''argumentum ad baculum'') is an argument which uses a threat of [[violence]] or force as a justification for the conclusion. An appeal to force argument follows the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*If person A does not accept P, then Q&lt;br /&gt;
*Q is a threat of force&lt;br /&gt;
*Therefore P is true&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: &amp;quot;If you do not pay me $30 I will break your leg. Therefore you owe me $30.&amp;quot; It is fallacious because no amount of force can change the truth or falsity of the initial proposition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appeal to pity===&lt;br /&gt;
Also called [[emotion]]al appeal, (Lat: ''ad misericordiam'') this fallacy is characterized by a use of emotion as a justification for the conclusion. An appeal to [[pity]] follows the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Person A argues P&lt;br /&gt;
*Person B agrees P, but adds X, where X is an emotional argument unconnected to P&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: &amp;quot;Yes, [[police|officer]], I realize I was speeding, but you shouldn't give me a ticket because I was racing to see my wife who is in the [[hospital]].&amp;quot; While this argument uses an emotional appeal to convince the officer not to hand out a citation, there is no logical connection between the premise (&amp;quot;you shouldn't give me a ticket&amp;quot;) and the conclusion (&amp;quot;I was racing to see my wife&amp;quot;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Appeals to pity are very commonly seen in business. A factory manager may make the following argument: &amp;quot;our factory's overheads are too high, and we cannot maintain our business if we continue here. Therefore we should relocate to an area where labour is cheaper.&amp;quot; An appeal to pity would be of the following type: &amp;quot;but our workers have bills to pay, families to support, we cannot fire them.&amp;quot; That statement may be true, but is fallacious because it is not relevant to the manager's argument.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appeal to Consequences===&lt;br /&gt;
An ''appeal to consequences'' is an attempt to motivate belief with an appeal either to the good consequences of believing or the bad consequences of disbelieving. This may or may not involve an appeal to force. Such arguments are clearly fallacious. There is no guarantee, or even likelihood, that the world is the way that it is best for us for it to be. Belief that the world is the way that it is best for us for it to be, absent other evidence, is therefore just as likely to be false as true.  The following is an example:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* If you believe in evolution, then you'll be miserable, thinking that life is meaningless&lt;br /&gt;
* Therefore, evolution is false&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This argument commits the ''appeal to consequences'' fallacy because it provides no evidence for its conclusion; all it does is appeal to the consequences of believing in evolution.  Evolution is not disproven solely because it leads to bad consequences for those who believe in it.  The following is a similar example:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* If you believe in evolution, then you'll be more respected in academic circles&lt;br /&gt;
* Therefore, evolution is true&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This makes an appeal to the positive consequences of believing in evolution, without actually providing any proof of evolution itself.  Just because belief in evolution makes you more respected by [[liberal]] professors, this does not mean that evolution is correct.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===''Argumentum ad hominem''===&lt;br /&gt;
: ''Main Article: [[Ad hominem]]''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''Ad hominem'' arguments (Lat: &amp;quot;argument directed toward the man&amp;quot;) fall into two forms: ''ad hominem'' abusive and ''ad hominem tu quoque'' (circumstantial).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====''Ad hominem'' abusive====&lt;br /&gt;
An ''ad hominem'' is an argument which tries to disprove another argument by attacking the person who made it, rather than by focusing on the actual logical reasoning. The goal of an ''ad hominem'' argument is usually to take focus off of the actual argument by calling attention to a flaw of the person making it. This form of argument follows the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Person A argues that P&lt;br /&gt;
*Person A is Q&lt;br /&gt;
*Q is some derogatory description not related to the argument at hand&lt;br /&gt;
*Therefore P is false&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====''Ad hominem tu quoque''====&lt;br /&gt;
A ''tu quoque'' argument (Lat: &amp;quot;you're another&amp;quot;) is one which argues that, because someone does that which they are arguing against, that person must be wrong. This form of argument follows the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Person A argues that P should not happen&lt;br /&gt;
*Person A does P&lt;br /&gt;
*Therefore Person A's argument is incorrect&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: &amp;quot;You can't tell me not to eat cheeseburgers, I just saw you eating one last week!&amp;quot; Another common example is often found in business: &amp;quot;why are you punishing me for dumping waste in the river? My opponent does the exact same thing and you don't punish him!&amp;quot; In this case, dumping waste into the river is wrong (and illegal) regardless of how it is enforced for any other company.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====''Poisoning the well''====&lt;br /&gt;
Poisoning the well is a particular type of ''ad hominem'' argument. It consists of attempts to discredit a speaker (and, by extension, their argument) by criticizing unrelated opinions that they hold. The argument follows this form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Person A makes argument X&lt;br /&gt;
*Person B counters that person A also believes Y, where Y is something unacceptable, foolish, or easily disprovable, but unrelated to X&lt;br /&gt;
*Person A is wrong about Y&lt;br /&gt;
*Therefore person A must also be wrong about X&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When spelled out in the above form, the fallacy is easily seen, but it is used very frequently in political debate where skillful use of rhetoric can mask the underlying fallacy. The argument is fallacious because a person's opinions on one subject do not affect the truth or falsity of their statements on other subjects.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Genetic fallacy===&lt;br /&gt;
In general, this is the attempt to assert or reject a theory by citing its origins as either reputable or disreputable. The usual expression of this fallacy is &amp;quot;consider the source!&amp;quot; Thus it becomes a form either of ''argumentum ab auctoritate'' or of ''argumentum ad hominem'', depending on whether one seeks to verify or disprove the theory by this method. This type of argument follows the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*If P then Q&lt;br /&gt;
*Q is true&lt;br /&gt;
*P is false&lt;br /&gt;
*Therefore Q is false&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the origin of ''evidence'' or of ''premises'' is relevant to the reliability of the same, then asking a hearer to &amp;quot;consider the source&amp;quot; is valid. Judges in courts of [[law]], for example, routinely reject as unreliable the testimony of any witness who has demonstrably lied about a point that matters in the case at hand. The facts that such a witness is asserting might still be true, but they cannot stand without corroboration from another, more reliable witness.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But when corroboration is established, the origins of a conclusion, however tainted, become irrelevant.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As an example, [[Gregor Mendel]] established the genetic theory that remains current today, even though Mendel's experimental technique was badly flawed, and he even stands accused of falsifying key data. But succeeding [[science|scientists]], using accepted methods of verification and statistical assessment, have achieved results consistent with this theory. Thus the theory remains valid even though Mendel's original presentation was fraudulent. Any attempt today to discredit Mendel's theory on account of Mendel's sloppy methods would be an example of a genetic fallacy.&amp;lt;ref name=Genetic&amp;gt;[http://www.fallacyfiles.org/genefall.html Genetic Fallacy] on [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ The Fallacy Files]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Proof by numbers===&lt;br /&gt;
Also known as &amp;quot;appeal to the people&amp;quot; (Lat: ''ad populum''), this is an argument that a person bases on the numbers of people holding to its conclusion, rather than on the premises that might support that conclusion. An appeal to the people follows the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Most people believe P&lt;br /&gt;
:Therefore P is true&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Ninety nine point nine percent of all respondents can't be wrong&amp;quot; is the classic phraseology of this fallacy One does not effectively disprove such an argument by challenging the numbers. Instead, one reminds the other person that the numbers of people holding to any given conclusion are irrelevant to establishing the truth or falsehood of that conclusion. [[History]] is in fact replete with multiple examples of conclusions that memorable [[science|scientists]] and other great discoverers have shown to be false even though large numbers of people believed them. [[Antoine Lavoisier]], who disproved &amp;quot;phlogiston&amp;quot; as the principle of fire, was one such person. [[Christopher Columbus]] and [[Ferdinand Magellan]] are two others. After all, scientists claimed that smoking was healthy at one point, and millions of people believed in the roman gods, but they were proven wrong.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Special pleading===&lt;br /&gt;
: ''Main Article: [[Special pleading]]''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Special pleading]] means applying to other people a set of standards that one is not willing to apply to oneself, without offering sufficient grounds, called the ''relevant difference'', to support such exemption. Special pleading follows the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*If Person X is in set P then Q happens to person X&lt;br /&gt;
*Person A is in set P&lt;br /&gt;
*Person A cites R circumstance, unrelated to P or Q&lt;br /&gt;
*Therefore Person A is not subject to Q&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: a political or military leader who urges his subjects (or those under his command) to observe &amp;quot;iron rations&amp;quot; without similarly depriving himself leaves himself open to a charge of special pleading.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Fallacies of Defective or Weak Induction==&lt;br /&gt;
Fallacies of defective or weak induction are fallacies which are due to a lack of understanding for how well premises lead to a conclusion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Argument from silence===&lt;br /&gt;
''Argument from silence'' (in [[Latin]], ''argumentum ab silencio'') or ''argument from ignorance'' (Lat: ''ad ignorantium'') is an assertion which states that, because there is no evidence to support a given argument, the opposite must be true. The fallacy follows the form:&lt;br /&gt;
*If P then Q&lt;br /&gt;
*P cannot be shown true&lt;br /&gt;
*Therefore Q is false&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: &amp;quot;Nobody has ever seen God, so clearly he doesn't exist&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This fallacy is often associated with and best remembered by the phrase: &amp;quot;the absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===False cause===&lt;br /&gt;
False cause (Lat: ''non causa pro causa'') is a fallacy which arises when a poor cause/effect link is used within an argument, especially if coincidence or chance are not taken into account. The fallacy follows the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*P causes Q (faulty reasoning)&lt;br /&gt;
*P is true&lt;br /&gt;
*Therefore Q is true&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: &amp;quot;I used to be a well paid teacher until I started being a tougher grader. When my students' grades went down, so did my salary. Therefore, I must have been paid based on my students' grades.&amp;quot; While this sounds like a logical explanation, not all factors are taken into account. For example, the teacher's school could have been subject to budget cuts, or maybe the teacher was overpaid at first and now his salary corrects his true worth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====''Post hoc ergo propter hoc''====&lt;br /&gt;
''Post hoc ergo propter hoc'' (Lat: &amp;quot;after the thing, therefore because of the thing&amp;quot;) is a subcategory of false cause fallacies. In this type of argument, a close temporal proximity is used as a justification of a cause/effect relationship. ''Post hoc ergo propter hoc'' arguments follow the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*P happened, and then Q happened&lt;br /&gt;
*Therefore P caused Q&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: &amp;quot;Right around the time the sun goes up my alarm clock goes off, so the sun causes my alarm clock to go off.&amp;quot; Clearly this is not the case.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Non sequitur===&lt;br /&gt;
: ''Main Article: [[Non sequitur]]''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A ''non sequitur'' (Lat: &amp;quot;It does not follow&amp;quot;) is an argument which moves from a premise to a conclusion without showing a valid connection, or sometimes any connection at all. This form of argument follows the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*P&lt;br /&gt;
*Therefore R is true&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: &amp;quot;Crime rates are high, so we should increase the penalty for drug possession.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Overgeneralization===&lt;br /&gt;
Overgeneralization (also called hasty generalization or converse accident) is an error in reasoning which comes about by making a logical leap far greater than what the data allows. Overgeneralization follows the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*P is Q&lt;br /&gt;
*P is in R&lt;br /&gt;
*Therefore R is Q&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: &amp;quot;I just read that three kids were arrested yesterday for drug possession. Teens in this country are really going downhill!&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overgeneralization the central problem in trying to conclude something about a population from a non-representative sample, or about a larger group from a non-representative subset of that group.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Proving too much====&lt;br /&gt;
Proving too much is a form of overgeneralization in which one attempts to use a set of premises to sustain more conclusions than he can reasonably sustain using the argument presented.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Proof by authority===&lt;br /&gt;
Also known as ''argumentum ab auctoritate'' (&amp;quot;argument proceeding from clout&amp;quot;) or ''argumentum ad verecundiam'' (&amp;quot;appeal to unqualified authority&amp;quot;), this is an argument that a person bases on authority, either his own or that of another person, rather than on the merits of the position. When the authority involved is a relevant source who has access to more information about the topic than the people discussing it, then the argument becomes a ''citation.'' However, a valid citation must be in an area of study, research, or mental discipline in which the authority being cited is a recognized [[expert]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*P says Q&lt;br /&gt;
*P is an authority in his field&lt;br /&gt;
*Therefore Q is true&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A classic example of argument from unqualified authority is a reference to a celebrity or religious leader for their opinion on a matter of science or public policy, when that celebrity or cleric has never adequately studied the subject. A standard argument from authority is often used by evolutionists.  A notable scientist claims that evolution is true, and based on that the average person is expected to believe in it as well.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Fallacies of Presumption==&lt;br /&gt;
Fallacies of presumption are fallacies in which an unstated or shaky presumption is made.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Accident===&lt;br /&gt;
The fallacy of accident occurs when a generalization is inappropriately applied to an individual. A fallacy of accident follows the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Some P are Q&lt;br /&gt;
*R is in P&lt;br /&gt;
*Therefore R is Q&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: &amp;quot;You are from [[Ohio]], which is a [[red state]], so you must be a [[Republican]]&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Contradiction===&lt;br /&gt;
:''Main article: [[Contradiction]]''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A contradiction is a statement that contradicts its own terms. [[Aristotle]] famously stated that contradictions cannot exist. In any case of a contradiction, some of the premises must be false. A contradiction is an argument which includes in its reasoning:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*P&lt;br /&gt;
*Not P&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Loaded question===&lt;br /&gt;
: ''Main Article: [[Loaded question]]''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A [[loaded question]] is a question that assumes facts, usually unflattering, that are not in evidence, with the intent of trapping the other person into admitting those facts. The classic loaded-question example is &amp;quot;When did you stop beating your wife?&amp;quot; Another example is, &amp;quot;Do you disbelieve in [[global warming]], which 99.9 percent of all reputable scientists now accept?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Proof by assertion===&lt;br /&gt;
Proof by assertion is an argument that states something as true without offering supporting evidence or attempting to construct a valid argument. This form of argument follows the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*P is true&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Often the argument is simply repeated over and over, and no evidence for support is given.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Proof by assertion can also be broken down into several subcategories of fallacies: circular reasoning, infinite regression, manufacturing facts from a theory, and your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Circular reasoning====&lt;br /&gt;
:''Main article: [[Circular reasoning]]''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Circular reasoning]], also called begging the question (Lat: petitio principii), is a form of proof by assertion in which one asserts a premise, then asserts a conclusion from that premise (directly or indirectly), and then tries to show that the last conclusion ''supports'' the original premise.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Infinite regression====&lt;br /&gt;
: ''Main Article: [[Infinite regression]]''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An infinite regression results when one asserts that a given event caused another, and yet that first event requires another, identical event, to cause ''it.'' An infinite regression follows the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*P&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; causes Q&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Q&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; causes P&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*P&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; causes Q&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Q&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; causes P&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*And so on, forever&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: [[Panspermia]], an alternative to [[abiogenesis]] as a proposition about the origin of life, suffers from the infinite-regression flaw so long as it fails to state positively what conditions could have brought about an origin of life on a planet other than the earth, ''other than'' the alleged mechanism of the &amp;quot;seeding&amp;quot; of life on the earth itself.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Manufacturing facts from a theory====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Manufacturing facts from a theory is the assertion as fact of an undemonstrated, unobserved idea for no better reason than that a given theory requires that fact.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the early stages of formulating a model, this sort of behavior is acceptable. But when repeated efforts to demonstrate such a new fact have failed, the proper logical response is to discard or revise the theory, and not merely to assume that the &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot; still exists and someone hasn't tried hard enough to find it. This is especially true when someone develops evidence that the inferred &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot; could not possibly exist.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong====&lt;br /&gt;
: ''Main article: [[Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong]]'' &amp;lt;!-- note: a Google search for this phrase show that it is exclusive to CreationWiki (well, and now Conservapedia) --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This fallacy occurs when one theory is judged by the premises and assumptions of another theory, rather than against its own premises and assumptions. This form of fallacy follows the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Theory A says that if P then Q&lt;br /&gt;
*Theory B says that if P then R&lt;br /&gt;
*Therefore theory A is wrong&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: &amp;quot;Dinosaurs died 65,000,000 years ago, so the earth couldn't have been created 6,000 years ago.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
It should be noted that although the above argument by itself is a fallacy, strong evidence supporting the death of dinosaurs 65 million years ago, as well as other evidence, would result in the argument being a proof by contradiction, not necessarily a fallacy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Straw man===&lt;br /&gt;
:''Main article: [[Straw man fallacy]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A straw man fallacy occurs by first incorrectly attributing an argument to someone, disproving this argument, then claiming that the person was wrong. A straw man argument follows the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*If P then Q&lt;br /&gt;
*Person A says P&lt;br /&gt;
*Therefore Q&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Straw man arguments can sometimes be hard to detect, because a valid statement may be used in a distorted fashion. For example:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Person A believes that a military program should be cut&lt;br /&gt;
*Person B argues that since Person A wants to cut military funding, he wants to leave the country defenseless to attack&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is fallacious reasoning, because there is no way to know ''why'' person A believes what he does, and Person B has used one reason which suits his own purpose. For example, it's quite possible that Person A wants to cut the program because he wants to change the funding to something which he thinks does a ''better'' job at defending the country.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Tautology===&lt;br /&gt;
:''Main article: [[tautology]]''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A [[tautology]] ([[Greek]] '''ταυτα''' ''tauta'', &amp;quot;these&amp;quot;) is an argument that becomes a repetition of a definition. Literally it means &amp;quot;the study of this&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;the study of these.&amp;quot; Such an argument, or statement, can prove nothing beyond itself and is useless as a premise.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Fallacies of Ambiguity==&lt;br /&gt;
Fallacies of ambiguity are fallacies which arise from ambiguity in language used.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Amphiboly===&lt;br /&gt;
Amphiboly is an ambiguity which arises though loose or awkward phrasing:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: &amp;quot;Save soap and waste paper&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Composition===&lt;br /&gt;
The fallacy of composition occurs when the parts of a whole are incorrectly used to describe the whole.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: &amp;quot;Since one of the battleships is ready to deploy, the whole fleet is ready to deploy&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Conflation===&lt;br /&gt;
Conflation is the treatment of two different concepts as one. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: &amp;quot;Comparing apples to oranges&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Division===&lt;br /&gt;
The fallacy of division occurs when it is argued that what is true for the whole must be true for its parts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: &amp;quot;That company is very important. Since Joe works at that company, he must be very important.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Equivocation===&lt;br /&gt;
Equivocation is the use of word with multiple meanings, and then using a different meaning in the conclusion than in the premise.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: &amp;quot;The coach said we should eat light, so take your heavy coat off.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Moving the Goalposts===&lt;br /&gt;
[[Moving the goalposts]] is jargon used almost exclusively by evolutionists to decline to answer a question that is the logical next step in their argument.  This next step is avoided by evolutionists by claiming that their critics are &amp;quot;moving the goalposts.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, Darwinists claim that asking how the theory of evolution explains the origin of life is &amp;quot;moving the goalposts,&amp;quot; even though it is a logical question to ask.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Related References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creationwiki.org/Logical_fallacy Logical fallacy] by [[CreationWiki]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.creationsafaris.com/crevbd.htm The Baloney Detector]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp SGU-Top 20 Fallacies]&lt;br /&gt;
*&amp;quot;The Fine Art of Baloney Detection.&amp;quot;  Sagan, Carl.  ''The Demon-Haunted World, Science As a Candle in the Dark.'' Ballantine: New York, 1996; pp 201-218.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See Also ==&lt;br /&gt;
* '''[[Liberal logic]]'''&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Conservapedia:Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Liberalism}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Logic]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Logical Fallacies]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Tyl110</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Logical_fallacy&amp;diff=770885</id>
		<title>Logical fallacy</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Logical_fallacy&amp;diff=770885"/>
		<updated>2010-04-20T20:17:08Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Tyl110: /* Proof by numbers */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;A '''logical fallacy''' is an error in [[formal logic|logical]] reasoning. While the common usage of the word ''fallacy'' would include ''any'' error in [[reason]]ing, in logic a fallacy is defined as a particularly [[deceit|deceptive]] argument which seems correct, but upon further examination is found to be incorrect.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;copi&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Copi, Irving M. and Carl Cohen. &amp;quot;Introduction to Logic, 12e&amp;quot;. Pearson Education: 2005&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The maker of such an argument, however, need not be aware of its fallacious nature.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Logical fallacies fall into two general categories: formal fallacies and informal fallacies. Formal fallacies apply to [[deductive argument]]s, and are those which relate to an improper application of a rule, whereas informal fallacies apply to [[inductive argument]]s, and are those which involve the improper use of the content of an argument.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are four categories of informal fallacies: fallacies of relevance, fallacies of defective or weak induction, fallacies of presumption, and fallacies of ambiguity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A logical fallacy ''is not'' the same as [[lie|lying]]. A ''lie'' in logic is a [[premise]] that one offers while knowing that it is false. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Fallacies of Relevance==&lt;br /&gt;
Fallacies of relevance are fallacies which are due to a lack of a relevant logical connection between [[premise]] and [[conclusion]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appeal to force===&lt;br /&gt;
An appeal to [[force]] (Lat: ''argumentum ad baculum'') is an argument which uses a threat of [[violence]] or force as a justification for the conclusion. An appeal to force argument follows the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*If person A does not accept P, then Q&lt;br /&gt;
*Q is a threat of force&lt;br /&gt;
*Therefore P is true&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: &amp;quot;If you do not pay me $30 I will break your leg. Therefore you owe me $30.&amp;quot; It is fallacious because no amount of force can change the truth or falsity of the initial proposition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appeal to pity===&lt;br /&gt;
Also called [[emotion]]al appeal, (Lat: ''ad misericordiam'') this fallacy is characterized by a use of emotion as a justification for the conclusion. An appeal to [[pity]] follows the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Person A argues P&lt;br /&gt;
*Person B agrees P, but adds X, where X is an emotional argument unconnected to P&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: &amp;quot;Yes, [[police|officer]], I realize I was speeding, but you shouldn't give me a ticket because I was racing to see my wife who is in the [[hospital]].&amp;quot; While this argument uses an emotional appeal to convince the officer not to hand out a citation, there is no logical connection between the premise (&amp;quot;you shouldn't give me a ticket&amp;quot;) and the conclusion (&amp;quot;I was racing to see my wife&amp;quot;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Appeals to pity are very commonly seen in business. A factory manager may make the following argument: &amp;quot;our factory's overheads are too high, and we cannot maintain our business if we continue here. Therefore we should relocate to an area where labour is cheaper.&amp;quot; An appeal to pity would be of the following type: &amp;quot;but our workers have bills to pay, families to support, we cannot fire them.&amp;quot; That statement may be true, but is fallacious because it is not relevant to the manager's argument.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appeal to Consequences===&lt;br /&gt;
An ''appeal to consequences'' is an attempt to motivate belief with an appeal either to the good consequences of believing or the bad consequences of disbelieving. This may or may not involve an appeal to force. Such arguments are clearly fallacious. There is no guarantee, or even likelihood, that the world is the way that it is best for us for it to be. Belief that the world is the way that it is best for us for it to be, absent other evidence, is therefore just as likely to be false as true.  The following is an example:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* If you believe in evolution, then you'll be miserable, thinking that life is meaningless&lt;br /&gt;
* Therefore, evolution is false&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This argument commits the ''appeal to consequences'' fallacy because it provides no evidence for its conclusion; all it does is appeal to the consequences of believing in evolution.  Evolution is not disproven solely because it leads to bad consequences for those who believe in it.  The following is a similar example:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* If you believe in evolution, then you'll be more respected in academic circles&lt;br /&gt;
* Therefore, evolution is true&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This makes an appeal to the positive consequences of believing in evolution, without actually providing any proof of evolution itself.  Just because belief in evolution makes you more respected by [[liberal]] professors, this does not mean that evolution is correct.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===''Argumentum ad hominem''===&lt;br /&gt;
: ''Main Article: [[Ad hominem]]''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''Ad hominem'' arguments (Lat: &amp;quot;argument directed toward the man&amp;quot;) fall into two forms: ''ad hominem'' abusive and ''ad hominem tu quoque'' (circumstantial).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====''Ad hominem'' abusive====&lt;br /&gt;
An ''ad hominem'' is an argument which tries to disprove another argument by attacking the person who made it, rather than by focusing on the actual logical reasoning. The goal of an ''ad hominem'' argument is usually to take focus off of the actual argument by calling attention to a flaw of the person making it. This form of argument follows the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Person A argues that P&lt;br /&gt;
*Person A is Q&lt;br /&gt;
*Q is some derogatory description not related to the argument at hand&lt;br /&gt;
*Therefore P is false&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====''Ad hominem tu quoque''====&lt;br /&gt;
A ''tu quoque'' argument (Lat: &amp;quot;you're another&amp;quot;) is one which argues that, because someone does that which they are arguing against, that person must be wrong. This form of argument follows the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Person A argues that P should not happen&lt;br /&gt;
*Person A does P&lt;br /&gt;
*Therefore Person A's argument is incorrect&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: &amp;quot;You can't tell me not to eat cheeseburgers, I just saw you eating one last week!&amp;quot; Another common example is often found in business: &amp;quot;why are you punishing me for dumping waste in the river? My opponent does the exact same thing and you don't punish him!&amp;quot; In this case, dumping waste into the river is wrong (and illegal) regardless of how it is enforced for any other company.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====''Poisoning the well''====&lt;br /&gt;
Poisoning the well is a particular type of ''ad hominem'' argument. It consists of attempts to discredit a speaker (and, by extension, their argument) by criticizing unrelated opinions that they hold. The argument follows this form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Person A makes argument X&lt;br /&gt;
*Person B counters that person A also believes Y, where Y is something unacceptable, foolish, or easily disprovable, but unrelated to X&lt;br /&gt;
*Person A is wrong about Y&lt;br /&gt;
*Therefore person A must also be wrong about X&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When spelled out in the above form, the fallacy is easily seen, but it is used very frequently in political debate where skillful use of rhetoric can mask the underlying fallacy. The argument is fallacious because a person's opinions on one subject do not affect the truth or falsity of their statements on other subjects.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Genetic fallacy===&lt;br /&gt;
In general, this is the attempt to assert or reject a theory by citing its origins as either reputable or disreputable. The usual expression of this fallacy is &amp;quot;consider the source!&amp;quot; Thus it becomes a form either of ''argumentum ab auctoritate'' or of ''argumentum ad hominem'', depending on whether one seeks to verify or disprove the theory by this method. This type of argument follows the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*If P then Q&lt;br /&gt;
*Q is true&lt;br /&gt;
*P is false&lt;br /&gt;
*Therefore Q is false&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the origin of ''evidence'' or of ''premises'' is relevant to the reliability of the same, then asking a hearer to &amp;quot;consider the source&amp;quot; is valid. Judges in courts of [[law]], for example, routinely reject as unreliable the testimony of any witness who has demonstrably lied about a point that matters in the case at hand. The facts that such a witness is asserting might still be true, but they cannot stand without corroboration from another, more reliable witness.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But when corroboration is established, the origins of a conclusion, however tainted, become irrelevant.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As an example, [[Gregor Mendel]] established the genetic theory that remains current today, even though Mendel's experimental technique was badly flawed, and he even stands accused of falsifying key data. But succeeding [[science|scientists]], using accepted methods of verification and statistical assessment, have achieved results consistent with this theory. Thus the theory remains valid even though Mendel's original presentation was fraudulent. Any attempt today to discredit Mendel's theory on account of Mendel's sloppy methods would be an example of a genetic fallacy.&amp;lt;ref name=Genetic&amp;gt;[http://www.fallacyfiles.org/genefall.html Genetic Fallacy] on [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ The Fallacy Files]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Proof by numbers===&lt;br /&gt;
Also known as &amp;quot;appeal to the people&amp;quot; (Lat: ''ad populum''), this is an argument that a person bases on the numbers of people holding to its conclusion, rather than on the premises that might support that conclusion. An appeal to the people follows the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Most people believe P&lt;br /&gt;
:Therefore P is true&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Ninety nine point nine percent of all respondents can't be wrong&amp;quot; is the classic phraseology of this fallacy One does not effectively disprove such an argument by challenging the numbers. Instead, one reminds the other person that the numbers of people holding to any given conclusion are irrelevant to establishing the truth or falsehood of that conclusion. [[History]] is in fact replete with multiple examples of conclusions that memorable [[science|scientists]] and other great discoverers have shown to be false even though large numbers of people believed them. [[Antoine Lavoisier]], who disproved &amp;quot;phlogiston&amp;quot; as the principle of fire, was one such person. [[Christopher Columbus]] and [[Ferdinand Magellan]] are two others. After all, millions of people smoke, and millions of people believed in the roman gods, but they were proven wrong.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Special pleading===&lt;br /&gt;
: ''Main Article: [[Special pleading]]''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Special pleading]] means applying to other people a set of standards that one is not willing to apply to oneself, without offering sufficient grounds, called the ''relevant difference'', to support such exemption. Special pleading follows the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*If Person X is in set P then Q happens to person X&lt;br /&gt;
*Person A is in set P&lt;br /&gt;
*Person A cites R circumstance, unrelated to P or Q&lt;br /&gt;
*Therefore Person A is not subject to Q&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: a political or military leader who urges his subjects (or those under his command) to observe &amp;quot;iron rations&amp;quot; without similarly depriving himself leaves himself open to a charge of special pleading.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Fallacies of Defective or Weak Induction==&lt;br /&gt;
Fallacies of defective or weak induction are fallacies which are due to a lack of understanding for how well premises lead to a conclusion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Argument from silence===&lt;br /&gt;
''Argument from silence'' (in [[Latin]], ''argumentum ab silencio'') or ''argument from ignorance'' (Lat: ''ad ignorantium'') is an assertion which states that, because there is no evidence to support a given argument, the opposite must be true. The fallacy follows the form:&lt;br /&gt;
*If P then Q&lt;br /&gt;
*P cannot be shown true&lt;br /&gt;
*Therefore Q is false&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: &amp;quot;Nobody has ever seen God, so clearly he doesn't exist&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This fallacy is often associated with and best remembered by the phrase: &amp;quot;the absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===False cause===&lt;br /&gt;
False cause (Lat: ''non causa pro causa'') is a fallacy which arises when a poor cause/effect link is used within an argument, especially if coincidence or chance are not taken into account. The fallacy follows the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*P causes Q (faulty reasoning)&lt;br /&gt;
*P is true&lt;br /&gt;
*Therefore Q is true&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: &amp;quot;I used to be a well paid teacher until I started being a tougher grader. When my students' grades went down, so did my salary. Therefore, I must have been paid based on my students' grades.&amp;quot; While this sounds like a logical explanation, not all factors are taken into account. For example, the teacher's school could have been subject to budget cuts, or maybe the teacher was overpaid at first and now his salary corrects his true worth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====''Post hoc ergo propter hoc''====&lt;br /&gt;
''Post hoc ergo propter hoc'' (Lat: &amp;quot;after the thing, therefore because of the thing&amp;quot;) is a subcategory of false cause fallacies. In this type of argument, a close temporal proximity is used as a justification of a cause/effect relationship. ''Post hoc ergo propter hoc'' arguments follow the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*P happened, and then Q happened&lt;br /&gt;
*Therefore P caused Q&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: &amp;quot;Right around the time the sun goes up my alarm clock goes off, so the sun causes my alarm clock to go off.&amp;quot; Clearly this is not the case.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Non sequitur===&lt;br /&gt;
: ''Main Article: [[Non sequitur]]''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A ''non sequitur'' (Lat: &amp;quot;It does not follow&amp;quot;) is an argument which moves from a premise to a conclusion without showing a valid connection, or sometimes any connection at all. This form of argument follows the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*P&lt;br /&gt;
*Therefore R is true&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: &amp;quot;Crime rates are high, so we should increase the penalty for drug possession.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Overgeneralization===&lt;br /&gt;
Overgeneralization (also called hasty generalization or converse accident) is an error in reasoning which comes about by making a logical leap far greater than what the data allows. Overgeneralization follows the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*P is Q&lt;br /&gt;
*P is in R&lt;br /&gt;
*Therefore R is Q&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: &amp;quot;I just read that three kids were arrested yesterday for drug possession. Teens in this country are really going downhill!&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overgeneralization the central problem in trying to conclude something about a population from a non-representative sample, or about a larger group from a non-representative subset of that group.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Proving too much====&lt;br /&gt;
Proving too much is a form of overgeneralization in which one attempts to use a set of premises to sustain more conclusions than he can reasonably sustain using the argument presented.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Proof by authority===&lt;br /&gt;
Also known as ''argumentum ab auctoritate'' (&amp;quot;argument proceeding from clout&amp;quot;) or ''argumentum ad verecundiam'' (&amp;quot;appeal to unqualified authority&amp;quot;), this is an argument that a person bases on authority, either his own or that of another person, rather than on the merits of the position. When the authority involved is a relevant source who has access to more information about the topic than the people discussing it, then the argument becomes a ''citation.'' However, a valid citation must be in an area of study, research, or mental discipline in which the authority being cited is a recognized [[expert]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*P says Q&lt;br /&gt;
*P is an authority in his field&lt;br /&gt;
*Therefore Q is true&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A classic example of argument from unqualified authority is a reference to a celebrity or religious leader for their opinion on a matter of science or public policy, when that celebrity or cleric has never adequately studied the subject. A standard argument from authority is often used by evolutionists.  A notable scientist claims that evolution is true, and based on that the average person is expected to believe in it as well.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Fallacies of Presumption==&lt;br /&gt;
Fallacies of presumption are fallacies in which an unstated or shaky presumption is made.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Accident===&lt;br /&gt;
The fallacy of accident occurs when a generalization is inappropriately applied to an individual. A fallacy of accident follows the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Some P are Q&lt;br /&gt;
*R is in P&lt;br /&gt;
*Therefore R is Q&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: &amp;quot;You are from [[Ohio]], which is a [[red state]], so you must be a [[Republican]]&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Contradiction===&lt;br /&gt;
:''Main article: [[Contradiction]]''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A contradiction is a statement that contradicts its own terms. [[Aristotle]] famously stated that contradictions cannot exist. In any case of a contradiction, some of the premises must be false. A contradiction is an argument which includes in its reasoning:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*P&lt;br /&gt;
*Not P&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Loaded question===&lt;br /&gt;
: ''Main Article: [[Loaded question]]''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A [[loaded question]] is a question that assumes facts, usually unflattering, that are not in evidence, with the intent of trapping the other person into admitting those facts. The classic loaded-question example is &amp;quot;When did you stop beating your wife?&amp;quot; Another example is, &amp;quot;Do you disbelieve in [[global warming]], which 99.9 percent of all reputable scientists now accept?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Proof by assertion===&lt;br /&gt;
Proof by assertion is an argument that states something as true without offering supporting evidence or attempting to construct a valid argument. This form of argument follows the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*P is true&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Often the argument is simply repeated over and over, and no evidence for support is given.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Proof by assertion can also be broken down into several subcategories of fallacies: circular reasoning, infinite regression, manufacturing facts from a theory, and your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Circular reasoning====&lt;br /&gt;
:''Main article: [[Circular reasoning]]''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Circular reasoning]], also called begging the question (Lat: petitio principii), is a form of proof by assertion in which one asserts a premise, then asserts a conclusion from that premise (directly or indirectly), and then tries to show that the last conclusion ''supports'' the original premise.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Infinite regression====&lt;br /&gt;
: ''Main Article: [[Infinite regression]]''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An infinite regression results when one asserts that a given event caused another, and yet that first event requires another, identical event, to cause ''it.'' An infinite regression follows the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*P&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; causes Q&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Q&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; causes P&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*P&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; causes Q&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Q&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; causes P&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*And so on, forever&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: [[Panspermia]], an alternative to [[abiogenesis]] as a proposition about the origin of life, suffers from the infinite-regression flaw so long as it fails to state positively what conditions could have brought about an origin of life on a planet other than the earth, ''other than'' the alleged mechanism of the &amp;quot;seeding&amp;quot; of life on the earth itself.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Manufacturing facts from a theory====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Manufacturing facts from a theory is the assertion as fact of an undemonstrated, unobserved idea for no better reason than that a given theory requires that fact.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the early stages of formulating a model, this sort of behavior is acceptable. But when repeated efforts to demonstrate such a new fact have failed, the proper logical response is to discard or revise the theory, and not merely to assume that the &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot; still exists and someone hasn't tried hard enough to find it. This is especially true when someone develops evidence that the inferred &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot; could not possibly exist.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong====&lt;br /&gt;
: ''Main article: [[Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong]]'' &amp;lt;!-- note: a Google search for this phrase show that it is exclusive to CreationWiki (well, and now Conservapedia) --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This fallacy occurs when one theory is judged by the premises and assumptions of another theory, rather than against its own premises and assumptions. This form of fallacy follows the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Theory A says that if P then Q&lt;br /&gt;
*Theory B says that if P then R&lt;br /&gt;
*Therefore theory A is wrong&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: &amp;quot;Dinosaurs died 65,000,000 years ago, so the earth couldn't have been created 6,000 years ago.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
It should be noted that although the above argument by itself is a fallacy, strong evidence supporting the death of dinosaurs 65 million years ago, as well as other evidence, would result in the argument being a proof by contradiction, not necessarily a fallacy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Straw man===&lt;br /&gt;
:''Main article: [[Straw man fallacy]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A straw man fallacy occurs by first incorrectly attributing an argument to someone, disproving this argument, then claiming that the person was wrong. A straw man argument follows the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*If P then Q&lt;br /&gt;
*Person A says P&lt;br /&gt;
*Therefore Q&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Straw man arguments can sometimes be hard to detect, because a valid statement may be used in a distorted fashion. For example:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Person A believes that a military program should be cut&lt;br /&gt;
*Person B argues that since Person A wants to cut military funding, he wants to leave the country defenseless to attack&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is fallacious reasoning, because there is no way to know ''why'' person A believes what he does, and Person B has used one reason which suits his own purpose. For example, it's quite possible that Person A wants to cut the program because he wants to change the funding to something which he thinks does a ''better'' job at defending the country.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Tautology===&lt;br /&gt;
:''Main article: [[tautology]]''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A [[tautology]] ([[Greek]] '''ταυτα''' ''tauta'', &amp;quot;these&amp;quot;) is an argument that becomes a repetition of a definition. Literally it means &amp;quot;the study of this&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;the study of these.&amp;quot; Such an argument, or statement, can prove nothing beyond itself and is useless as a premise.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Fallacies of Ambiguity==&lt;br /&gt;
Fallacies of ambiguity are fallacies which arise from ambiguity in language used.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Amphiboly===&lt;br /&gt;
Amphiboly is an ambiguity which arises though loose or awkward phrasing:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: &amp;quot;Save soap and waste paper&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Composition===&lt;br /&gt;
The fallacy of composition occurs when the parts of a whole are incorrectly used to describe the whole.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: &amp;quot;Since one of the battleships is ready to deploy, the whole fleet is ready to deploy&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Conflation===&lt;br /&gt;
Conflation is the treatment of two different concepts as one. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: &amp;quot;Comparing apples to oranges&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Division===&lt;br /&gt;
The fallacy of division occurs when it is argued that what is true for the whole must be true for its parts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: &amp;quot;That company is very important. Since Joe works at that company, he must be very important.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Equivocation===&lt;br /&gt;
Equivocation is the use of word with multiple meanings, and then using a different meaning in the conclusion than in the premise.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: &amp;quot;The coach said we should eat light, so take your heavy coat off.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Moving the Goalposts===&lt;br /&gt;
[[Moving the goalposts]] is jargon used almost exclusively by evolutionists to decline to answer a question that is the logical next step in their argument.  This next step is avoided by evolutionists by claiming that their critics are &amp;quot;moving the goalposts.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, Darwinists claim that asking how the theory of evolution explains the origin of life is &amp;quot;moving the goalposts,&amp;quot; even though it is a logical question to ask.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Related References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creationwiki.org/Logical_fallacy Logical fallacy] by [[CreationWiki]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.creationsafaris.com/crevbd.htm The Baloney Detector]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp SGU-Top 20 Fallacies]&lt;br /&gt;
*&amp;quot;The Fine Art of Baloney Detection.&amp;quot;  Sagan, Carl.  ''The Demon-Haunted World, Science As a Candle in the Dark.'' Ballantine: New York, 1996; pp 201-218.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See Also ==&lt;br /&gt;
* '''[[Liberal logic]]'''&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Conservapedia:Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Liberalism}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Logic]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Logical Fallacies]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Tyl110</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Logical_fallacy&amp;diff=770884</id>
		<title>Logical fallacy</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Logical_fallacy&amp;diff=770884"/>
		<updated>2010-04-20T20:16:12Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Tyl110: /* Proof by numbers */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;A '''logical fallacy''' is an error in [[formal logic|logical]] reasoning. While the common usage of the word ''fallacy'' would include ''any'' error in [[reason]]ing, in logic a fallacy is defined as a particularly [[deceit|deceptive]] argument which seems correct, but upon further examination is found to be incorrect.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;copi&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Copi, Irving M. and Carl Cohen. &amp;quot;Introduction to Logic, 12e&amp;quot;. Pearson Education: 2005&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The maker of such an argument, however, need not be aware of its fallacious nature.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Logical fallacies fall into two general categories: formal fallacies and informal fallacies. Formal fallacies apply to [[deductive argument]]s, and are those which relate to an improper application of a rule, whereas informal fallacies apply to [[inductive argument]]s, and are those which involve the improper use of the content of an argument.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are four categories of informal fallacies: fallacies of relevance, fallacies of defective or weak induction, fallacies of presumption, and fallacies of ambiguity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A logical fallacy ''is not'' the same as [[lie|lying]]. A ''lie'' in logic is a [[premise]] that one offers while knowing that it is false. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Fallacies of Relevance==&lt;br /&gt;
Fallacies of relevance are fallacies which are due to a lack of a relevant logical connection between [[premise]] and [[conclusion]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appeal to force===&lt;br /&gt;
An appeal to [[force]] (Lat: ''argumentum ad baculum'') is an argument which uses a threat of [[violence]] or force as a justification for the conclusion. An appeal to force argument follows the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*If person A does not accept P, then Q&lt;br /&gt;
*Q is a threat of force&lt;br /&gt;
*Therefore P is true&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: &amp;quot;If you do not pay me $30 I will break your leg. Therefore you owe me $30.&amp;quot; It is fallacious because no amount of force can change the truth or falsity of the initial proposition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appeal to pity===&lt;br /&gt;
Also called [[emotion]]al appeal, (Lat: ''ad misericordiam'') this fallacy is characterized by a use of emotion as a justification for the conclusion. An appeal to [[pity]] follows the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Person A argues P&lt;br /&gt;
*Person B agrees P, but adds X, where X is an emotional argument unconnected to P&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: &amp;quot;Yes, [[police|officer]], I realize I was speeding, but you shouldn't give me a ticket because I was racing to see my wife who is in the [[hospital]].&amp;quot; While this argument uses an emotional appeal to convince the officer not to hand out a citation, there is no logical connection between the premise (&amp;quot;you shouldn't give me a ticket&amp;quot;) and the conclusion (&amp;quot;I was racing to see my wife&amp;quot;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Appeals to pity are very commonly seen in business. A factory manager may make the following argument: &amp;quot;our factory's overheads are too high, and we cannot maintain our business if we continue here. Therefore we should relocate to an area where labour is cheaper.&amp;quot; An appeal to pity would be of the following type: &amp;quot;but our workers have bills to pay, families to support, we cannot fire them.&amp;quot; That statement may be true, but is fallacious because it is not relevant to the manager's argument.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appeal to Consequences===&lt;br /&gt;
An ''appeal to consequences'' is an attempt to motivate belief with an appeal either to the good consequences of believing or the bad consequences of disbelieving. This may or may not involve an appeal to force. Such arguments are clearly fallacious. There is no guarantee, or even likelihood, that the world is the way that it is best for us for it to be. Belief that the world is the way that it is best for us for it to be, absent other evidence, is therefore just as likely to be false as true.  The following is an example:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* If you believe in evolution, then you'll be miserable, thinking that life is meaningless&lt;br /&gt;
* Therefore, evolution is false&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This argument commits the ''appeal to consequences'' fallacy because it provides no evidence for its conclusion; all it does is appeal to the consequences of believing in evolution.  Evolution is not disproven solely because it leads to bad consequences for those who believe in it.  The following is a similar example:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* If you believe in evolution, then you'll be more respected in academic circles&lt;br /&gt;
* Therefore, evolution is true&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This makes an appeal to the positive consequences of believing in evolution, without actually providing any proof of evolution itself.  Just because belief in evolution makes you more respected by [[liberal]] professors, this does not mean that evolution is correct.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===''Argumentum ad hominem''===&lt;br /&gt;
: ''Main Article: [[Ad hominem]]''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''Ad hominem'' arguments (Lat: &amp;quot;argument directed toward the man&amp;quot;) fall into two forms: ''ad hominem'' abusive and ''ad hominem tu quoque'' (circumstantial).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====''Ad hominem'' abusive====&lt;br /&gt;
An ''ad hominem'' is an argument which tries to disprove another argument by attacking the person who made it, rather than by focusing on the actual logical reasoning. The goal of an ''ad hominem'' argument is usually to take focus off of the actual argument by calling attention to a flaw of the person making it. This form of argument follows the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Person A argues that P&lt;br /&gt;
*Person A is Q&lt;br /&gt;
*Q is some derogatory description not related to the argument at hand&lt;br /&gt;
*Therefore P is false&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====''Ad hominem tu quoque''====&lt;br /&gt;
A ''tu quoque'' argument (Lat: &amp;quot;you're another&amp;quot;) is one which argues that, because someone does that which they are arguing against, that person must be wrong. This form of argument follows the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Person A argues that P should not happen&lt;br /&gt;
*Person A does P&lt;br /&gt;
*Therefore Person A's argument is incorrect&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: &amp;quot;You can't tell me not to eat cheeseburgers, I just saw you eating one last week!&amp;quot; Another common example is often found in business: &amp;quot;why are you punishing me for dumping waste in the river? My opponent does the exact same thing and you don't punish him!&amp;quot; In this case, dumping waste into the river is wrong (and illegal) regardless of how it is enforced for any other company.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====''Poisoning the well''====&lt;br /&gt;
Poisoning the well is a particular type of ''ad hominem'' argument. It consists of attempts to discredit a speaker (and, by extension, their argument) by criticizing unrelated opinions that they hold. The argument follows this form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Person A makes argument X&lt;br /&gt;
*Person B counters that person A also believes Y, where Y is something unacceptable, foolish, or easily disprovable, but unrelated to X&lt;br /&gt;
*Person A is wrong about Y&lt;br /&gt;
*Therefore person A must also be wrong about X&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When spelled out in the above form, the fallacy is easily seen, but it is used very frequently in political debate where skillful use of rhetoric can mask the underlying fallacy. The argument is fallacious because a person's opinions on one subject do not affect the truth or falsity of their statements on other subjects.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Genetic fallacy===&lt;br /&gt;
In general, this is the attempt to assert or reject a theory by citing its origins as either reputable or disreputable. The usual expression of this fallacy is &amp;quot;consider the source!&amp;quot; Thus it becomes a form either of ''argumentum ab auctoritate'' or of ''argumentum ad hominem'', depending on whether one seeks to verify or disprove the theory by this method. This type of argument follows the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*If P then Q&lt;br /&gt;
*Q is true&lt;br /&gt;
*P is false&lt;br /&gt;
*Therefore Q is false&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the origin of ''evidence'' or of ''premises'' is relevant to the reliability of the same, then asking a hearer to &amp;quot;consider the source&amp;quot; is valid. Judges in courts of [[law]], for example, routinely reject as unreliable the testimony of any witness who has demonstrably lied about a point that matters in the case at hand. The facts that such a witness is asserting might still be true, but they cannot stand without corroboration from another, more reliable witness.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But when corroboration is established, the origins of a conclusion, however tainted, become irrelevant.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As an example, [[Gregor Mendel]] established the genetic theory that remains current today, even though Mendel's experimental technique was badly flawed, and he even stands accused of falsifying key data. But succeeding [[science|scientists]], using accepted methods of verification and statistical assessment, have achieved results consistent with this theory. Thus the theory remains valid even though Mendel's original presentation was fraudulent. Any attempt today to discredit Mendel's theory on account of Mendel's sloppy methods would be an example of a genetic fallacy.&amp;lt;ref name=Genetic&amp;gt;[http://www.fallacyfiles.org/genefall.html Genetic Fallacy] on [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ The Fallacy Files]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Proof by numbers===&lt;br /&gt;
Also known as &amp;quot;appeal to the people&amp;quot; (Lat: ''ad populum''), this is an argument that a person bases on the numbers of people holding to its conclusion, rather than on the premises that might support that conclusion. An appeal to the people follows the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Most people believe P&lt;br /&gt;
:Therefore P is true&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Ninety nine point nine percent of all respondents can't be wrong&amp;quot; is the classic phraseology of this fallacy One does not effectively disprove such an argument by challenging the numbers. Instead, one reminds the other person that the numbers of people holding to any given conclusion are irrelevant to establishing the truth or falsehood of that conclusion. [[History]] is in fact replete with multiple examples of conclusions that memorable [[science|scientists]] and other great discoverers have shown to be false even though large numbers of people believed them. [[Antoine Lavoisier]], who disproved &amp;quot;phlogiston&amp;quot; as the principle of fire, was one such person. [[Christopher Columbus]] and [[Ferdinand Magellan]] are two others. After all, millions of people smoke, and millions of people believed ij the roman gods, but they were proven wrong.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Special pleading===&lt;br /&gt;
: ''Main Article: [[Special pleading]]''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Special pleading]] means applying to other people a set of standards that one is not willing to apply to oneself, without offering sufficient grounds, called the ''relevant difference'', to support such exemption. Special pleading follows the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*If Person X is in set P then Q happens to person X&lt;br /&gt;
*Person A is in set P&lt;br /&gt;
*Person A cites R circumstance, unrelated to P or Q&lt;br /&gt;
*Therefore Person A is not subject to Q&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: a political or military leader who urges his subjects (or those under his command) to observe &amp;quot;iron rations&amp;quot; without similarly depriving himself leaves himself open to a charge of special pleading.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Fallacies of Defective or Weak Induction==&lt;br /&gt;
Fallacies of defective or weak induction are fallacies which are due to a lack of understanding for how well premises lead to a conclusion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Argument from silence===&lt;br /&gt;
''Argument from silence'' (in [[Latin]], ''argumentum ab silencio'') or ''argument from ignorance'' (Lat: ''ad ignorantium'') is an assertion which states that, because there is no evidence to support a given argument, the opposite must be true. The fallacy follows the form:&lt;br /&gt;
*If P then Q&lt;br /&gt;
*P cannot be shown true&lt;br /&gt;
*Therefore Q is false&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: &amp;quot;Nobody has ever seen God, so clearly he doesn't exist&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This fallacy is often associated with and best remembered by the phrase: &amp;quot;the absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===False cause===&lt;br /&gt;
False cause (Lat: ''non causa pro causa'') is a fallacy which arises when a poor cause/effect link is used within an argument, especially if coincidence or chance are not taken into account. The fallacy follows the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*P causes Q (faulty reasoning)&lt;br /&gt;
*P is true&lt;br /&gt;
*Therefore Q is true&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: &amp;quot;I used to be a well paid teacher until I started being a tougher grader. When my students' grades went down, so did my salary. Therefore, I must have been paid based on my students' grades.&amp;quot; While this sounds like a logical explanation, not all factors are taken into account. For example, the teacher's school could have been subject to budget cuts, or maybe the teacher was overpaid at first and now his salary corrects his true worth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====''Post hoc ergo propter hoc''====&lt;br /&gt;
''Post hoc ergo propter hoc'' (Lat: &amp;quot;after the thing, therefore because of the thing&amp;quot;) is a subcategory of false cause fallacies. In this type of argument, a close temporal proximity is used as a justification of a cause/effect relationship. ''Post hoc ergo propter hoc'' arguments follow the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*P happened, and then Q happened&lt;br /&gt;
*Therefore P caused Q&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: &amp;quot;Right around the time the sun goes up my alarm clock goes off, so the sun causes my alarm clock to go off.&amp;quot; Clearly this is not the case.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Non sequitur===&lt;br /&gt;
: ''Main Article: [[Non sequitur]]''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A ''non sequitur'' (Lat: &amp;quot;It does not follow&amp;quot;) is an argument which moves from a premise to a conclusion without showing a valid connection, or sometimes any connection at all. This form of argument follows the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*P&lt;br /&gt;
*Therefore R is true&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: &amp;quot;Crime rates are high, so we should increase the penalty for drug possession.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Overgeneralization===&lt;br /&gt;
Overgeneralization (also called hasty generalization or converse accident) is an error in reasoning which comes about by making a logical leap far greater than what the data allows. Overgeneralization follows the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*P is Q&lt;br /&gt;
*P is in R&lt;br /&gt;
*Therefore R is Q&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: &amp;quot;I just read that three kids were arrested yesterday for drug possession. Teens in this country are really going downhill!&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overgeneralization the central problem in trying to conclude something about a population from a non-representative sample, or about a larger group from a non-representative subset of that group.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Proving too much====&lt;br /&gt;
Proving too much is a form of overgeneralization in which one attempts to use a set of premises to sustain more conclusions than he can reasonably sustain using the argument presented.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Proof by authority===&lt;br /&gt;
Also known as ''argumentum ab auctoritate'' (&amp;quot;argument proceeding from clout&amp;quot;) or ''argumentum ad verecundiam'' (&amp;quot;appeal to unqualified authority&amp;quot;), this is an argument that a person bases on authority, either his own or that of another person, rather than on the merits of the position. When the authority involved is a relevant source who has access to more information about the topic than the people discussing it, then the argument becomes a ''citation.'' However, a valid citation must be in an area of study, research, or mental discipline in which the authority being cited is a recognized [[expert]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*P says Q&lt;br /&gt;
*P is an authority in his field&lt;br /&gt;
*Therefore Q is true&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A classic example of argument from unqualified authority is a reference to a celebrity or religious leader for their opinion on a matter of science or public policy, when that celebrity or cleric has never adequately studied the subject. A standard argument from authority is often used by evolutionists.  A notable scientist claims that evolution is true, and based on that the average person is expected to believe in it as well.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Fallacies of Presumption==&lt;br /&gt;
Fallacies of presumption are fallacies in which an unstated or shaky presumption is made.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Accident===&lt;br /&gt;
The fallacy of accident occurs when a generalization is inappropriately applied to an individual. A fallacy of accident follows the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Some P are Q&lt;br /&gt;
*R is in P&lt;br /&gt;
*Therefore R is Q&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: &amp;quot;You are from [[Ohio]], which is a [[red state]], so you must be a [[Republican]]&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Contradiction===&lt;br /&gt;
:''Main article: [[Contradiction]]''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A contradiction is a statement that contradicts its own terms. [[Aristotle]] famously stated that contradictions cannot exist. In any case of a contradiction, some of the premises must be false. A contradiction is an argument which includes in its reasoning:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*P&lt;br /&gt;
*Not P&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Loaded question===&lt;br /&gt;
: ''Main Article: [[Loaded question]]''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A [[loaded question]] is a question that assumes facts, usually unflattering, that are not in evidence, with the intent of trapping the other person into admitting those facts. The classic loaded-question example is &amp;quot;When did you stop beating your wife?&amp;quot; Another example is, &amp;quot;Do you disbelieve in [[global warming]], which 99.9 percent of all reputable scientists now accept?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Proof by assertion===&lt;br /&gt;
Proof by assertion is an argument that states something as true without offering supporting evidence or attempting to construct a valid argument. This form of argument follows the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*P is true&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Often the argument is simply repeated over and over, and no evidence for support is given.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Proof by assertion can also be broken down into several subcategories of fallacies: circular reasoning, infinite regression, manufacturing facts from a theory, and your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Circular reasoning====&lt;br /&gt;
:''Main article: [[Circular reasoning]]''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Circular reasoning]], also called begging the question (Lat: petitio principii), is a form of proof by assertion in which one asserts a premise, then asserts a conclusion from that premise (directly or indirectly), and then tries to show that the last conclusion ''supports'' the original premise.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Infinite regression====&lt;br /&gt;
: ''Main Article: [[Infinite regression]]''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An infinite regression results when one asserts that a given event caused another, and yet that first event requires another, identical event, to cause ''it.'' An infinite regression follows the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*P&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; causes Q&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Q&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; causes P&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*P&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; causes Q&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Q&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; causes P&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*And so on, forever&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: [[Panspermia]], an alternative to [[abiogenesis]] as a proposition about the origin of life, suffers from the infinite-regression flaw so long as it fails to state positively what conditions could have brought about an origin of life on a planet other than the earth, ''other than'' the alleged mechanism of the &amp;quot;seeding&amp;quot; of life on the earth itself.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Manufacturing facts from a theory====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Manufacturing facts from a theory is the assertion as fact of an undemonstrated, unobserved idea for no better reason than that a given theory requires that fact.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the early stages of formulating a model, this sort of behavior is acceptable. But when repeated efforts to demonstrate such a new fact have failed, the proper logical response is to discard or revise the theory, and not merely to assume that the &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot; still exists and someone hasn't tried hard enough to find it. This is especially true when someone develops evidence that the inferred &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot; could not possibly exist.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong====&lt;br /&gt;
: ''Main article: [[Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong]]'' &amp;lt;!-- note: a Google search for this phrase show that it is exclusive to CreationWiki (well, and now Conservapedia) --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This fallacy occurs when one theory is judged by the premises and assumptions of another theory, rather than against its own premises and assumptions. This form of fallacy follows the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Theory A says that if P then Q&lt;br /&gt;
*Theory B says that if P then R&lt;br /&gt;
*Therefore theory A is wrong&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: &amp;quot;Dinosaurs died 65,000,000 years ago, so the earth couldn't have been created 6,000 years ago.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
It should be noted that although the above argument by itself is a fallacy, strong evidence supporting the death of dinosaurs 65 million years ago, as well as other evidence, would result in the argument being a proof by contradiction, not necessarily a fallacy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Straw man===&lt;br /&gt;
:''Main article: [[Straw man fallacy]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A straw man fallacy occurs by first incorrectly attributing an argument to someone, disproving this argument, then claiming that the person was wrong. A straw man argument follows the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*If P then Q&lt;br /&gt;
*Person A says P&lt;br /&gt;
*Therefore Q&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Straw man arguments can sometimes be hard to detect, because a valid statement may be used in a distorted fashion. For example:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Person A believes that a military program should be cut&lt;br /&gt;
*Person B argues that since Person A wants to cut military funding, he wants to leave the country defenseless to attack&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is fallacious reasoning, because there is no way to know ''why'' person A believes what he does, and Person B has used one reason which suits his own purpose. For example, it's quite possible that Person A wants to cut the program because he wants to change the funding to something which he thinks does a ''better'' job at defending the country.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Tautology===&lt;br /&gt;
:''Main article: [[tautology]]''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A [[tautology]] ([[Greek]] '''ταυτα''' ''tauta'', &amp;quot;these&amp;quot;) is an argument that becomes a repetition of a definition. Literally it means &amp;quot;the study of this&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;the study of these.&amp;quot; Such an argument, or statement, can prove nothing beyond itself and is useless as a premise.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Fallacies of Ambiguity==&lt;br /&gt;
Fallacies of ambiguity are fallacies which arise from ambiguity in language used.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Amphiboly===&lt;br /&gt;
Amphiboly is an ambiguity which arises though loose or awkward phrasing:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: &amp;quot;Save soap and waste paper&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Composition===&lt;br /&gt;
The fallacy of composition occurs when the parts of a whole are incorrectly used to describe the whole.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: &amp;quot;Since one of the battleships is ready to deploy, the whole fleet is ready to deploy&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Conflation===&lt;br /&gt;
Conflation is the treatment of two different concepts as one. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: &amp;quot;Comparing apples to oranges&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Division===&lt;br /&gt;
The fallacy of division occurs when it is argued that what is true for the whole must be true for its parts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: &amp;quot;That company is very important. Since Joe works at that company, he must be very important.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Equivocation===&lt;br /&gt;
Equivocation is the use of word with multiple meanings, and then using a different meaning in the conclusion than in the premise.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example: &amp;quot;The coach said we should eat light, so take your heavy coat off.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Moving the Goalposts===&lt;br /&gt;
[[Moving the goalposts]] is jargon used almost exclusively by evolutionists to decline to answer a question that is the logical next step in their argument.  This next step is avoided by evolutionists by claiming that their critics are &amp;quot;moving the goalposts.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, Darwinists claim that asking how the theory of evolution explains the origin of life is &amp;quot;moving the goalposts,&amp;quot; even though it is a logical question to ask.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Related References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creationwiki.org/Logical_fallacy Logical fallacy] by [[CreationWiki]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.creationsafaris.com/crevbd.htm The Baloney Detector]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp SGU-Top 20 Fallacies]&lt;br /&gt;
*&amp;quot;The Fine Art of Baloney Detection.&amp;quot;  Sagan, Carl.  ''The Demon-Haunted World, Science As a Candle in the Dark.'' Ballantine: New York, 1996; pp 201-218.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See Also ==&lt;br /&gt;
* '''[[Liberal logic]]'''&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Conservapedia:Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Liberalism}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Logic]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Logical Fallacies]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Tyl110</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Disinformation&amp;diff=770799</id>
		<title>Disinformation</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Disinformation&amp;diff=770799"/>
		<updated>2010-04-20T14:23:26Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Tyl110: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Disinformation''' is deliberately spread false information. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Disinformation refers to false or misleading information that is deliberately spread by a government, organized political group, an individual or other entity. The issue of intent is key; if the intent is to spread false or misleading information, it is disinformation. [http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jan/26-288268.html State Department] &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The term comes from the Russian ''disinformatsiya'', referring to Soviet propaganda campaigns.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[USSR]]'s disinformation campaign on [[AIDS]] is a classic example. The Soviet intelligence and security service, the [[KGB]], had a special service, Service A, for spreading false information. Soon after AIDS was recognized as a new disease, Service A concocted the story that the AIDS virus had been developed as a biological weapon by the Pentagon at Fort Detrick, Maryland, and was used in experiments on prisoners, which was allegedly why it initially appeared in New York, described as the largest big city near Fort Detrick. Non-Americans would be unlikely to realize that several major U.S. cities are actually much closer to Fort Detrick than New York, including Washington, DC, Baltimore, and Philadelphia.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another example of disinformation is the [[Climategate]] conspiracy, where results from weather satellites were doctored in order to support the theory of [[global warming]]. This was brought to light when the University of Angola released several emails written by the perpetrators of the tampering.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the [[Korean War]], [[Wilfred Burchett]] of the [[extremist|extreme]] [[leftist]] New York ''[[Guardian]]'' newspaper made false reports on American use of [[germ warfare]]. Burchett accused the Americans of perpetrating &amp;quot;the most monstrous crimes against humanity.&amp;quot;  He said that in germ warfare the Americans had launched upon mankind a weapon more frightful than the [[atomic bomb]]. In 1998, however, news reports noted, &amp;quot;...documents from Russia's Presidential Archive finally prove, more than four decades after the fact, that the United States was the victim of a disinformation campaign scripted by [[North Korea]], [[China]], and the Soviet Union.&amp;quot; A report by [[Lavernti Beria]], head of [[Soviet intelligence]], outlined the deception: &amp;quot;False plague regions were created, burials . . . were organized, measures were taken to receive the plague and cholera bacillus.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bruce B. Auster, [http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/981116/archive_005192.htm ''Unmasking An Old Lie: A Korean War Charge Is Exposed As a Hoax''], U. S. News &amp;amp; World Report (16 November 1998), p. 52.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:espionage]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Media]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Political Terms]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Liberal Traits]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Tyl110</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Disinformation&amp;diff=770798</id>
		<title>Disinformation</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Disinformation&amp;diff=770798"/>
		<updated>2010-04-20T14:23:12Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Tyl110: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Disinformation''' is deliberately spread false information. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Disinformation refers to false or misleading information that is deliberately spread by a government, organized political group, an individual or other entity. The issue of intent is key; if the intent is to spread false or misleading information, it is disinformation. [http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jan/26-288268.html State Department] &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The term comes from the Russian ''disinformatsiya'', referring to Soviet propaganda campaigns.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[USSR]]'s disinformation campaign on [[AIDS]] is a classic example. The Soviet intelligence and security service, the [[KGB]], had a special service, Service A, for spreading false information. Soon after AIDS was recognized as a new disease, Service A concocted the story that the AIDS virus had been developed as a biological weapon by the Pentagon at Fort Detrick, Maryland, and was used in experiments on prisoners, which was allegedly why it initially appeared in New York, described as the largest big city near Fort Detrick. Non-Americans would be unlikely to realize that several major U.S. cities are actually much closer to Fort Detrick than New York, including Washington, DC, Baltimore, and Philadelphia.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another example of disinformation is the [[climategate]] conspiracy, where results from weather satellites were doctored in order to support the theory of [[global warming]]. This was brought to light when the University of Angola released several emails written by the perpetrators of the tampering.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the [[Korean War]], [[Wilfred Burchett]] of the [[extremist|extreme]] [[leftist]] New York ''[[Guardian]]'' newspaper made false reports on American use of [[germ warfare]]. Burchett accused the Americans of perpetrating &amp;quot;the most monstrous crimes against humanity.&amp;quot;  He said that in germ warfare the Americans had launched upon mankind a weapon more frightful than the [[atomic bomb]]. In 1998, however, news reports noted, &amp;quot;...documents from Russia's Presidential Archive finally prove, more than four decades after the fact, that the United States was the victim of a disinformation campaign scripted by [[North Korea]], [[China]], and the Soviet Union.&amp;quot; A report by [[Lavernti Beria]], head of [[Soviet intelligence]], outlined the deception: &amp;quot;False plague regions were created, burials . . . were organized, measures were taken to receive the plague and cholera bacillus.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bruce B. Auster, [http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/981116/archive_005192.htm ''Unmasking An Old Lie: A Korean War Charge Is Exposed As a Hoax''], U. S. News &amp;amp; World Report (16 November 1998), p. 52.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:espionage]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Media]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Political Terms]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Liberal Traits]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Tyl110</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Alberta&amp;diff=770796</id>
		<title>Alberta</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Alberta&amp;diff=770796"/>
		<updated>2010-04-20T14:18:37Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Tyl110: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{| border=&amp;quot;1&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot; cellpadding=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; cellspacing=&amp;quot;0&amp;quot; width=&amp;quot;300&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;margin-left:5px&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;color: black; height: 30px; background: white  no-repeat scroll top left;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
!colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;color: black; height: 30px; background: white  no-repeat scroll top left;&amp;quot;|[[Image:Alberta-Flag.jpg|250px]]&lt;br /&gt;
Alberta Flag&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Alberta''' is a prairie province in [[Canada]]; its capital is [[Edmonton]].  Alberta's motto is &amp;quot;Fortis et liber&amp;quot; (Strong and free), and its official flower is the [[Wild Rose]]. Alberta was explored in 1754 by [[Anthony Henday]], who was sent by the [[Hudson's Bay Company]], and it entered Confederation in 1905.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[Readers Digest Atlas of Canada 1995, pg50]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Alberta is often called &amp;quot;the [[Texas]] of Canada&amp;quot; because of its oil, cattle, and pioneer &amp;quot;can-do&amp;quot; culture.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/texas/entry/texas_of_canada_alberta_province_nickname/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The population of Alberta in 2001 was 2,974,807, representing 9.91% of the Canadian population. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.canadainfolink.ca/charttwo.htm Canada Infolink]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  The median family income in 2000 was $60,142. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/Products/Analytic/companion/inc/provs.cfm StatsCan]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Alberta's GDP was $215.9 billion dollars (Canadian) in 2005. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.alberta-canada.com/export/ Alberta Advantage]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Alberta C.jpg|left]]&lt;br /&gt;
The largest city in Alberta is [[Calgary]], with a population of 988,193; [[Edmonton]], Alberta's capital has a population of 730,372.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2007/03/13/calgary-census.html CBC, Alberta Census]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Alberta is also home to the town of [[Vulcan, Alberta|Vulcan]], which hosts an impressive [[Star Trek]]/Sci-Fi convention every year.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.town.vulcan.ab.ca/events/galaxyfest.html Galaxyfest]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Alberta has a thriving economy and is a great environment to do business in. It has the best job market in Canada.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some Albertans feel such a pride and sense of distinction for their province that they have considered Alberta separatism, the idea that Alberta should be it's own [[sovereign]] state or a part of the [[United States of America]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.separationalberta.com/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Alberta has its own public radio network,[http://www.ckua.org/ CKUA].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Alberta has a rich culture,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.head-smashed-in.com/ Head Smashed In Buffalo Jump]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.cd.gov.ab.ca/enjoying_alberta/parks/featured/fishcreek/ Fish Creek Park]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.heritagepark.ca/home.htm/ Heritage Park]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.cd.gov.ab.ca/enjoying_alberta/parks/featured/kananaskis/flashindex.asp/ Kananaskis Country]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.pc.gc.ca/pn-np/nt/woodbuffalo/index_E.asp/ Waterton Lakes et al]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; possesses a vibrant arts scene, &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://meltingpotgallery.ca/ The Melting Pot]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.artgallerycalgary.org/indextwo.htm/ Art Gallery of Calgary]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; eduction facilities, &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.tyrrellmuseum.com/ Royal Tyrrell Museum]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.sait.ab.ca/ SAIT]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, and an active entertainment community.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.virtuallydrumheller.com/tour/badlands.htm Passion Play]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.theatrecalgary.com/ Theatre Calgary]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Alberta is the richest of the provinces of Canada, as well as being a traditional [[conservative]] stronghold.&lt;br /&gt;
==History==&lt;br /&gt;
Alberta prehistory extends back thousands of years.&lt;br /&gt;
The modern Canadian province was first opened in the 19th century.&lt;br /&gt;
===Prehistory===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Settlement===&lt;br /&gt;
After 1890 settlers began to pour into Alberta. About half came from Ontario and Anglophone Canada, one quarrter from the U.S., and one quarter from Europe.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The closing of the American frontier around 1890 led 600,000 Americans to move to Saskatchewan and Alberta, where the farming frontier flourished 1897-1914.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Karel Denis Bicha, &amp;quot;The Plains Farmer and the Prairie Province Frontier, 1897-1914.&amp;quot; ''Journal of Economic History'' 1965 25(2): 263-270. [http://www.jstor.org/pss/2116150 in JSTOR]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The railways developed town sites six to ten miles apart and lumber companies and speculators loaned money to encourage building on the lots. Immigrants faced an unfamiliar, harsh environment. Building a home, clearing and cultivating thirty acres, and fencing the entire property, all of which were  requirements of homesteaders seeking title to their new land, were difficult tasks in the glacier-carved valleys.&lt;br /&gt;
====Ethnics====&lt;br /&gt;
Initially, the government preferred English-speaking settlers from Eastern Canada or Great Britain, and to a lesser extent, the United States. However, in order to speed up the rate of settlement, the government under the direction of [[Minister of the Interior]] [[Clifford Sifton]] soon began advertising to attract settlers from continental Europe. Large numbers of [[German Canadian|Germans]], [[Ukrainian Canadians|Ukrainians]], and Scandinavians moved in, among others, often coalescing into distinct [[block settlement|ethnic settlement blocks]], giving parts of Alberta unique ethnic cultures.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One typical settlement involved Norwegians from Minnesota. In 1894, Norwegian farmers from Minnesota's Red River Valley, originally from Bardo, Norway, resettled on Amisk Creek south of Beaverhill Lake, Alberta, naming their new settlement Bardo, after their homeland. Since the Land Act of 1872, Canada had eagerly sought to establish planned single-nationality immigrant colonies in the Western Provinces. The settlement at Bardo grew steadily, and from 1900 on most settlers came directly from Bardo, Norway, joining family and former neighbors. While somewhat primitive living conditions were the norm for many years into the 20th century, the settlers quickly established institutions and social outlets, including a Lutheran congregation, a school, the Bardo Ladies' Aid Society, a literary society, a youth choir, and a brass band.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Odd S. Lovoll, &amp;quot;Canada Fever: The Odyssey Of Minnesota's Bardo Norwegians.&amp;quot; ''Minnesota History'' 2001 57(7): 356-367. 0026-5497 &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
====Wales====&lt;br /&gt;
In July 1897 the Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) began work on a railway passing through Crow's Nest Pass, Alberta. To attract a thousand workers from Wales who would eventually settle in Canada, the British government offered workers $1.50 a day and land through the homestead process. Publicized by shipping companies and newspapers, the scheme drew many workers from Bangor, Wales, where quarrymen had been on strike for nearly a year. However, the transport costs alone were more than many Welsh workers could afford, and this limited the number of people responding to the offer to under 150. By November letters began to arrive in Wales complaining about the living and working conditions in the CPR camps. Government officials, seeking to populate the Canadian prairies, began to downplay the criticisms and present more positive views. Although some of the immigrants eventually found prosperity in Canada, the immigration scheme envisioned by government and railroad officials was canceled in 1898.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Wayne K. D. Davies, &amp;quot;'Send A Thousand Welsh Farm Labourers To Canada!' The Crow's Nest Pass Work Scheme And Damage Control.&amp;quot; ''Welsh History Review'' 2001 20(3): 466-494. 0043-2431 &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
====Mormons====&lt;br /&gt;
In the 1890s about 3200 Mormons arrived from Utah, where their practice of polygamy had been outlawed.  They were very community oriented, setting up 17 farm settlements; they pioneered in irrigation techniques. They flourished and in 1923 opened the [[Cardston Alberta Temple]] in their center of [[Cardston, Alberta|Cardston]]. In the 21st century about 50,000 Mormons live in Alberta.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; L. A. Rosenvall, &amp;quot;The Transfer of Mormon Culture to Alberta.&amp;quot; ''American Review of Canadian Studies'' 1982 12(2): 51-63.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  The government in Ottawa refused to officially approve of polygamy, and the new settlers kept quiet about their family structure.  No Mormon was prosecuted for polygamy in Canada.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Drive to provincehood==&lt;br /&gt;
In 1900 Alberta was simply a district of the North-West Territories. Local leaders lobbied hard for provincial status, led by the premier of the territories, Sir Frederick Haultain. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prime minister Sir [[Wilfrid Laurier]] did not want to concentrate too much power in one gigantic prairie province, which might grow to rival Quebec and Ontario, but neither did he think three small provinces were viable, and so opted for the two-province plan. Alberta became a province along with her twin sister Saskatchewan on September 1, 1905. Haultain, a Conservative, was passed over for premier in favor of Liberal Alexander Rutherford, a weak leader.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Frank Oliver started Edmonton's influential newspaper the ''Edmonton Bulletin'' in 1880. He promoted Conservative party causes and disliked anyone who did not speak English, especially the French and Ukrainians. Elected to the national Parliament, Oliver became Minister of the Interior and reduced support for European immigration. &lt;br /&gt;
===Early 20th century===&lt;br /&gt;
The new province of Alberta had a population of 78,000 but apart from the Canadian Pacific railway it lacked infrastructure.  The people were farmers and they lacked schools and medical facilities. Ottawa retained control of its natural resources until 1930, making economic development difficult and complicating federal-provincial relations. Indeed, battles over oil poisoned relations with the federal government, especially after 1970.&lt;br /&gt;
====Politics====&lt;br /&gt;
The Liberals formed the first government of Alberta and remained in office until 1921. After the election of 1905, Premier Rutherford's Liberal party government started work on the governmental infrastructure, especially regarding legal and municipal affairs. Rutherford, a gentleman of the old school, was a weak leader, but did aid education. Calgary was annoyed when Edmonton was chosen as the capital,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Alexander Bruce Kilpatrick, &amp;quot;A Lesson in Boosterism: The Contest for the Alberta Provincial Capital, 1904-1906,&amp;quot; ''Urban History Review'' 1980 8(3): 47-109. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and outraged in 1908 when the University of Alberta was given to Strathcona (a suburb that soon was annexed into Edmonton). Talented Conservatives sought their political fortune in national rather than provincial politics, most notably [[R. B. Bennett]], who became Prime Minister in 1930.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Communication was enhanced when a telephone system was set up for the towns and cities. Long-term economic growth was stimulated by the construction through Edmonton of two additional transcontinental railroads, which later became part of the Canadian National Railway. Their main role was  to ship people in, and wheat out. Drawn by cheap farm land and high wheat prices, immigration reached record levels, and the population reached 470,000 by 1914.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Farm movements====&lt;br /&gt;
Feeling abused by the railroads and the grain elevators, militant farm organizations appeared, notably the left-wing [[United Farmers of Alberta]] (UFA), formed in 1909. Guided by the ideas of William Irvine and later by Henry Wise Wood, the UFA was intended to represent economic interests rather than to act as another political party. But the farmers' dissatisfaction with Liberal provincial policies and Conservative federal policies, combined with falling wheat prices and a railroad scandal, produced an overwhelming UFA landslide in the provincial legislature in 1921. Alberta also gave strong support to the [[Progressive Party of Canada]], a national farm organization, which held a bloc of seats in the federal parliament&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
John E. Brownlee led the UFA to a second majority government in the 1926 election.   It repealed prohibition, passed a Debt Adjustment Act to help indebted farmers, and aided workers. It abolished the provincial police, leaving law enforcement to the RCMP. The government bailed-out the bankrupt Alberta Wheat Pool in 1929. The high point of Brownlee's administration came after long negotiations with the federal government concerning Alberta's natural resources. In 1930, control of these resources was turned over to the province. Riding a wave of popularity, Brownlee led the UFA to a third majority government in the 1930 election. As he moved to the right, alienating socialists and labour groups.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1934 the UFA collapsed politically, and returned to being a cooperative. Its defeat was in part due to a tawdry sex scandal and in part due to the government's inability to raise wheat prices or otherwise mitigate the Great Depression in Canada.   A prolonged drought in the southern two thirds of the province forced the abandonment of thousands of farms, and cut grain output at a time prices were falling in half.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Carl F. Betke, &amp;quot;The United Farmers of Alberta, 1921-1935.&amp;quot; in ''Society and Politics in Alberta,'' edited by Carlo Caldarola. (1979). pp 14-32. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Medical care and nursing===&lt;br /&gt;
The first homesteaders relied on themselves for medical services. Poverty and geographic isolation empowered women to learn and practice medical care with the herbs, roots, and berries that worked for their mothers. They prayed for divine intervention but also practiced supernatural magic that provided as much psychological as physical relief. The reliance on homeopathic remedies continued as trained nurses and doctors and how-to manuals slowly reached the homesteaders in the early 20th century.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Anne Woywitka, &amp;quot;Pioneers In Sickness and in Health.&amp;quot; ''Alberta History'' 2001 49(1): 16-20. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After 1900 medicine and especially nursing modernized and became well organized. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Lethbridge Nursing Mission in Alberta was a representative Canadian voluntary mission. It was founded, independent of the Victorian Order of Nurses, in 1909 by Jessie Turnbull Robinson. A former nurse, Robinson was elected as president of the Lethbridge Relief Society and began district nursing services aimed at poor women and children. The mission was governed by a volunteer board of women directors and began by raising money for its first year of service through charitable donations and payments from the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. The mission also blended social work with nursing, becoming the dispenser of unemployment relief.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Sharon Richardson, &amp;quot;Women's Enterprise: Establishing The Lethbridge Nursing Mission, 1909-1919.&amp;quot; ''Nursing History Review'' 1997 5: 105-130. 1062-8061 &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Richardson (1998) examines the social, political, economic, class, and professional factors that contributed to ideological and practical differences between leaders of the Alberta Association of Graduate Nurses (AAGN), established in 1916, and the United Farm Women of Alberta (UFWA), founded in 1915, regarding the promotion and acceptance of midwifery as a recognized subspecialty of registered nurses. Accusing the AAGN of ignoring the medical needs of rural Alberta women, the leaders of the UFWA worked to improve economic and living conditions of women farmers. Irene Parlby, the UFWA's first president, lobbied for the establishment of a provincial Department of Public Health, government-provided hospitals and doctors, and passage of a law to permit nurses to qualify as registered midwives. The AAGN leadership opposed midwife certification, arguing that nursing curricula left no room for midwife study, and thus nurses were not qualified to participate in home births. In 1919 the AAGN compromised with the UFWA, and they worked together for the passage of the Public Health Nurses Act that allowed nurses to serve as midwives in regions without doctors. Thus, Alberta's District Nursing Service, created in 1919 to coordinate the province's women's health resources, resulted chiefly from the organized, persistent political activism of UFWA members and only minimally from the actions of professional nursing groups clearly disinterested in rural Canadians' medical needs.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Sharon Richardson, &amp;quot;Political Women, Professional Nurses, and the Creation of Alberta's District Nursing Service, 1919-1925.&amp;quot; ''Nursing History Review'' 1998 6: 25-50. 1062-8061 &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Alberta District Nursing Service administered health care in the predominantly rural and impoverished areas of Alberta in the first half of the 20th century. Founded in 1919 to meet maternal and emergency medical needs by the United Farm Women of Alberta (UFWA), the Nursing Service treated prairie settlers living in primitive areas lacking doctors and hospitals. Nurses provided prenatal care, worked as midwives, performed minor surgery, conducted medical inspections of schoolchildren, and sponsored immunization programs. The post-World War II discovery of large oil and gas reserves resulted in economic prosperity and the expansion of local medical services. The passage of provincial health and universal hospital insurance in 1957 precipitated the eventual phasing out of the obsolete District Nursing Service in 1976.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Sharon Richardson, &amp;quot;Frontier Health Care: Alberta's District and Municipal Nursing Services, 1919 to 1976.&amp;quot; ''Alberta History'' 1998 46(1): 2-9. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====First Nations====&lt;br /&gt;
Because health care was not provided by treaty with the Canadian government, First Nations reserve residents in the early 20th century usually received this service from private groups. The Anglican Church Missionary Society ran hospitals for the Blackfoot bands of southern Alberta during this time. In the 1920s the Canadian government authorized funds for building hospitals on both the Blackfoot and Blood reserves. They emphasized the treatment of tuberculosis through long-term care.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Laurie Meijer Drees,  Reserve Hospitals In Southern Alberta, 1890 To 1930. Native Studies Review 1993-94 9(1): 93-110. 0831-585X &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There was a strong link between federal Indian health care and the ideology of social reform operating in Canada between the 1890s and 1930.  Between the 1890s and 1930 the Department of Indian Affairs became increasingly involved in Indian health. With the aim of revealing aspects of the department's Indian health administration in this early period, this article describes the creation and workings of two hospitals on Indian reserves in southern Alberta. The federal government took two main steps in dealing with Indian peoples' health: it built hospitals on reserves, and it created a system of medical officers to staff these facilities. Before World War II, the health care system had a number of characteristics: it was a system initially operated by missionaries and later taken over by the Department of Indian Affairs, it was an extensive and decentralized system, the health care services delivered by the system were firmly rooted in Canadian middle-class reformist values and represented an attempt to have these values applied to Indian communities, and, apparently, the system served peoples who were reluctant to use the facilities and services made available to them. Contrary to the idea that prior to World War II the federal government refused to take responsibility for Indian health in Canada, the development of an Indian health policy and system had already taken place gradually.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Laurie Meijer Drees, &amp;quot;Reserve Hospitals and Medical Officers: Health Care And Indian Peoples In Southern Alberta, 1890s-1930.&amp;quot; ''Prairie Forum'' 1996 21(2): 149-176. 0317-6282 &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Religion, Ethnicity===&lt;br /&gt;
====Canadianization====&lt;br /&gt;
Assimilation into Canadian culture was the norm for nearly all European immigrants.  An important indicator was language, as the children of all immigrant groups showed a strong preference in favour of speaking English. From 1900 to 1930, the government faced the formidable task of transforming the ethnically and linguistically diverse immigrant population into loyal and true Canadians. Many believed language assimilation to be the key to this process of Canadianization, aimed primarily at children. Major difficulties ensued initially from the Direct Method of second-language teaching with resistance emanating from both immigrants and some sectors of English-speaking society. Games frequently provided the most effective vehicle for language and citizenship instruction and were used as a method of socialization. The elementary schools of rural Alberta played a very significant role in the acculturation of the immigrant and his children, providing a community character that created a distinctive feature of Canadian schools glaringly missing in the European school tradition.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Manfred Prokop,  &amp;quot;Canadianization Of Immigrant Children: Role of the Rural Elementary School in Alberta, 1900-1930.&amp;quot; ''Alberta History'' 1989 37(2): 1-10. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
====Protestants====&lt;br /&gt;
During the interwar period the various components of the Alberta Woman's Missionary Societies worked tirelessly to maintain traditional Anglo-Protestant family and moral values. Comprising a number of mainstream denominational groups and at one time numbering over five thousand members, the societies actively sought to &amp;quot;Christianize and Canadianize&amp;quot; the substantial numbers of Ukrainian immigrants who settled in the province. A particular focus was child education, with music activities used as a recruiting tool. Some chapters admitted male members. The movement faded as general society shifted away from religious activities and the conservative fundamentalist movement gained strength.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Gayle Thrift,  &amp;quot;'Women of Prayer are Women of Power': Woman's Missionary Societies in Alberta, 1918-1939.&amp;quot; ''Alberta History'' 1999 47(2): 10-17. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Methodist revivalism in early-20th-century Calgary promoted progress and bourgeois respectability as much as spiritual renewal. In 1908, the Central Methodist Church hosted American evangelicals H. L. Gale and J. W. Hatch. They drew big crowds, but the message was mild and the audience calm and well dressed. Few became church members after the revival was over, however. Working-class attendees probably experienced discomfort among their better-dressed and better-behaved neighbors, and the church leadership maintained strong ties to local business interests but did little to reach out to the lower classes. The cottage meetings that followed the revival typically took place in middle-class homes.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Eric Crouse, &amp;quot;'The Great Revival': Evangelical Revivalism, Methodism, and Bourgeois Order in Early Calgary.&amp;quot; ''Alberta History'' 1999 47(1): 18-23. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
====Catholics====&lt;br /&gt;
The Catholic archbishop of Edmonton, Henry Joseph O'Leary had a considerable impact on the city's Catholic sectors, and his efforts reflect many of the challenges facing the Catholic Church at that time. During the 1920s, O'Leary favored his fellow Irish and drastically reduced the influence of French Catholic clergy in his archdiocese and replaced them with Anglophone priests. He helped to assimilate Ukrainian Catholic immigrants into the stricter Roman Catholic traditions, extended the viability of Edmonton's separate Catholic school system, and established both a Catholic college at the University of Alberta and a seminary in Edmonton.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Peter McGuigan, &amp;quot;Edmonton, Archbishop Henry O'Leary and the Roaring Twenties.&amp;quot; ''Alberta History'' 1996 44(4): 6-14. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
====Francophone ====&lt;br /&gt;
In 1892 Alberta adopted the Ontario schools model, emphasizing state-run institutions that glorified not only the English language but English history and customs as well. Predominantly francophone communities in Alberta maintained some control of local schools by electing trustees sympathetic to French language and culture. Such groups as the Association Canadienne-Française de l'Alberta expected trustees to implement their own cultural agenda. An additional problem francophone communities faced was the constant shortage of qualified francophone teachers during 1908-35; the majority of those hired left their positions after only a few years of service. After 1940 school consolidation largely ignored the language and culture issues of francophones.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Yvette T. M. Mahé, &amp;quot;Bilingual School District Trustees and Cultural Transmission: The Alberta Experience, 1892-1939.&amp;quot; ''Historical Studies in Education'' 1997 9 (1): 65-82. 0843-5057 &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
====Ukrainians====&lt;br /&gt;
A key controversy concerning the linguistic rights of ethnic minorities in western Canada was the 1913 Ruthenian School Revolt in the Edmonton, Alberta, area. Ukrainian immigrants, called &amp;quot;Galicians&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;Ruthenians&amp;quot; by Anglo-Celtic Canadians, settled in the vicinity of Edmonton. The attempts by the Ukrainian community to use the Liberal Party to garner political power in districts that were predominantly Ukrainian and introduce bilingual education in those areas, were quashed by party leaders, who blamed a group of teachers for the initiative. As a reprisal, these teachers were labeled &amp;quot;unqualified.&amp;quot; The various rebellious actions by Ukrainian residents of the Bukowina school district did not prevent the dismissal of Ukrainian teachers. By 1915 it was clear that bilingual education would not be tolerated in early-20th-century Alberta.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Angela Gauthier, Nick  Kach,  and Kas Mazurek, &amp;quot;The Ruthenian School Revolt of 1913: Linguistic and Cultural Conflict in Alberta.&amp;quot; ''Historical Studies in Education'' 1996 8 (2): 199-210. 0843-5057 &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;	 &lt;br /&gt;
====Italians====&lt;br /&gt;
Italians arrived in two waves, the first from 1900 to 1914, the second after the Second World War. The first arrivals came as temporary and seasonal workers, often returning to southern Italy after a few years. Other became permanent urban dwellers, especially when the First World War prevented international travel. From the outset they began to have an impact on the cultural and commercial life of the area. As &amp;quot;Little Italy&amp;quot; grew it started to provide essential services for its members, such as a consul and the Order of the Sons of Italy, and an active fascist party provided a means of social organization. Initially the Italians coexisted peacefully with their neighbors, but during World War II they were the victims of prejudice and discrimination to the point that even today Italians in Calgary feel that Canadian society does not reward those who maintain their ethnicity.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Antonella Fanella, &amp;quot;Italians In Calgary&amp;quot;. ''Alberta History'' 1994 42(2): 3-9. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Rural life===&lt;br /&gt;
An economic crisis engulfed much of rural Alberta in the early 1920s, as wheat prices plunged from their wartime highs and farmers found themselves deep in debt.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Farms====&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Palliser.jpg|thumb|left|300px|Palliser's Triangle.]]&lt;br /&gt;
Wheat was the dominant crop and the tall grain elevator alongside the railway tracks became a crucial element of the Albertan grain trade after 1890. It boosted &amp;quot;King Wheat&amp;quot; to regional dominance by integrating the province's economy with the rest of Canada. Used to efficiently load grain into railroad cars, grain elevators came to be clustered in &amp;quot;lines&amp;quot; and their ownership tended to concentrate in the hands of increasingly fewer companies, many controlled by Americans. The main commercial entities involved in the trade were the Canadian Pacific Railroad and the powerful grain syndicates. Dramatic changes in the Albertan grain trade took place in the 1940s, notably the amalgamation of grain elevator companies.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; John Everitt, &amp;quot;The Line Elevator in Alberta.&amp;quot; ''Alberta History'' 1992 40(4): 16-22; 1993 41(1): 20-26.  &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recklessness, greed, and overoptimism played a part in the early-20th-century financial crisis on the Canadian wheat frontier. Beginning in 1916, the [[Palliser Triangle]], a semiarid region in Alberta and Saskatchewan, suffered a decade of dry years and crop failures that culminated in financial ruin for many of the region's wheat farmers. Overconfidence on the part of farmers, financiers, the [[Canadian Pacific Railway]], and the Canadian government led to land investments and development in the Palliser on an unprecedented and dangerous scale. A large share of this expansion was funded by mortgage and loan companies in Britain eager to make overseas investments. British money managers were driven by a complex set of global economic forces including a decline in British investment opportunities, excess capital, and massive investment expansion on the Canadian frontier. Reduced grain production in Europe and increased grain production in the Prairie Provinces also encouraged the export of capital from London. The mythical image of the Palliser as an abundant region, coupled with a growing confidence in technology, created a false sense of security and stability. Between 1908 and 1913 British firms lent vast sums to Canadian farmers to plant their wheat crops; only when the drought began in 1916 did it become clear that far too much credit had been extended.&amp;lt;Ref&amp;gt; John Feldberg, and Warren M. Elofson, &amp;quot;Financing The Palliser Triangle, 1908-1913.&amp;quot; ''Great Plains Quarterly'' 1998 18(3): 257-268. 0275-7664 &amp;lt;/Ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Ranches and mixed farming====&lt;br /&gt;
The term &amp;quot;mixed farming&amp;quot; better applies to southern Alberta agricultural practices during 1881-1914 than does &amp;quot;ranching.&amp;quot; &amp;quot;Pure ranching&amp;quot; involves cowboys working predominantly from horseback; it was the norm when huge ranches were formed in 1881. Quickly practices were modified. Hay was planted and cut in summer to provide winter cattle feed; fences were built and repaired to contain winter herds; and dairy cows and barnyard animals were maintained for personal consumption and secondarily for market. Mixed farming was clearly predominant in southern Alberta by 1900.&amp;lt;Ref&amp;gt; W. M. Elofson, &amp;quot;Not Just A Cowboy: The Practice Of Ranching in Southern Alberta, 1881-1914.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
''Canadian Papers In Rural History'' 1996 10: 205-216. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
Captain Charles Augustus Lyndon and his wife, Margaret, established one of the first ranches in Alberta in 1881. Lyndon homesteaded a site in the Porcupine Hills west of Fort Macleod. They primarily raised cattle but also raised horses for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for additional income. Lyndon's herds suffered with others' herds during the hard winter of 1886-87. He developed an irrigation system and a post office as the district grew during the 1890's. Although Lyndon died in 1903, his family maintained his enterprises until 1966 when the ranch was sold.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Patricia  Hawk, . The Lyndon Ranch. Alberta History  2000 48(1): 10-13.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Benson (2000) describes the social structure for cowboys and other workers on large, corporate ranches in southwestern Alberta around 1900. Four of those ranches, the Cochrane, the Oxley, the Walrond, and the Bar U, demonstrate the complex hierarchies that separated cowboys from cooks and foremen from managers. Ethnic, educational, and age differences further complicated the elaborate social fabric of the corporate ranches. The resulting division of labor and hierarchy permitted Alberta's ranches to function without the direct involvement of investors and owners, most of whom lived in eastern Canada and Britain.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kristi Benson, &amp;quot;Cowboys and Cattlebarons: Status and Hierarchy on Alberta's Early Corporate Ranches.&amp;quot; ''Alberta History'' 2000 48(4): 2-9. Professor Sheldon, &amp;quot;A Visit To The Bar U&amp;quot; ''Alberta History'' 2000 48(1): 21-26, reprints an 1891 travel account.  &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The survival of Alberta's cattle industry was seriously in doubt for most of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. At two points during this time, 1887-1900 and 1914-20, the industry enjoyed great prosperity. The latter boom began when the United States enacted the [[Underwood Tariff]] of 1913, allowing Canadian cattle free entry. Exporting Alberta cattle to Chicago markets proved highly profitable for the highest quality livestock. By 1915, most stocker and feeder cattle from the Winnipeg stockyards were exported to the United States, harming Canada's domestic beef market. Several factors, including the severe winter of 1919-20, the end of inflated wartime prices for beef, and the reinstitution of the US tariff on Canadian cattle, all contributed to the collapse of the Alberta cattle market. The boom ultimately worked against Alberta's economic interests because the high prices during that period made it unfeasible to establish local cattle finishing practices.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Max Foran, &amp;quot;Mixed Blessings: The Second 'Golden Age' of the Alberta Cattle Industry 1914-1920.&amp;quot; ''Alberta History'' 1998 46(3): 10-19. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some ranchers became important entrepreneurs. A rancher and brewer with secondary interests in gas, electricity, and oil, Calgary entrepreneur Alfred Ernest Cross (1861-1932) was a significant agent of modernization in Alberta and the Canadian West. As with others, his name symbolizes a driving force of enterprise, the pursuit of profit, family-centered capitalism, use of Canada's and Britain's capital markets, and economic progression through reinvestment of earnings. His personal family management developed a family estate that remains significant in Alberta's economy. Cross is remembered principally for his cattle breeding advances and his dynamism and scientific approach to brewing.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Henry C. Klassen, &amp;quot;Entrepreneurship in the Canadian West: The Enterprises of A. E. Cross, 1886-1920.&amp;quot; ''Western Historical Quarterly'' 1991 22(3): 313-333. 0043-3810 &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Women====&lt;br /&gt;
Gender roles were sharply defined. Men were primarily responsible for breaking the land; planting and harvesting; building the house; buying, operating and repairing machinery; and handling finances. At first there were many single men on the prairie, or husbands whose wives were still back east, but they had a hard time. They realized the need for a wife. As the population increased rapidly, wives played a central role in settlement of the prairie region. Their labor, skills, and ability to adapt to the harsh environment proved decisive in meeting the challenges. They prepared bannock, beans and bacon, mended clothes, raised children, cleaned, tended the garden, helped at harvest time and nursed everyone back to health.  While prevailing patriarchal attitudes, legislation, and economic principles obscured women's contributions, the flexibility exhibited by farm women in performing productive and nonproductive labor was critical to the survival of family farms, and thus to the success of the wheat economy.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Sandra Rollings-Magnusson, &amp;quot;Canada's Most Wanted: Pioneer Women on the Western Prairies.&amp;quot; ''Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology'' 2000 37(2): 223-238; E. Rowles, &amp;quot;Bannock, beans and bacon: An investigation of pioneer diet.&amp;quot; ''Saskatchewan History'', 1952. Vol. V, No 1, pp. 1-16. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Miners====&lt;br /&gt;
James Moodie developed the Rosedale Mine in Alberta's Red Deer River Valley in 1911. Although Moodie paid higher wages and operated the mine more safely and efficiently than other coal mines in the province, the Rosedale experienced work slowdowns and strikes. Because Moodie owned the mine and provided services for the camp, Bolshevik sympathizers considered him an oppressor of the laborers and a bourgeois industrialist. The radicalism at the mine diminished as Moodie replaced the immigrant miners with Canadian military veterans ready to appreciate the safe work environment offered there.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Catherine Munn Smith,  &amp;quot;J. Frank Moodie: The Man and the Mine.&amp;quot; ''Alberta History'' 2000 48(2): 2-9. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Urban life===&lt;br /&gt;
In the larger cities the Alberta chapter of the Canadian Red Cross provided relief services to the community during the hard years of the 1920s and 1930s. It also successfully lobbied the government to take a more active and responsible role in looking after the people during difficult times.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Nancy M. Sheehan, &amp;quot;The Red Cross And Relief In Alberta, 1920s-1930s.&amp;quot; ''Prairie Forum'' 1987 12(2): 277-293. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Business====&lt;br /&gt;
Most business operations were family affairs, with relatively few large scale operations apart from the railways.  In 1886, the Cowdry brothers (Nathaniel and John) opened a private bank at Fort MacLeod, Alberta. Its history provides a prototype to show how a small-scale private banking house became an important force in early southwestern Alberta finance. Both brothers were astute businessmen, community leaders, and had absolute confidence in each other - so much so that in 1888 Nathaniel returned to Lindsay (later Simcoe) and became a grain merchant. The banking business expanded, with branches being opened and advertising and the lending of money becoming widespread. In March 1905, the Cowdrys sold their banking concerns at Fort Macleod to the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. The role of family enterprise in private banking during the late 19th and early 20th centuries was pivotal in providing an important channel for the flow of credit into southwestern Alberta and facilitated the emergence of the modern economy.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Henry C. Klassen, &amp;quot;Cowdry Brothers: Private Bankers In Southwestern Alberta, 1886-1905.&amp;quot; ''Alberta History'' 1989 37(1): 9-23. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After a dramatic economic boom during the First World War, a sharp, short depression hit Alberta in 1920-22. Conditions were typical in the town of Red Deer, a railroad and trading center midway between Calgary and Edmonton that depended on farmers.  Hardship during the early 1920s was as severe, or even somewhat worse, than those experienced during the much longer Great Depression of the 1930s. The groundwork for the economic collapse had been laid as early as 1913, when the speculative boom that had fueled Alberta's prosperity had collapsed. But the outbreak of the First World War in 1914 initiated an enormous demand for agricultural products and helped to mask the serious weaknesses of the provincial economy. With the conclusion of the war, however, unemployment skyrocketed as veterans returned and inflation increased. Grain prices began to fall in 1920, causing further hardships. By the spring of 1921, many Red Deer businesses had gone bankrupt, and the city's unemployment rate was estimated at 20%. The city's economic situation began to improve in 1923, and Red Deer city officials were finally able to collect enough tax revenues to avoid the need for short-term bank loans.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Michael J. Dawe, &amp;quot;Debt and Depression: Red Deer in the Early 1920s.&amp;quot; ''Alberta History'' 1996 44(2): 19-23. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Women====&lt;br /&gt;
Up to the 1880s prostitution in Alberta was tolerated and not considered serious. As the itinerant population became more settled, however, this attitude gradually changed. The years 1880-1909 witnessed few arrests and even fewer fines for prostitution, in part because those caught were encouraged to leave town rather than be jailed. Later, 1909-14, a smallpox epidemic in the red light district started a crackdown against prostitution, which by then was regarded as a major problem, especially by middle class women reformers. The [[Woman's Christian Temperance Union]] vigorously opposed both saloons and prostitution, and called for woman suffrage as a tool to end those evils.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Judy Bedford, &amp;quot;Prostitution In Calgary 1905-1914&amp;quot;. ''Alberta History'' 1981 29(2): 1-11; Nancy M. Sheehan, &amp;quot;The WCTU on the Prairies, 1886-1930: An Alberta-Saskatchewan Comparison.&amp;quot; ''Prairie Forum'' 1981 6(1): 17-33.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Calgary Current Events Club, started in 1927 by seven women, rapidly gained popularity with professional women of the city. In 1929 the group changed its name to the Calgary Business and Professional Women's Club (BPW) in response to a call for a national federation of such groups. Members traveled to London, England, in 1929 to make the case for recognizing women as full legal citizens. In the 1930s the group addressed many of the controversial political issues of the day, including the introduction of a minimum wage, fair unemployment insurance legislation, the compulsory medical examination of school children, and the requirement of a medical certificate for marriage. The national convention of the BPW was held in Calgary in 1935. The club actively supported Canadian overseas forces in World War II.  At first most of the members were secretaries and office workers; more recently it has been dominated by executives and professions. The organization continues to attend to women's economic and social issues.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Andrews, D. Larraine. &amp;quot;Calgary Business And Professional Women's Club.&amp;quot; ''Alberta History'' 1997 45(1): 20-25. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Cinema====&lt;br /&gt;
Motion pictures have been an important aspect of urban culture since 1910. The places where people have watched films, from the nickelodeon to the multiplex, have changed in ways that reflect changes in the society generally. The cinema in Edmonton reflected the changing urban landscape. Because the movie houses themselves are part of the entertainment product, the cinema industry follows a cycle of construction, renovation, and demolition. The industry's face is constantly changing in an effort to draw people inside; Edmonton's cinemas have moved with the retail industry from the downtown core to the suburban shopping malls, and are now experimenting with new formats similar to retailers' big boxes. Just as Edmonton is known for massive amounts of retail space, it also has one of the highest numbers of movie screens in Canada in proportion to its population. Cinemas are thus a revealing aspect of trends in urban development.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Douglas Bailie, Cinemas in the City: Edmonton from the Nickelodeon to the Multiplex. Prairie Forum [Canada] 1996 21(2): 239-262. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
====Sports====&lt;br /&gt;
Throughout the province popular sports included snowshoeing and skating for everyone, and  hunting and fishing for men and boys. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Competitive sports emerged in urban areas, especially hockey. It provided an arena for the civic rivalries such as those between the cities of Edmonton and neighboring Strathcona during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Edmonton, on the north bank of the Saskatchewan River, and Strathcona, on the south bank of the river, developed separately - economically, politically, and socially - because travel and communication across the river were limited. (They merged in 1912.) In addition to affording an outlet for civic rivalries, the games between the Edmonton Thistle and Strathcona Shamrock hockey clubs united individuals from different social classes and diverse cultural backgrounds in support of their team.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Terence  O'Riordan, &amp;quot;The 'Puck Eaters': Hockey As A Unifying Community Experience In Edmonton &amp;amp; Strathcona, 1894-1905.&amp;quot; ''Alberta History'' 2001 49(2): 2-11. 0316-1552 &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Skiing began in [[Banff]] in the 1890s and received its main impetus with the winter carnival in 1916. In the next decades the carnival became popular; ski jumping and cross-country races led to much publicity. By 1940, Banff had become one of Canada's leading skiing centers, and was heavily promoted as a vacation destination by the Canadian Pacific railway.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Rolf T. Lund, &amp;quot;The Development of Skiing in Banff.&amp;quot; ''Alberta History'' 1977 25(4): 26-30. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Oil, gas and tar sands===&lt;br /&gt;
Alberta has played the central role in Canada's petroleum industry —both from the discovery and development of conventional oil and natural gas, and through the development of the world's largest [[bitumen]] deposits in the province's vast northern [[oil sands]] or &amp;quot;tar sands.&amp;quot; The province became one of the world's foremost producers of [[crude oil]] and [[natural gas]], generating billions of revenue for the province and igniting a bitter feud with the national government.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first oil field in western Canada was Turner Valley, south of Calgary, where large supplies were discovered in 1914 at a depth of about 3,000 feet (910 meters). Calgary became the oil capital, with a reputation for swashbuckling entrepreneurship. Turner Valley was for a time the largest oil and gas producer in the British Empire. Three distinct phases of discovery marked the field's history and involved such Albertans as William Stewart Herron and A. W. Dingman, and companies that included Calgary Petroleum Products, later the Royalite Oil Company; Turner Valley Royalties; and later the Home Oil Company. In 1931, the province enacted the Oil and Gas Wells Act to reduce the heavy waste of natural gas. In 1938, the Alberta Petroleum and Natural Gas Conservation Board was successfully established and enacted conservation and prorating measures.  The goal was to maximize the long-term yield, as well as to protect small producers.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Laura Atkins, Coleen  Nicoll, and Jody Stewart, &amp;quot;Turner Valley Oilfields.&amp;quot; ''Alberta History'' 1984 32(1): 9-19; Breen (1993). &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1947 an even bigger field opened at [[Leduc]], 20 miles (32 km) south of Edmonton, and in 1948 oil mining began at Redwater. Both these fields were overshadowed in importance in 1956 with the discovery of the [[Pembina]] field west of Edmonton. Other fields were discovered east of Grande Prairie and in central Alberta. From collection and distribution points near Edmonton the oil is sent by pipeline to refineries, some as distant as Sarnia, Toronto and Montreal to the east, Vancouver to the west, and especially the U.S. to the South. Interprovincial Pipe Line (IPL) began in 1949, transporting oil to refineries in the east. IPL became Enbridge Pipelines in 1998 and now has 4500 employees; it moves 2 million barrels a day over 13,500 miles of pipe. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Alberta produced 81% of Canada's crude oil in 1991, when Alberta's traditional oil fields peaked; output is now steadily declining. Before the 1970s, the major producers were controlled by U.S. oil giants.&lt;br /&gt;
====Natural gas====&lt;br /&gt;
Exploration for oil led to the discovery of large reserves of natural gas. The most important gas fields are at Pincher Creek in the southeast, at Medicine Hat, and in the northwest. TransCanada pipeline, completed in 1958, carries some of the gas eastward to Ontario and Quebec; other pipelines run to California. Alberta produces 81% of Canada's natural gas.&lt;br /&gt;
====Oil sands====&lt;br /&gt;
The '''&amp;quot;[[oil sands]]&amp;quot;''' or &amp;quot;tar sands&amp;quot; in the Athabasca River valley to the north of [[Fort McMurray]] contain an enormous amount of oil, one of the world's richest deposits--second only to Saudi Arabia.  The first plant for extracting oil from the tar sands was completed in 1967, and a second plant was completed in 1978. In 1991 the plants produced about 100 million barrels of oil. Expansion was rapid, with very high paid workers flown in from eastern Canada, especially the depressed Maritimes and Newfoundland. In 2006 bitumen production averaged 1.25 million barrels per day (200,000 m³/d) through 81 oil sands projects, representing 47% of total Canadian oil output. The processing of bitumen, however, releases large amounts of carbon dioxide, which has alarmed environmentalists worried about global warming and the Canada's carbon footprint. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Timothy Le Riche, ''Alberta's Oil Patch - The People, Politics &amp;amp; Companies'' (2006)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the 1960s Great Canadian Oil Sands, Ltd., a small, indigenous Canadian firm, relied on new technology and heavy capital investment to pioneer oil sand extraction in the Athabascan region. Unfavorable leasing terms from the provincial government and the strong financial risk inherent in the project forced it firm to seek an investment partner. The large American oil company [[Sunoco|Sun Oil Company]] took the risk, but as the investment burden on Sun increased, the company became compelled to assume both financial and managerial control of the operation. Thus, the native Canadian firm had to yield its autonomy as the price of pursuing a pioneering but complicated industrial project. In 1995 Sun sold its interest to Suncor Energy, based in Calgary. Suncor is second to Syncrude in the oil sands, but Syncrude is controlled by a consortium of international oil companies.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Graham D. Taylor, &amp;quot;Sun Oil Company and Great Canadian Oil Sands Ltd.: The Financing and Management of a 'Pioneer' Enterprise, 1962-1974.&amp;quot; ''Journal of Canadian Studies'' 1985 20(3): 102-121. 0021-9495 &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Spin-off industry====&lt;br /&gt;
The province's oil and natural gas furnish raw materials for large industrial complexes at Edmonton and Calgary, as well as for smaller ones at Lethbridge and Medicine Hat. These complexes include oil and gas refineries and plants that use refinery by-products to make plastics, chemicals, and fertilizer. The oil and gas industry provides a market for firms supplying pipes, drills, and other equipment. Large amounts of sulfur are extracted from natural gas in plants near the gas fields. Helium is extracted from the gas in a plant near Edson, west of Edmonton.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Social Credit==&lt;br /&gt;
'''Social Credit''' (often called ''Socred'') was a populist political movement strongest in Alberta and neighboring [[British Columbia]], 1930s-1970s.  [[Social Credit]] was based on the economic theories of an Englishman, [[C. H. Douglas]]. His theories became very popular across the nation in the early 1930s. A central proposal was the free distribution of prosperity certificates (or social credit), called &amp;quot;funny money&amp;quot; by the opposition.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bob Hesketh, ''Major Douglas and Alberta Social Credit.'' (1997)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the [[Great Depression]] in Canada the demand for radical action peaked around 1934, after the worst period was over and the economy was recovering. Mortgage debt was significant because farmers could not meet their interest payments. The insecurity of farmers, whose debts were increasing and who had no legal protection against foreclosure, was a potent factor in creating a mood of political desperation. The radical farmers party, UFA was baffled by the depression and Albertans demanded new leadership. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The prairie farmers had always believed that they were being exploited by Toronto and Montreal.  What they lacked was a prophet who would lead them to the promised land. The Social Credit movement began in Alberta in 1932; it became a political movement in 1935 and suddenly burned like a prairie fire.  The prophet and new premier was radio evangelist [[William Aberhart]] (1878-1943). The message was biblical prophecy.  Aberhart was a fundamentalist, preaching the revealed word of God and quoting the Bible to find a solution for the evils of the modern, materialistic world: the evils of sophisticated academics and their biblical criticism, the cold formality of middle-class congregations, the vices of dancing and movies and drink. &amp;quot;Bible Bill&amp;quot; preached that the capitalist economy was rotten because of its immorality; specifically it produced goods and services but did not provide people with sufficient purchasing power to enjoy them. This could be remedied by the giving out money in the form of &amp;quot;social credit&amp;quot;, or $25 a month for every man and woman.  This pump priming was guaranteed to restore prosperity, he prophesied to the 1600 Social Credit clubs he formed in the province.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Alberta's businessmen, professionals, newspaper editors and the traditional middle-class leaders protested vehemently at Aberhart's crack-pot ideas, but they had not solved any problems and spoke not of the promised land ahead.  Aberhart's new party in 1935 elected 56 members to the Assembly, compared to 7 for all the other parties.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; The economic theorist for Aberhart was Major Douglas, an English engineer with an unbounded confidence in technology. *  H. Blair Neatby, ''The Politics of Chaos: Canada in the Thirties''  (1972) pp 143-61; John A. Irving, ''The Social Credit Movement in Alberta'' (1959)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Alberta's Social Credit Party remained in power for 36 years until 1971. It were re-elected by popular vote no less than 9 times, achieving success by moving from left to the right.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Thomas Flanagan and Martha F. Lee, &amp;quot;From Social Credit to Social Conservatism: The Evolution of an Ideology,&amp;quot; ''Prairie Forum'' 16 (1991): 205-223; C. B. Macpherson, ''Democracy in Alberta: Social Credit and the Party System.'' 2d ed. 1962. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Social Credit in office===&lt;br /&gt;
Once in office Aberhart gave a high priority to balancing the provincial budget. He reduced expenditures and increased the sales tax and the income tax.  The poor and unemployed got nothing.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alvin Finkel,  &amp;quot;Social Credit and the Unemployed.&amp;quot; ''Alberta History'' 1983 31(2): 24-32.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The $25 monthly social dividend never arrived, as Aberhart decided nothing could be done until the province's financial system was changed, and 1936 Alberta defaulted on its bonds.  He did pass a Debt Adjustment Act that canceled all the interest on mortgages since 1932 and limited all interest rates on mortgages to 5%, in line with similar laws passed by other provinces. In 1937 backbenchers passed a radical banking law that was disallowed by the national government (banking was a federal responsibility). Efforts to control the press were also disallowed.  The party was authoritarian and tried to exert detailed control over its officeholders; those who rebelled were purged or removed from office by the new device of recall elections.  Although Aberhart was hostile to banks and newspapers, he was basically in favor of capitalism and did not support socialist policies as did the [[Cooperative Commonwealth Federation]] (CCF) in Saskatchewan.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; In Alberta the CCF and Social Credit were bitter enemies, which made it impossible for them to merge in Saskatchewan. See S. M. Lipset, ''Agrarian Socialism: The Cooperative Commonwealth Federation in Saskatchewan a Study in Political Sociology.'' (1950, 1971 ed.) p. 143-4.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By 1938 the Social Credit government abandoned its notions about the $25 payouts, but its inability to break with UFA policies led to disillusionment and heavy defections from the party. Aberhart's government was re-elected in the [[Alberta general election, 1940|1940 election]], carrying 43% of the vote. The prosperity of the Second World War relieved the economic fears and hatreds that had fueled farmer unrest. Aberhart died in 1943, and was succeeded as Premier by his student at the Prophetic Bible Institute and lifelong close disciple, [[Ernest C. Manning]] (1908-1996).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Social Credit party, now firmly on the right, governed Alberta until 1968 under Manning.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By the late 1960s Social Credit activists were redeploying into the conservative, fundamentalist [[Reform Party]] by [[Preston Manning]], son of Ernest Manning.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;   Murray Dobbin, ''Preston Manning and the Reform Party'' (1991)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The anti-semitic rhetoric of some Social Credit activists greatly troubled Canada's Jewish community; in the late 1940s Premier Manning belatedly purged the anti-Semites.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;  Major C.H. Douglas, was blatantly anti-Semitic and enamored with the fake ''Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.'' Aberhart and Manning vigorously denied they were anti-Semitic. See Janine Stingel, ''Social Discredit: Anti-Semitism, Social Credit, and the Jewish Response.'' McGill-Queen's U. Press, 2000. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Second World War==&lt;br /&gt;
Alberta's contribution to the Canadian war effort from 1939 to 1945 was substantial.   Thousands volunteered for service and many were killed in combat in Europe. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1942 many Japanese from British Columbia were forcibly sent to internment camps in southern Alberta, which already had Japanese communities at Raymond and Hardieville. At first limited to working in sugar beet fields, the newly arrived Japanese had severe housing, school, and water problems. In the following years some of the Japanese were permitted to work in canning factories, sawmills, and other businesses. There was constant controversy in the press about the role and freedom of the local Japanese. Farm production increased markedly, and after the war few of the Japanese took advantage of the repatriation plan to go to Japan. The Japanese in Alberta today are well assimilated, but little of Japanese heritage remains.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; David B. Iwaasa, &amp;quot;The Japanese in Southern Alberta, 1941-45.&amp;quot; ''Alberta History'' 1976 24(3): 5-19.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Postwar==&lt;br /&gt;
After the war the Manning government passed several pieces of restrictive legislation that limited labor's ability to organize workers and to call strikes. The enforcement of labor law also reflected an anti-union bias. Social Crediters, who had a penchant for conspiracy theories, believed union militancy was the product of an international Communist conspiracy. Their labor legislation sought to foil the conspiracy's plans in Alberta and incidentally to reassure potential investors, particularly in the oil industry, of a good climate for profit taking. The path for such legislation was made smoother by the conservatism of one wing of the labor movement in the province and the fear of being tarnished with the Communist brush by the other wing.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Alvin Finkel, &amp;quot;The Cold War, Alberta Labour, and the Social Credit Regime.&amp;quot; ''Labour'' [1988 (21): 123-152. 0700-3862 &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
===Conservatives and reform===&lt;br /&gt;
In 1971, [[Peter Lougheed]]'s Conservatives put an end to the long rule of the Social Credit Party as the [[Progressive Conservative Association of Alberta|Progressive Conservative Party]] came to power. They remain in power to this day, coming up on 38 years of majority governments.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many experts maintain that the large-scale social change that occurred in the province as a result of the postwar oil boom was responsible for this important change of government. Urbanization, in particular the expansion of the urban middle classes, secularization, and increasing wealth are often cited as the primary causes of Social Credit's downfall. Bell (1993) challenges this popular interpretation, arguing instead that short-term factors such as leadership, contemporaneous issues, and campaign organization better explain the Conservative triumph.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Edward Bell, &amp;quot;The Rise of the Lougheed Conservatives and the Demise of Social Credit In Alberta: A Reconsideration.&amp;quot; ''Canadian Journal of Political Science'' 1993 26(3): 455-475. 0008-4239 &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The election in May 1986 of a 22-member opposition to Alberta's legislature signals for the first time since 1971 a significant competitive voice to the dominant Conservative Party in that province's voting citizenship. This development and the emergence of the New Democrats as the primary opposition party in Alberta necessitates a reevaluation of Alberta politics, which critics have long labeled as ideologically conservative, anachronistic, and oddly unpredictable. Alberta politics are now beginning to resemble that of Canada's other provinces. The rise of a new, competent opposition is a healthy development in Alberta's politics and will likely contribute positively to Alberta's economic and social well-being, Tupper (1986) argues.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Allan Tupper, &amp;quot;New Dimensions of Alberta Politics.&amp;quot; ''Queen's Quarterly'' 1986 93(4): 780-791. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Bibliography==&lt;br /&gt;
===Surveys and reference===&lt;br /&gt;
* Heritage Community Foundation. ''Alberta Online Encyclopedia,'' [http://www.albertasource.ca/aoe/ui/index.aspx online 2009], a short encyclopedia&lt;br /&gt;
* ''The Canadian Encyclopedia'' (2008) a very good starting point [http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCESubjects&amp;amp;Params=A1 online edition]&lt;br /&gt;
* ''The Dictionary of Canadian Biography'' (1966-2006), scholarly biographies of every important person who died by 1930 [http://www.biographi.ca/index-e.html online edition]&lt;br /&gt;
* Cashman, Tony. ''A Picture History of  Alberta''. Edmonton, Alta.: Hurtig, (1979) . 215 pp. &lt;br /&gt;
* Friesen, Gerald. ''The Canadian Prairies: A History'' (2nd ed. 1987) &lt;br /&gt;
* MacGregor, James A. ''A History of Alberta.'' Edmonton, Alta.: Hurtig, 1972. 335 pp. &lt;br /&gt;
* Owram, Douglas R., ed. ''The Formation of Alberta: A Documentary History''. Calgary: Hist. Soc. of Alberta, 1979. 403 pp. primary sources&lt;br /&gt;
* Palmer, Howard. ''Alberta: A New History'' (1999), standard survey by leading historian&lt;br /&gt;
* Pitsula, James M. &amp;quot;Disparate Duo&amp;quot; ''Beaver'' 2005 85(4): 14-24, a comparison with Saskatchewan, Fulltext in EBSCO &lt;br /&gt;
* Wardhaugh, Robert A., ed. ''Toward Defining the Prairies: Region, Culture, and History.'' (2001). 234 pp.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Economics, business, labour===&lt;br /&gt;
* Ascah, Robert L. ''Politics and Public Debt: The Dominion, the Banks, and Alberta's Social Credit.'' U. of Alberta Press, 1999. 360 pp.&lt;br /&gt;
* Bercuson, David Jay, ed. ''Alberta's Coal Industry, 1919.'' Calgary: Hist. Soc. of Alberta, 1978. 264 pp. 1919 primary source&lt;br /&gt;
* Breen, David H. ''Alberta's Petroleum Industry and the Conservation Board.'' U. of Alberta Press, 1993. 800 pp.&lt;br /&gt;
* Breen, David H. and Macleod, R. C., eds. ''William Stewart Herron: Father of the Petroleum Industry in Alberta.'' Calgary: Hist. Soc. of Alberta, 1984. 459 pp. primary sources&lt;br /&gt;
* Bright, David. ''The Limits of Labour: Class Formation and the Labour Movement in Calgary, 1883-1929.'' U. of British Columbia Press, 1998. 286 pp.&lt;br /&gt;
* Burrill, Gary. ''Away. Maritimers in Massachusetts, Ontario and Alberta: An Oral History of Leaving Home.'' McGill-Queen's U. Press, 1992. 272 pp.  a primary source; interviews with oil workers&lt;br /&gt;
* Chatko, Paul.  ''Developing Alberta's Oil Sands: From Karl Clark to Kyoto'' (2005) [http://www.h-net.org/~energy/roundtables/Chastko.html author's dicsussion] &lt;br /&gt;
* Ferguson, Barry Glen. ''Athabasca Oil Sands: Northern Resource Exploration, 1875-1951.'' Regina, Saskatchewan: Can. Plains Res. Center, 1986. 283 pp.&lt;br /&gt;
* Hart, E. J. ''The Selling of Canada: The CPR and the Beginnings of Canadian Tourism.'' Banff: Altitude, 1983. 180 pp.&lt;br /&gt;
* House, John D. ''The Last of the Free Enterprisers: The Oilmen of Calgary.'' Toronto: Macmillan, 1980. 230 pp.&lt;br /&gt;
* Johnston, Alex; Gladwyn, Keith G.; and Ellis, L. Gregory. ''Lethbridge: Its Coal Industry.'' Lethbridge Hist. Soc. (1989) 148 pp.&lt;br /&gt;
* Kennedy, Margaret A. ''The Whiskey Trade of the Northwestern Plains: A Multidisciplinary Study.'' New York: Lang, 1997. 181 pp.&lt;br /&gt;
* Klassen, Henry C. ''A Business History of Alberta.'' U. of Calgary Press, 1999. 362 pp.&lt;br /&gt;
* Parker, James M. ''Emporium of the North: Fort Chipewyan and the Fur Trade to 1835.'' Regina, Sask.: Can. Plains Res. Cen., 1987. 208 pp.&lt;br /&gt;
* Richards, John and Larry Pratt. ''Prairie Capitalism: Power and Influence in the New West.'' Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1979. 340 pp.  influential Marxist interpretation &lt;br /&gt;
* Schneider, Ena. ''Ribbons of Steel: The Story of the Northern Alberta Railways.'' Calgary: Detselig, (1991) 312 pp.&lt;br /&gt;
* Wetherell, Donald G. and Kmet, Irene. ''Useful Pleasures: The Shaping of Leisure in Alberta, 1896-1945.'' U. of Regina Press, 1990. 430 pp.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===First Nations, Metis===&lt;br /&gt;
* Drees, Laurie Meijer. ''The Indian Association of Alberta: A History of Political Action. U. of British Columbia Press, 2002. 246 pp.&lt;br /&gt;
* McClintock, Walter. ''The Old North Trail: Life, Legends, and Religion of the Blackfeet Indians.'' (1910). 539 pp.&lt;br /&gt;
* Pocklington, T. C. ''The Government and Politics of the Alberta Métis Settlements.'' Regina: Can. Plains Res. Cen., 1991. 162 pp.&lt;br /&gt;
* Price, Richard, ed. ''The Spirit of the Alberta Indian Treaties.'' Toronto: Butterworth, 1979. 202 pp.&lt;br /&gt;
* Samek, Hana. ''The Blackfoot Confederacy, 1880-1920: A Comparative Study of Canadian and U. S. Indian Policy.'' U. of New Mexico Press, 1987. 236 pp.&lt;br /&gt;
* Ward, Donald. ''The People: A Historical Guide to the First Nations of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.'' Saskatoon: Fifth House, 1995. 115 pp.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===High culture===&lt;br /&gt;
* Ainslie, Patricia Ainslie, and Mary-Beth Laviolette. ''Alberta Art and Artists: An Overview‎'' (2007) 147 pages&lt;br /&gt;
* Calder, Alison and Wardhaugh, Robert, ed. ''History, Literature, and the Writing of the Canadian Prairies.'' U. of Manitoba Press, 2005. 310 pp. &lt;br /&gt;
* Keahey, Deborah. ''Making It Home: Place in Canadian Prairie Literature.'' (1998). 178 pp.  &lt;br /&gt;
* Johns, Walter H. ''A History of the University of Alberta, 1908- 1969''. Edmonton: U. of Alberta Press, 1981. 544 pp.&lt;br /&gt;
* Melnyk, George. ''The Literary History of Alberta, Vol. 1: From Writing-on-Stone to World War Two.'' Edmonton: U. of Alberta Press, 1998. 240 pp.&lt;br /&gt;
** Melnyk, George. ''The Literary History of Alberta. Vol. 2: From the End of the War to the End of the Century.'' U. of Alberta Press, 1999. 302 pp.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Politics and government===&lt;br /&gt;
* Aberhart, William. ''Aberhart: Outpourings and Replies.'' ed. by David R. Elliott, Calgary: Hist. Soc. of Alberta, 1991. 296 pp. a primary source&lt;br /&gt;
* Barr, John J. ''The Dynasty: The Rise and Fall of Social Credit in Alberta.'' Toronto: McClelland and Stewart. 248 pp.&lt;br /&gt;
* Bell, Edward. ''Social Classes and Social Credit in Alberta.'' McGill-Queen's U. Press, 1993. 196 pp.&lt;br /&gt;
* Boudreau, Joseph A., ed. ''Alberta, Aberhart and Social Credit. Canadian History Through the Press.'' Holt, Rinehart and Winston of Canada, 1975. 122 pp.  newspaper reports; primary source&lt;br /&gt;
* Bruce, Christopher J.; Kneebone, Ronald D.; and McKenzie, Kenneth J., eds. ''A Government Reinvented: A Study of Alberta's Deficit Elimination Program.'' Oxford U. Press, 1997. 518 pp.&lt;br /&gt;
* Caldarola, Carlo, ed. ''Society and Politics in Alberta: Research Papers.'' Toronto: Methuen, 1979. 392 pp.&lt;br /&gt;
* Elliott, David R. and Iris Miller. ''Bible Bill: A Biography of William Aberhart.'' Edmonton: Reidmore Books, 1987. 373 pp.&lt;br /&gt;
* Finkel, Alvin. ''The Social Credit Phenomenon in Alberta.'' U. of Toronto Press, 1989.&lt;br /&gt;
* Gray, James H. ''R. B. Bennett: The Calgary Years.'' U. of Toronto Press, 1991. 310 pp.&lt;br /&gt;
* Hesketh, Bob. ''Major Douglas and Alberta Social Credit.'' U. of Toronto Press, 1997. 315 pp.&lt;br /&gt;
* Hewitt, Steve. ''Riding to the Rescue: The Transformation of the RCMP in Alberta and Saskatchewan, 1914-1939.'' (2006). 205 pp. excerpt and text search &lt;br /&gt;
* Johnson, William. ''Stephen Harper and the Future of Canada'' (2006)&lt;br /&gt;
* Mardon, Ernest, and Austin Mardon. ''Alberta Election Results 1882–1992.'' Edmonton: Documentary Heritage Society of Alberta (1993). &lt;br /&gt;
* Rennie, Bradford J. ed. ''Alberta Premiers of the Twentieth Century.'' Canadian Plains Research Center, University of Regina. (2004) [http://www.amazon.com/Alberta-Premiers-Twentieth-Century-Scholorship/dp/0889771510/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1233991307&amp;amp;sr=8-6 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
* Rennie, Bradford James. ''The Rise of Agrarian Democracy: The United Farmers and Farm Women of Alberta, 1909-1921''. U of Toronto Press, 2000. 282 pp. &lt;br /&gt;
* Thomas, Lewis H., ed. ''William Aberhart and Social Credit in Alberta.'' Toronto: Copp Clark, 1977. 175 pp. readings&lt;br /&gt;
* Thomas, Lewis Gwynne. ''The Liberal Party in Alberta.'' University of Toronto Press: (1959). &lt;br /&gt;
* Tupper, Allan and Gibbins, Roger, eds. ''Government and Politics in Alberta.'' U. of Alberta Press, 1992. 335 pp. textbook&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Regional, urban===&lt;br /&gt;
* Belliveau, Anne. ''The Story of Alberta's Big West Country: Upper North Saskatchewan River Corridor, Shunda Basin, Brazeau Collieries and Nordegg.'' Calgary: Detselig, 1999. 240 pp.&lt;br /&gt;
* Foran, Max and Jameson, Sheilagh S., eds. ''Citymakers: Calgarians after the Frontier.'' Hist. Soc. of Alberta, 1987. 386pp.&lt;br /&gt;
* Foran, Max and Foran, Heather MacEwan. ''Calgary: Canada's Frontier Metropolis. An Illustrated History.'' Windsor, Ont.: Windsor, 1982. 367 pp.&lt;br /&gt;
* Foran, Max. ''Calgary: An Illustrated History/Calgary: Histoire Illustrée.'' Toronto: Lorimer; Ottawa: Natl. Mus. of Man, 1978. 192 pp.&lt;br /&gt;
* Hesketh, Bob and Swyripa, Frances, eds. ''Edmonton: The Life of a City.'' Edmonton: NeWest, 1995. 366 pp.&lt;br /&gt;
* Johnston, Alex and denOtter, Andy A. ''Lethbridge: A Centennial History.'' Hist. Soc. of Alberta, 1985. 240 pp.&lt;br /&gt;
* MacDonald, Graham A. ''Where the Mountains Meet the Prairies: A History of Waterton Country.'' (Parks and Heritage Series, No. 3.) U. of Calgary Press, 2000. 210 pp.&lt;br /&gt;
* Melnyk, Bryan P. ''Calgary Builds: The Emergence of an Urban Landscape, 1905-1914.'' Calgary: Alberta Culture, Can. Plains Res. Center, 1985. 214 pp. &lt;br /&gt;
* Rasporich, Anthony W. and Klassen, Henry C. ''Frontier Calgary: Town, City, and Region, 1875-1914.'' U. of Calgary and McClelland and Stewart West. 306 pp.&lt;br /&gt;
* Reasons, Chuck, ed. ''Stampede City: Power and Politics in the West.'' Toronto: Between the Lines, 1984. 216 pp. impact of oil on Calgary&lt;br /&gt;
* Smith, Donald B., ed. ''Centennial City: Calgary, 1894-1994.'' U. of Calgary Press, (1993)  88 pp.&lt;br /&gt;
* Wetherell, Donald G. and Kmet, Irene R. A. ''Alberta's North: A History, 1890-1950'' U. of Alberta Press, 2000. 520 pp.&lt;br /&gt;
* Wetherell, Donald G. and Kmet, Irene R. A. ''Town Life: Main Street and the Evolution of Small Town Alberta, 1880-1947.'' U. of Alberta Press, 1995. 368 pp.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Settlement, rural, pioneers===&lt;br /&gt;
* Baker, William M., ed. Pioneer Policing in Southern Alberta: Deane of the Mounties, 1888-1914. Calgary: Hist. Soc. of Alberta, 1993.&lt;br /&gt;
* Bennett, John W. and Seena B. Kohl. ''Settling the Canadian-American West, 1890-1915: Pioneer Adaptation and Community Building. An Anthropological History.'' U. of Nebraska Press, 1995. 311 pp.&lt;br /&gt;
* Bowen, Lynne. ''Muddling Through: The Remarkable Story of the Barr Colonists.'' Vancouver: Douglas &amp;amp; McIntyre, 1992. 234 pp.&lt;br /&gt;
* Brado, Edward. ''Cattle Kingdom: Early Ranching in Alberta.'' Vancouver: Douglas &amp;amp; McIntyre, 1984. 298 pp. &lt;br /&gt;
* Brunvand, Jan Harold. ''Norwegian Settlers in Alberta.'' National Museum of Man, Mercury Series, Canadian Centre for Folk Cultural Studies, Paper no. 8. Ottawa: Natl. Mus. of Man, 1974. 71 pp.&lt;br /&gt;
* Danysk, Cecilia. ''Hired Hands: Labour and the Development of Prairie Agriculture, 1880-1930.'' (1995). 231 pp. &lt;br /&gt;
* Hurt, Leslie J. ''The Victoria Settlement, 1862-1922.'' Occasional Paper, no. 7. Edmonton: Alberta Culture, Hist. Resources Division, 1979. 242 pp.&lt;br /&gt;
* Jaques, Carrol. ''Unifarm: A Story of Conflict and Change''. U. of Calgary Press, 2001. 342 pp.&lt;br /&gt;
* Jones, David C. ''Empire of Dust: Settling and Abandoning the Prairie Dry Belt.'' U. of Nebraska Press, 1987. 330 pp.&lt;br /&gt;
* Jones, David C., ed. ''&amp;quot;We'll All Be Buried Down Here&amp;quot;: The Prairie Dryland Disaster, 1917-1926.'' Calgary: Alberta Records Publ. Board; Hist. Soc. of Alberta, 1986. 200 pp. collects primary sources&lt;br /&gt;
*  Leonard, David W.  ''Delayed Frontier: The Peace River Country to 1909.''  Calgary, Alta.: Detselig, 1995. 256 pp.&lt;br /&gt;
* Palmer, Howard. ''The Settlement of the West'' (1977) online edition &lt;br /&gt;
* Rennie, Bradford James. ''The Rise of Agrarian Democracy: The United Farmers and Farm Women of Alberta, 1909-1921''. U of Toronto Press, 2000. 282 pp. &lt;br /&gt;
* Gross, Renie. ''Groundwork: Carl Anderson, Farm Crusader.'' Wardlow, Alta.: Badlands Books, 1998. 352 pp.&lt;br /&gt;
* Jackson, Mary Percy. ''Suitable for the Wilds: Letters from Northern Alberta, 1929-1931.'' ed. by Janice Dickin McGinnis, Toronto: U. of Toronto Press, 1995. 264 pp.; a primary source&lt;br /&gt;
* Sharp, Paul F. ''Whoop-up Country: The Canadian-American West, 1865-1885.'' Reprint ed., Norman: U. of Oklahoma Press, 1973. 347pp. primary source&lt;br /&gt;
*  Silverman, Eliane Leslau. ''The Last Best West: Women on the Alberta Frontier  1880-1930.''  Montreal: Eden, 1984. 183 pp.&lt;br /&gt;
* Thompson, John Herd. Forging the Prairie West. (1998) &lt;br /&gt;
*  Voisey, Paul.  ''Vulcan: The Making of a Prairie Community.''  Toronto: U. of Toronto Press, 1987. 341 pp.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Social, ethnic, religion and schools===&lt;br /&gt;
* Byrne, M. B. ''From the Buffalo to the Cross: A History of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Calgary.'' Calgary Archdiocese. 555 pp.&lt;br /&gt;
* Cavanaugh, Catherine A. and Warne, Randi R., ed. ''Standing on New Ground: Women in Alberta.'' U. of Alberta Press, 1993. 202 pp.&lt;br /&gt;
* denOtter, Andy A. ''Civilizing the West: The Galts and the Development of Western Canada.'' U. of Alberta Press, 1981. 395 pp.&lt;br /&gt;
* Flint, David. ''The Hutterites: A Study in Prejudice.'' Oxford U. Press, 1975. 193 pp.&lt;br /&gt;
* Hoe, Ban Seng. ''Structural Changes of Two Chinese Communities in Alberta, Canada.'' Mercury Series, no. 19. Ottawa: Natl. Mus. of Man, Can. Centre for Folk Culture Studies, 1976. 385 pp.&lt;br /&gt;
* McLachlan, Elizabeth. ''With Unshakeable Persistence: Rural Teachers of the Depression Era.'' Edmonton: NeWest, 1999. 187 pp.&lt;br /&gt;
* Palmer, Howard and Palmer, Tamara, eds. ''Peoples of Alberta: Portraits of Cultural Diversity.'' Saskatoon, Sask.: Western Producer Prairie Books, 1985. 551 pp.&lt;br /&gt;
* Palmer, Howard. ''Patterns of Prejudice: A History of Nativism in Alberta.'' McClelland and Stewart, 1982. 217 pp.&lt;br /&gt;
* Scheffel, David. ''In the Shadow of Antichrist: The Old Believers in Alberta.'' Peterborough, Ont.: Broadview, 1991. 252 pp.&lt;br /&gt;
* Stebbins, Robert A. ''The Franco-Calgarians: French Language, Leisure, and Linguistic Life-Style in an Anglophone City.'' U. of Toronto Press, 1994. 152 pp. &lt;br /&gt;
*  Ukrainian Pioneers' Association of Alberta.  Ukrainians in Alberta.  Edmonton: Ukrainian Pioneers' Assoc. of Alberta  (1975) 560 pp.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|2}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== External Links ==&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www1.travelalberta.com/en-ab/index.cfm?country=CA&amp;amp;state=AB&amp;amp;setlocale=1/ Alberta Tourism]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.tourismcalgary.com/ Tourism Calgary]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.traveldrumheller.com/ Travel Drumheller]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.tourismcanmore.com/ Tourism Canmore]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.turnervalley.ca/ Discover Turner Valley]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.town.vulcan.ab.ca/ Vulcan Tourism]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Alberta]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Canadian Provinces]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Tyl110</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Adolf_Hitler&amp;diff=770795</id>
		<title>Adolf Hitler</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Adolf_Hitler&amp;diff=770795"/>
		<updated>2010-04-20T14:13:27Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Tyl110: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[Image:Hitler7.JPG|right|300px|thumb|The [[Evolution|evolutionary]] [[racism|racist]] Adolf Hitler in the 1930s.]]&lt;br /&gt;
'''Adolf Hitler''' was the Austrian-born Chancellor and President of [[Germany]] from January 30, 1933 until his death on April 30, 1945.  He was also the leader (German: ''Der Führer'') of the [[National Socialist German Workers Party]] (''National-sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei'', or [[Nazi]] Party) which gained political power through threat, intimidation, and outright violence throughout Germany in the aftermath of the [[First World War]]. Adolf Hitler was an [[Evolution|evolutionary]] [[racist]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&amp;amp;action=view&amp;amp;ID=268&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Hitler’s policies and beliefs resulted in the [[Genocide|mass extermination]] of the [[Jews]], [[Gypsies]], and other peoples he considered “[[Racial Supremacy|inferior]]” throughout central and eastern [[Europe]] and were directly responsible for the outbreak of [[World War II]], which caused the deaths of untold millions on and off the battlefield and ended only after Hitler's [[suicide]] in his Berlin bunker. He was also well-known to be an [[Atheist]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Early life==&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Hitler Roses.jpg|thumb|Roses by Adolf Hitler.]]&lt;br /&gt;
Hitler was born on April 20, 1889, in Braunau am Inn, [[Austria]].  Hitler's father, Alois (born 1837), was a customs official who was himself born illegitimate, carrying for a time his mother's name, Schicklgruber. By 1876 he had his baptismal entry corrected in his church records, establishing his father as Johan Heidler, which was altered slightly to Hitler.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When his father retired the family moved to Linz, Austria, where it remained a favorite for young Adolf for the rest of his life, and where he gave his wish to be buried.  When Alois died in 1903 he left enough of a pension to support his wife and children; Adolf would take his and live off of it in Vienna after leaving school, dreaming of becoming an artist.  Although somewhat competent as a painter of landscapes and architecture, his renderings of humans were considered “lifeless” and “crude” by the standards of the Academy of Fine Arts, and his application was rejected twice.  Remaining in [[Vienna]], he moved from one cheap flop house to another, painting postcards and advertisements to earn a meager living after his allowance had dried up.  By then he had developed traits which characterized his life as a whole: secretiveness, loneliness, a Spartan mode of everyday life, and a hatred of the cosmopolitan, multinational character that was the makeup of Vienna. ''He never sought a proper job or regular employment. Instead he immersed himself in the works of [[Hegel]], [[Nietzsche]], and the anti-Semitic writings of the Englishman Houston Stewart Chamberlain. He loved the operas of Wagner, and the stories of the Nordic Gods... In early 1910, he entered a shelter for the homeless, populated in the main by poor Jews, on Meldemenstrasse, and was eating at soup kitchens. By this time he had pawned all his belongings. '' &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://socyberty.com/history/young-adolf-the-adolescent-hitler-and-beyond/ Young Adolf: The Adolescent Hitler and Beyond.] &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Who And What He Was==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Elie Wiesel]] wrote famously, and most eloquently about Hitler in 1998:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;At the same time that he terrorized his adversaries, he knew how to please, impress and charm the very interlocutors from whom he wanted support. Diplomats and journalists insist as much on his charm as they do on his temper tantrums. The savior admired by his own as he dragged them into his madness, the Satan and exterminating angel feared and hated by all others, Hitler led his people to a shameful defeat without precedent. That his political and strategic ambitions have created a dividing line in the history of this turbulent and tormented century is undeniable: there is a before and an after. By the breadth of his crimes, which have attained a quasi-ontological dimension, he surpasses all his predecessors: as a result of Hitler, man is defined by what makes him inhuman. With Hitler at the head of a gigantic laboratory, life itself seems to have changed.&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;How did this Austrian without title or position manage to get himself elected head of a German nation renowned for its civilizing mission? How to explain the success of his cheap demagogy in the heart of a people so proud of having inherited the genius of a Wolfgang von Goethe and an Immanuel Kant?&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Was there no resistance to his disastrous projects? There was. But it was too feeble, too weak and too late to succeed. German society had rallied behind him: the judicial, the educational, the industrial and the economic establishments gave him their support. Few politicians of this century have aroused, in their lifetime, such love and so much hate; few have inspired so much historical and psychological research after their death. Even today, works on his enigmatic personality and his cursed career are best sellers everywhere. Some are good, others are less good, but all seem to respond to an authentic curiosity on the part of a public haunted by memory and the desire to understand.&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;We think we know everything about the nefarious forces that shaped his destiny: his unhappy childhood, his frustrated adolescence; his artistic disappointments; his wound received on the front during World War I; his taste for spectacle, his constant disdain for social and military aristocracies; his relationship with [[Eva Braun]], who adored him; the cult of the very death he feared; his lack of scruples with regard to his former comrades of the SA, whom he had assassinated in 1934; his endless hatred of [[Jews]], whose survival enraged him — each and every phase of his official and private life has found its chroniclers, its biographers.&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;And yet. There are, in all these givens, elements that escape us. How did this unstable paranoid find it within himself to impose gigantic hope as an immutable ideal that motivated his nation almost until the end? Would he have come to power if Germany were not going through endless economic crises, or if the winners in 1918 had not imposed on it conditions that represented a national humiliation against which the German patriotic fiber could only revolt? We would be wrong to forget: Hitler came to power in January 1933 by the most legitimate means. His [[Nationalist Socialist Party]] won a majority in the parliamentary elections. The aging [[Field Marshal Paul von Hindenburg]] had no choice but to allow him, at age 43, to form the new government, marking the end of the Weimar Republic. And the beginning of the [[Third Reich]], which, according to Hitler, would last 1,000 years.&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;From that moment on, events cascaded. The burning of the [[Reichstag]] came only a little before the openings of the first concentration camps, established for members of the opposition. Fear descended on the country and squeezed it in a vise. Great writers, musicians and painters went into exile to France and the U.S. Jews with foresight emigrated toward Palestine. The air of Hitler's Germany was becoming more and more suffocating. Those who preferred to wait, thinking that the Nazi regime would not last, could not last, would regret it later, when it was too late.&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;The fact is that Hitler was beloved by his people — not the military, at least not in the beginning, but by the average Germans who pledged to him an affection, a tenderness and a fidelity that bordered on the irrational. It was idolatry on a national scale. One had to see the crowds who acclaimed him. And the women who were attracted to him. And the young who in his presence went into ecstasy. Did they not see the hateful mask that covered his face? Did they not divine the catastrophe he bore within himself?&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;time&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.time.com/time/time100/leaders/profile/hitler.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Cupid Complaining to Venus by Lucas Cranach.jpg|120px|left]]''One of the best-loved paintings in the National Gallery - an exquisite vision of Venus and Cupid by the greatest artist of the Reformation - once belonged to Hitler, it has been revealed. New evidence has come to light that Lucas Cranach's Cupid Complaining to Venus, currently on loan to an exhibition in Bristol, hung on the sitting-room wall of his flat in Munich.'' &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2008/mar/28/art.secondworldwar Hitler owned painting now in National Gallery]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Clear}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===War===&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Hitler munich1914.jpg|right|200px|thumb|Hitler in the crowd in Munich, 1914, reacting to the news of Germany's entry in the First World War.]]&lt;br /&gt;
By 1913 Hitler was in Munich, Germany, with war clouds on the horizon.  Classified as unfit for service in the Austrian army (possibly by faking, as he did not like the thought of serving Austria) in 1914, he volunteered for the German army, joining the 16th Bavarian Reserve Infantry Regiment, greeting the war with enthusiasm, and finding the military discipline and comradeship satisfying.  He served during the entire [[First World War]] as a messenger carrying dispatches between units, and often at the front lines under fire; he was wounded in 1916, and gassed in 1918.  His bravery during this time earned him the [[Iron Cross]], 2nd Class, in December, 1914, and in August 1918 he was awarded the Iron Cross, 1st Class – a rare decoration for a corporal.  But the gassing would take him out of the war and into a hospital, where he would be told the heart-wrenching news of Germany’s defeat the following November.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Path to power==&lt;br /&gt;
After the war ended, Hitler's future seemed uncertain. There was much discontent among demobilized veterans because of the lack of employment. The German military had felt it had not been defeated; indeed, the German Army stood on foreign soil when the Armistice was signed November 11, 1918 and not a square inch of German soil had been occupied. This was despite the fact that the German Army's strongest position, the Hindenburg line, had been broken by the Allies, and the German Army itself was in full retreat. However, the Army felt they had done their job, and the nation had been &amp;quot;stabbed in the back&amp;quot; by a gang of traitors who sought to lay hands on the Fatherland.  The &amp;quot;myth&amp;quot; that Germany had been defeated was the &amp;quot;big lie&amp;quot; Hitler spoke of, as if repeating it often enough would cause people to believe it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After his discharge from the hospital, Hitler acted as an army political agent, assigned in Munich to gather information on the various political parties which had spring up amid the social chaos following Germany’s defeat.  In September, 1919, he was given orders to investigate the relatively-minor German Workers’ Party (''Deutsche Arbeiterpartei''); intrigued by the party’s apparatus and its racial, pan-German nationalism, he joined, becoming its 55th member; he left the army soon after and devoted himself to improving the party’s propaganda, as well as his own position within.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conditions in Germany fostered the development of the party.  Economic woes brought widespread discontent, added to the furor surrounding the loss of the war and the harsh terms heaped upon Germany by the Allied Powers in the Versailles Peace Treaty.  Bavaria’s traditional separatism from the central government in Berlin made current conditions especially sharp, and Hitler was savvy enough to take full advantage of them.  When he joined, he found the party ineffective in leadership and uncertain as to its aims; he accepted the party program, but regarded it as a means to an end.  He caused friction with other members of the party, and their attempts to control him caused a threat of resignation; realizing that the future of the party now depended on Hitler, who clearly had a talent of organization, fund collecting, and above all, speaking, they declined to accept it; from July, 1921 Hitler was regarded as the party leader with nearly unlimited power.  From his party newspaper, ''Völkischer Beobachter'' (“Popular Observer”), he spewed out endless propaganda.  His meetings where he spoke grew from handfuls to hundreds, and then on to thousands.  A man of charismatic personality, he quickly attracted a circle of loyal and devoted followers: Julius Streicher, Alfred Rosenberg, Hermann Göring, and Rudolf Hess.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Munich was also a gathering place for former servicemen dissatisfied with conditions in the country; members of the Freikorps, which had been organized after the war from army units that refused to return to civilian life; and those civilians who plotted against the republic. Many of these men joined the Nazi Party. Among them was a staff member of the district command who had joined the German Workers’ Party before Hitler, Ernst Röhm, a pudgy man with a scared face who saw his own ambition in helping further Hitler’s rise within the party.  Röhm recruited what came to be known as the “Brown Shirts”, the violent squads used to attack socialists and communists, and to protect party meetings whenever Hitler was speaking. By 1921 they were organized into a private army called the ''Sturmabteilung'', abbreviated to S.A.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The Beer Hall Putsch==&lt;br /&gt;
Germany in 1923 was marked by social and political unrest caused by hyperinflation. In this time Hitler was able convince [[Erich Ludendorff]], an accomplished  general and leader of the German forces in the first World War, to join him in a coup d'etat (''Putsch'' in German). When Hitler learned that the nationalist prime minister of Bavaria was giving a speech to 3000 officials in one of Munich's biggest beer halls (the Haufbrau Haus), he ordered his paramilitaries to surround the building. Hitler went inside and took the prime minister hostage, announced a revolution, and attempted to convince him to join the coup against Berlin and become member in his new administration. The Bavarian prime minister agreed under pressure, but informed the nation via radio later that night that he did not support Hitler. The prime minister also informed the federal government in Berlin; the putsch had begun to fail.    &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next morning, 9 November 1923, Hitler and Ludendorff were marching with approximately 2000 partly armed supporters through Munich in a show of strength to regain the momentum. In the ensuing fight between Hitler's marchers and a cordon of police and army units at least 14 Nazi supporters and three policemen were killed and hundreds wounded. Ludendorff handed himself over to the authorities, while Hitler fled soon after the fighting began. Hitler was arrested a few days later at a friend's house, were had been in hiding since the failed coup. Ludendorff was acquitted of all charges, while Hitler was sentenced to 5 years in prison (he would do eight months). &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://history1900s.about.com/cs/thirdreich/a/beerhallputsch_2.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/putsch2.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The Bavarian prime minister, who foiled the plan, was killed in 1934 in the &amp;quot;Night of the Long Knives&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===''Mein Kampf''===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hitler had his inner circle as frequent visitors in his prison cell, which was made more comfortable due to his celebrity.  While there, he dictated to Rudolf Hess the first volume of ''Mein Kampf'' (“My Struggle”), his political autobiography and a compendium of his many ideas.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hitler believed in the inequality of the races, nations, and individuals as part of the natural order of mankind, and chief among them was the exalted “Aryan race”, and the greatest of the Aryans were the Germans.   It was the German, according to Hitler, that gave the world civilization and the arts; to safeguard the German people as a race (the “Volk”), they would need to be united under a single leader (the Führer), where they would be protected from their three principle enemies: Marxism, which included social democracy as well as communism; democracy and its mob-rule, as shown by the failings of the Weimar Republic; and above all what Hitler called the poisoners of humanity, the Jews.  “Rational anti-Semitism must lead to systematic legal opposition,” he wrote in 1919. “Its final objective must be the removal of the Jews altogether.” In Mein Kampf, he told the world that the Jew was the “destroyer of culture,” “a parasite within the nation,” and “a menace.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From &amp;quot;My Struggle&amp;quot;:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|The Jew &amp;quot;... he blares out his merits to the rest of the world until people really begin to believe in them. Anyone who does not believe in them is doing him a bitter injustice. In a short time he begins to twist things around to make it look as if all the injustice in the world had always been done to him and not the other way around.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv1ch11.html Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; }}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote| Hitler portrays Jews as leaders in politics and banking, both groups seeking to strengthen their cause, [[Zionism]], to ensure Jewish domination. From his Social Darwinist perspective, Hitler perceived a racial war as inevitable and he sought to halt the &amp;quot;[[Jewish]] drive towards world conquest&amp;quot;... As Berlin collapsed around him, Adolf asserted: &amp;quot;Out of the ruins of our towns and monuments hatred will grow against those finally responsible for everything, International Jewry.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.historytoday.com/MainArticle.aspx?m=32043&amp;amp;amid=30237234 Mein Kampf – The Text, its Themes and Hitler’s Vision] Robert Carr dissects a book frequently referred to but seldom read. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Rebuilding the Nazi Party==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Hitler.jpg|thumb|200px|right|Hitler speaking; he would often employ physical gesturing to emphasize a point.]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Hitler-3.jpg‎ |right|200px|thumb|Hitler in car, saluting passing S.A. at one of many parades.]]&lt;br /&gt;
Internal dissension within the party caused it to languish while Hitler was in prison.  When he was released he saw difficulties in the country that had not existed before the Putsch, namely currency reform that brought economic stability, and the scaling back of the war reparations as a result of the Dawes Plan.  Hitler was also forbidden to speak in public, which remained in force until 1928; however, he wasn’t about to stop his rebuilding of the party nor of his re-establishing his own position within it as leader, despite Gregor Strasser’s opposition in northern Germany.  By 1927 the number of Nazis was in the hundreds of thousands.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A new period of political and economic instability with the onset of the Great Depression which threw millions out of work in Europe and North America.  To campaign against the [[Young Plan]] (a second renegotiation of war reparations payments) Hitler made an alliance with one of Germany’s leading nationalists, Alfred Hugenberg, whose newspapers enabled Hitler to reach a national audience for the first time. The alliance also had another advantage: it enabled him to seek support from many in business and industry who controlled funds going into politics, and who themselves were desirous of seeing Germany under the control of a strong anti-Soviet and anti-Communist regime.  The subsidies Hitler received placed the Nazy Party on a strong financial footing, enabling him to make his emotional appeal to the lower middle class and the unemployed in his faith that Germany would recover from its suffering and be a great nation once more. The alliance with the industrialists also demonstrated another aspect of Hitler, a skill of effectively using those that would use him, which many would discover when it was too late.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The electoral strength of the Nazis grew during the Depression, as unceasing propaganda accused the government of failing to improve conditions for the working man.  By the fall of 1930 the Nazis captured more than 18 percent of the vote, compared to just 2.6 percent in 1928.  Hitler captured 36.8 percent of the vote when he opposed Paul von Hindenburg in the 1932 presidential election; his mass following put him in such a strong position that he entered a series of closed-door intrigues with Franz von Papen, Oskar Hindenburg, and Otto Meissner, all sharing a fear and loathing of a communist government.  Despite the party losing votes in the November, 1932 election, Hitler insisted on nothing less than the office of chancellor for himself.  For him, it was all or nothing.  Hindenburg offered it to him on January 30, 1933.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==In power==&lt;br /&gt;
Almost immediately, Hitler established himself as dictator.  Less than a month after taking office, on February 27 the Reichstag building was set on fire under mysterious circumstances (but officially blamed on a feeble-minded Dutch communist, Marinus van der Lubbe); Hitler soon after succeeded in getting several decrees passed removing much of the guarantees of freedom in the name of state security, and which also allowed an intensified campaign of violence against dissidents.  Incredibly, in a special election set in those conditions on March 5, the Nazis pulled 43.9 percent of the vote.  On March 21, the new Reichstag assembled at the Potsdam Church, as much a show of unity between the old guard under Hindenburg and the Nazis as it was a show of peace.  Two days later the Enabling Act was passed, giving Hitler full powers; with the exception of the Nazis, all other political parties, including those which had helped pass the Enabling Act, ceased to exist within three months.  Many of their leaders were tossed in concentration camps.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Night of the Long Knives===&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:HitlerRohm1933.JPG|right|200px|thumb|Hitler with Ernst Röhm in 1933]]&lt;br /&gt;
Hitler, however, did not wish to start an immediate revolution.  He still needed the support of the one agency he needed to implement his ideas: the army.  But he did have one growing problem that was a thorn in the army’s side, the million-plus men of the S.A. and their leader, Ernst Röhm, who wanted nothing less than the merger of the S.A. into the army, with himself in overall command.  At first, Hitler tried getting Röhm’s support by persuasion, but Hitler’s inner circle was for removing him by any means possible.  On June 29, 1934, Hitler ordered a purge, flew towards a resort near Munich where a number of S.A. leaders were vacationing, and had them all arrested; many would be shot without trial.  Refusing to shoot himself when offered, Röhm was killed in his cell at Dachau, his last words, ironically, “Mein Führer, mein Führer!” &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/roehm.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.adolfhitler.ws/lib/nsdap/Rohm.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.dhm.de/lemo/html/nazi/innenpolitik/roehm/index.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
On July 13, Hitler gave speech in the Reichstag, announcing that some seventy-four individuals had been shot for threatening the stability of the Reich.&lt;br /&gt;
:''&amp;quot;If anyone reproaches me and asks why I did not resort to the regular courts of justice, then all I can say is this: In this hour I was responsible for the fate of the German people, and thereby I became the supreme judge of the German people…It was no secret that this time the revolution would have to be bloody; when we spoke of it we called it 'The Night of the Long Knives.' Everyone must know for all future time that if he raises his hand to strike the State, then certain death is his lot.&amp;quot; ''&lt;br /&gt;
Hitler also used this event to settle his account with other opponents, such as Georg Strasser, who stood for a more socialist and less racist national socialism, and the former Bavarian prime minister who foiled the Beer Hall Putsch in 1923. Satisfied that the S.A. leadership was thoroughly broken up (thousands of S.A. members were either arrested or killed that night), the army approved of Hitler’s actions.  Hindenburg died a few days later on August 2, and Hitler merged the office of president with the chancellorship, and with it the supreme command of the German armed forces.  During this time the world was slowly recovering economically from the Depression, but it quickened in Germany, coincidently with Hitler’s rise to power.  Taking credit for the recovery made him very popular, bringing him a 90 percent approval rating in a voter  plebiscite that year.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Beginnings of expansion===&lt;br /&gt;
In matters of state, the running of domestic affairs was left to subordinates, which was something Hitler had little attention for. Foreign policy always peaked his interest, in so much as to the advantages of a “Greater Germany”, which was his chief ambition.  The first part of realizing this, according to ''Mein Kampf'', was to be a reunion of the German peoples within Europe; the second would be an expansion of Germany to the east (lebensraum).  Expanding would mean a renewed conflict with the Slavic peoples, whom Hitler intended to serve as slaves to the “New German Order.”  To follow through on his ambitions, he would have to remove Poland and the Soviet Union as countries; France also would have to be stabilized in the west, as she was Germany’s enemy for more than a century.  He counted as possible allies Italy, with its fascist government under [[Benito Mussolini]], and Britain, whom he regarded as having a similar, Teutonic heritage.&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Hitler6-thumb.jpg|right|200px|thumb|Hitler with his dog, Blondie.]]&lt;br /&gt;
Before any of his ambitions could take place, there was one thing he detested which needed immediate removal: the restrictions placed upon Germany by the Treaty of Versailles at the end of World War I.  Posing as a man of peace to allay suspicions, he insisted that he was a champion of Europe wishing only for the removal of the inequalities leveled by the treaty, and  posturing as a shield against Bolshevism.  In October, 1933, he had Germany withdraw from the [[League of Nations]].  The following January he signed a non-aggression treaty with Poland.  His individual repudiations of parts of the treaty were followed by offers of negotiations for new agreements, while maintaining Germany’s limited ambitious nature.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While this was going on, Germany was steadily building up the armed forces.  Rigorous training using wooden guns and trucks marked as “tanks” got needed battlefield training for officers.  Potential fighter pilots began their training in gliders at public demonstrations – Germany, under terms of the treaty, was not allowed an air force – and later they would fly in new civilian stunt planes and transports, which on the drawing board were designed to be rapidly turned into fighters and bombers.  Conscription was introduced in January, 1935, and in June of that year Hitler successfully signed a naval treaty with Britain, giving him rights to a respectable navy; but even while the ink was drying, Germany was secretly building a large U-boat fleet.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The matter of reuniting the German peoples came into being in July, 1934, and here Hitler overreached.  German organizations were covertly aiding Austrian Nazis in the overthrow of their government, culminating in an attempted revolt as well as murdering Chancellor Engelbert Dollfuss.  When the attempt clearly failed, Hitler denied involvement.  In January, 1935, a plebecite was introduced in the Saarland; more than 90 percent voted to return the territory to Germany.  Then in March, 1936, came his greatest slap to the Versailles Treaty: against the advice of his generals, and in open defiance of France and Britain, he ordered troops into the demilitarized Rhineland.  Germany was once again becoming the leading power in continental Europe.  By October, 1936, Germany had signed an alliance with Italy, proclaiming a “Rome-Berlin axis,” followed by the Anti-Comintern Pact with Japan.  All three countries would sign a single, mutual alliance pact, the following year.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Health care in Nazi Germany===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to Michael H. Kater &amp;quot;physicians became Nazified more thoroughly and much sooner than any other profession, and as Nazis they did more in the service of the nefarious regime than any of their extra-professional peers.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://books.google.com/books?id=lDMIHDTLEN4C&amp;amp;pg=PA18&amp;amp;lpg=PA18&amp;amp;dq=Reich+Minister+of+the+Interior%2Bhealth%2Bcivilian+patient&amp;amp;source=bl&amp;amp;ots=2lLhun_7PE&amp;amp;sig=olfzxYKJAswVjjIEqjBcZPKhCXM&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;ei=3D2MSsrZAZGeMLeq7JMO&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;oi=book_result&amp;amp;ct=result&amp;amp;resnum=7#v=onepage&amp;amp;q=&amp;amp;f=false Doctors Under Hitler] By Michael H. Kater, pp. 4-5.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://books.google.com/books?id=NnPBlkKk8AQC&amp;amp;pg=PA110&amp;amp;lpg=PA110&amp;amp;dq=physicains+became+nazified+much+thoroughly+and+sooner&amp;amp;source=bl&amp;amp;ots=sWUPklUojC&amp;amp;sig=fAJrGFwHYn-0gJDKPWLERHikAY4&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;ei=GUaMStjmKIfaNb66rZMO&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;oi=book_result&amp;amp;ct=result&amp;amp;resnum=1#v=onepage&amp;amp;q=&amp;amp;f=false Atrocities on trial: historical perspectives on the politics of prosecuting war crimes]&lt;br /&gt;
By Patricia Heberer, Jürgen Matthäus], p. 110.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/bulletin_of_the_history_of_medicine/v073/73.1marrus.html The Nuremberg Doctors' Trial in Historical Context] Michael Robert Marrus, Bulletin of the History of Medicine,Volume 73, Number 1, Spring 1999, pp. 106-123, E-ISSN: 1086-3176 Print ISSN: 0007-5140 [http://www.faculty.umb.edu/gary_zabel/Courses/Moral%20Issues%20in%20Medicine/Human%20Experimentation/Nuremberg%20Doctors%27%20Trial.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  After 1933, physicians joined the Nazi Party in greater numbers than did any other profession. By 1935, almost a third of the non-Jewish German physicians belonged to the Nazi Party. From 1925 to 1944, the per cent of doctors in the party was almost three times as high as in the population as a whole. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Michael H. Kater, ‘’The Nazi Party: A Social Profile of Members and Leaders 1919-1945’’. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1983.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The National Association of Sickness Fund Physicians [http://healthcare-economist.com/2008/04/24/health-care-around-the-world-germany/] was established in 1933 as a national bargaining unit to replace the numerous, more local, associations with which sickness funds had negotiated in the past. Thus, several thousand sickness funds were forced to deal with a single organization, or [[single payer]], that held a legal monopoly over medical services. The drive by the medical profession to transform the organization and delivery of [[health care]] services from self-governing sickness funds to physician-controlled services was complete.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.ajph.org/cgi/reprint/76/1/78.pdf Social Medicine vs Professional Dominance: The German Experience], Donald W. Light, PhD, Stephan Liebfried, PhD, and Floran Tennstedt, PhD.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Anschluss==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Removed from their offices in January 1938 were Hjalmar Schacht (economic ministry); Werner von Fritsch (soldiers’ representative); and Konstantin von Neurath (foreign office); the reason being was they were not fully accepting of Nazism.  Beginning his plans of German conquest, he started with Austria.  Kurt von Schuschnigg, the Austrian chancellor, was invited to Berchtesgaden in February, where he was browbeaten and forced to sign an agreement placing Austrian Nazis in the government.   When Schuschnigg resisted and announced a plebiscite for Austrian voters concerning independence, Hitler ordered German troops into Austria, completely taking over the country within days.  His return to Vienna was in triumph; enthusiastic crowds greeted him by the tens of thousands, in sharp contrast to the scenes of privation he had gone through there in his youth.  Austria was annexed (Anschluss) to the Reich a short time later.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While the Anschluss was going on, Hitler was speaking in friendly terms with Czechoslovakia; nearly as soon as Austria ceased to exist, Hitler proceeded with his plans against the Czechs.  The northwestern region of Czechoslovakia was the Sudetenland, inhabited by a German minority, and the leader of them, Konrad Henlein, was instructed to make impossible demands for those Germans on the Czech government.  In the interest of preventing a general war (which Hitler wanted), Mussolini and British prime minister Neville Chamberlain concluded a peaceful agreement in Munich on September 30, giving Hitler the Sudetenland without firing a shot.  Chamberlain would return to Britain, waving the agreement signed between himself and Hitler, declaring it to be “peace for our time”, but his act of appeasement would ensure the peace would last only a few more months.  Despite assurances that the Sudetenland was his last territorial demands, “Czechia”, as the remainder of Czechoslovakia was called, became a German protectorate on March 15, 1939, when Hitler ordered it occupied.  Just over a week later, Lithuania was forced to cede to Germany the territory of Memel (Klaipeda), on the border of East Prussia.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Poland==&lt;br /&gt;
Poland’s turn was next, and listening to the rumblings was France and Britain, which signed guarantees of mutual assistance to the Polish nation should it be attacked by Germany.  Hitler also signed pacts: a “Pact of Steel” with Italy, strengthening the alliance between Rome and Berlin, and then a treaty that caught many off-guard: a non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union on August 23.  A secret clause in the pact allowed for the simultaneous invasion of Poland, and the division of the country in the center from north to south.  Poland was invaded on September 1; two days later, Britain and France declared war on Germany.   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hitler assumed his own war strategy.  Poland was conquered within weeks, and when a desired peace accord with Britain failed to materialize, he ordered the army to prepare for a western offensive.  Norway was invaded and occupied, forestalling a British move on that country; Denmark was occupied by April, 1940.  Hitler than adopted General Erich von Manstien’s plan for an offensive against France itself, which would move through neutral Belgium’s Ardenne Forest on May 10, taking that country as a matter of convenience, as well as avoiding the static fortifications of France’s Maginot Line.  The German forces, extremely successful in their operations, reached the coastal ports on the English Channel in 10 days; Holland and Belgium both surrendered within days.  But south of Dunkirk was where the army was ordered to halt.  Hitler had hoped even at this stage in the battle that Britain would commit to peace; instead, the halting of the German army allowed the British to remove 170,000 fighting men.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On June 10, Italy entered the war as German tanks were sweeping across northern France.  Hitler signed an armistice with France on June 22, the signing taking place in the same rail car at the same site where the Germans surrendered in 1918.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Having failed in getting the British to sign an armistice, Hitler prepared his forces for “Operation Sea Lion,” the invasion of Britain. However, the Luftwaffe was defeated in its attempt to gain air superiority over British airspace, also known as the Battle Of Britain, which forced the permanent postponement of Sealion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Facing the failure of the British to give in, Hitler started to prepare to double-cross his erstwhile partner in the Poland conquest, Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Union.  Then Mussolini invaded Greece, got bogged down in the Balkans, and the threat loomed that he would lose his whole army there.  Hitler found it necessary to come to his aid, while at the same time taking direct control of Yugoslavia in the wake of the overthrow of the pro-Nazi government.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Barbarossa==&lt;br /&gt;
The attack on Soviet Russia began June 22, 1941.  Rapid in its advancement, the German army captured a large swath of territory between the Baltic and Black seas, and captured close to 3,000,000 prisoners.  But Hitler, already micro-managing military operations, became overbearing to his generals; he preferred to go after many targets, while his generals argued for a single objective.  A few miles in front of Moscow, the German army was halted by a Russian offensive in December, as well as something he had absolutely no control over: the severe Russian winter.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the lands already occupied by German forces, S.S. chief Heinrich Himmler was preparing the ground for Hitler’s new German order.  Expelling the Jews from Germany was the first step, and this was carried out by laws and decrees beginning in 1933; the Germans would switch to outright force in 1939, as Jews were first deported en-masse to Poland, then walled into ghettos after the occupation began.  By 1941, a policy crafted under S.S. general Reinhard Heydrich had changed expulsion for extermination in what was called &amp;quot;a final solution to the Jewish question&amp;quot; (''die Endlösung der Judenfrage'').  The system of concentration camps was supplemented by the creation of specialized killing centers in the occupied countries, especially in Poland, where camps such as Auschwitz, Treblinka, Sobibor, and Belzac “processed” thousands of victims daily.  Some six million Jews died during what was called the [[Holocaust]], as well as an additional five million Slavs, Gypsies, the handicapped, the aged, and many others that the Nazis considered “subhuman” in accordance with German racial policies.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/burns.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Beginning of the end==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Adolf_hitler6.jpg‎ |right|200px|thumb|Hitler in 1944, by now looking tired and strained.]]&lt;br /&gt;
Hitler grew increasingly strained by the end of 1942, depending on large amounts of drugs supplied by his physician, Theodor Morell, as a result of the twin defeats of El Alamein (which he lost the bulk of his Afrika corps to British general Montgomery), and Stalingrad (where he lost an entire army of 250,000 men to the Russians).  He spent more time in his headquarters in East Prussia, and his time in the public eye ceased to exist.  He refused to visit bombed German cities, and, as with Stalingrad, refused to allow German armies to withdraw from the battlefield when the situation was lost.  Still, he could make stunning, decisive decisions when called for, such as the commando raid that resulted in the rescue of Benito Mussolini from Italian partisans in July, 1943.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the defeat of Germany in the war was looming closer.  Hitler’s relations with his leading commanders grew strained, the more so as he allowed units of the S.S. to take positions traditionally held by the army.  The line at the eastern front was slowly being pushed back by the Soviets, while in the Atlantic his U-boats campaign had faltered.  German cities were constantly being bombed, and a successful invasion on the Normandy coast of France in June, 1944 marked the beginning of the end.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Assassination attempt===&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:NWT Hitler dead.jpg|left|200px|thumb|Hitler's death as covered by the ''New York Times'', May 2, 1945.]]&lt;br /&gt;
Seeing Germany’s chances of surviving the war were desperate, a group of officers plotted to assassinate Hitler, planning several attempts in 1943-44, but nearly successful on July 20, 1944, when a bomb hidden in a briefcase by Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg went off under a table that Hitler and others were leaning over; four were killed outright, several suffered injuries, but Hitler escaped relatively unharmed (the bomb itself was set down away from Hitler behind a solid oak table leg, saving him).  The conspirators were quickly rounded up; Stauffenberg was shot.  The remainder were put on show trials and condemned to hang on meat hooks with piano wire.  It was said that Hitler enjoyed watching film of their executions.  As a result of the bomb, Nazi members were employed at key positions within the army, removing any trace of the army’s independence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Within months nearly all of the territory occupied by Germany was now in Allied hands.  A last offensive in December, 1944 to take the port of Antwerp, Belgium, failed.  Hitler had by them grown ill; his hopes for a German victory bordered on the fantastical and the imagination.  By January, 1945 he had moved into his command bunker in Berlin, where he gave orders deploying fictional divisions to counter the ever-closer Soviets.  When all seemed lost, he gave out his final orders: first, appointing Admiral Karl Dönitz as head of the state and his successor, and Josef Goebbels as chancellor; and second, dictating his last political will which was an attempt to justify his life’s work.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On April 29, he committed the one truly-chivalrous act of his life: he married Eva Braun, his long-time mistress.  After retiring to his room in the bunker the next day, Eva took poison, and Hitler put a bullet in his head.  In accordance with his wishes, both bodies were burned.  His Third Reich would outlive him for another week.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Elie Wiesel]] wrote the following in [[Time Magazine]] regarding Hitler: &lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Adolf Hitler or the incarnation of absolute evil; this is how future generations will remember the all-powerful Fuehrer of the criminal Third Reich. Compared with him, his peers [[Mussolini]] and [[Franco]] were novices. Under his hypnotic gaze, humanity crossed a threshold from which one could see the abyss. &amp;quot;Before Hitler, we thought we had sounded the depths of human nature,&amp;quot; argues Ron Rosenbaum, author of &amp;quot;Explaining Hitler.&amp;quot; &amp;quot;He showed how much lower we could go, and that's what was so horrifying. It gets us wondering not just at the depths he showed us but whether there is worse to come. The power of Hitler was to confound the modernist notion that judgments about good and [[evil]] were little more than matters of taste, reflections of social class and power and status. Although some modern scholars drive past the notion of evil and instead explain Hitler's conduct as a reflection of his childhood and self-esteem issues, for most survivors of the 20th century he is confirmation of our instinctive sense that evil does exist. It moves among us; it leads us astray and deploys powerful, subtle weapons against even the sturdiest souls.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;time&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Hitler and the Theory of Evolution==&lt;br /&gt;
''For more information please see:'' [[Evolutionary racism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Hitlerrisetopower.jpg|right|225px|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
The staunch [[evolution|evolutionist]] Stephen Gould admitted the following: &lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|[[Ernst Haeckel|[Ernst] Haeckel]] was the chief apostle of evolution in [[Germany]].... His evolutionary racism; his call to the German people for racial purity and unflinching devotion to a &amp;quot;just&amp;quot; state; his belief that harsh, inexorable laws of evolution ruled human civilization and nature alike, conferring upon favored races the right to dominate others; the irrational mysticism that had always stood in strange communion with his brave words about objective science - all contributed to the rise of Nazism. -  Stephen J. Gould, &amp;quot;Ontogeny and Phylogeny,&amp;quot; Belknap Press: Cambridge MA, 1977, pp.77-78).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/social.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In regards to evolutionary racism, Hitler wrote the following in his work ''[[Mein Kampf]]'':&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|The Germans were the higher race, destined for a glorious evolutionary future. For this reason it was essential that the [[Jew]]s should be segregated, otherwise mixed marriages would take place. Were this to happen, all nature’s efforts “to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being may thus be rendered futile.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1675&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200601.txt ''Mein Kampf,'' from Project Gutenberg Australia]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hitler also wrote in ''Mein Kampf'':&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he, after all, is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development (Hoherentwicklung) of organic living beings would be unthinkable.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&amp;amp;action=view&amp;amp;ID=268&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Robert E.D. Clark wrote in his work ''Darwin, Before and After'' the following regarding Hitler and the theory of evolution: “Adolf Hitler’s mind was captivated by evolutionary teaching — probably since the time he was a boy. Evolutionary ideas — quite undisguised — lie at the basis of all that is worst in Mein Kampf — and in his public speeches”.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;courier&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/the_holocaust_why_did_it_happen&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:5712dawkins.jpg|alt=Richard Dawkins|right|thumbnail|200px|[[Richard Dawkins]] is a prominent [[atheism|atheist]] and [[evolution|evolutionist]]. [[Richard Dawkins]] stated in an interview: “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://byfaithonline.com/page/in-the-world/richard-dawkins-the-atheist-evangelist&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  ]]&lt;br /&gt;
Richard Hickman in his work ''Biocreation'' concurs and wrote the following:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|It is perhaps no coincidence that Adolf Hitler was a firm believer in and preacher of evolutionism. Whatever the deeper, profound, complexities of his [[psychosis]], it is certain that [the concept of struggle was important for]. . . his book, Mein Kampf clearly set forth a number of evolutionary ideas, particularly those emphasizing struggle, survival of the fittest and extermination of the weak to produce a better society. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creationism.org/csshs/v08n3p24.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Noted evolutionary [[anthropology|anthropologist]] Sir [[Arthur Keith]] conceded the following in regards to Hitler: “The German Fuhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practices of Germany conform to the theory of evolution”.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;courier&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Pulitzer Prize]]-winning author [[Marilynne Robinson]] wrote the following regarding Hitler's racism in the November 2006 issue of ''[[Harper’s]]'' magazine:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|While it is true that persecution of the Jews has a very long history in [[Europe]], it is also true that science in the twentieth century revived and absolutized persecution by giving it a fresh rationale — Jewishness was not religious or cultural, but genetic. Therefore no appeal could be made against the brute fact of a Jewish grandparent.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Richard Dawkins|[Richard] Dawkins]] deals with all this in one sentence. Hitler did his evil &amp;quot;in the name of ... an insane and unscientific [[eugenics]] theory.&amp;quot; But eugenics is science as surely as totemism is religion. That either is in error is beside the point. Science quite appropriately acknowledges that error should be assumed, and at best it proceeds by a continuous process of criticism meant to isolate and identify error. So bad science is still science in more or less the same sense that bad religion is still religion. That both of them can do damage on a huge scale is clear. The prestige of both is a great part of the problem, and in the modern period the credibility of anything called science is enormous. As the history of eugenics proves, science at the highest levels is no reliable corrective to the influence of cultural prejudice but is in fact profoundly vulnerable to it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is indeed historical precedent in the [[Spanish Inquisition]] for the notion of hereditary Judaism. But the fact that the worst religious thought of the sixteenth century can be likened to the worst scientific thought of the twentieth century hardly redounds to the credit of science.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://solutions.synearth.net/2006/10/20&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/someone-finally-said-it-dawkinss-hysterical-scientism/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Evolution|Evolutionist]] and [[atheism|atheist]] [[Richard Dawkins]] stated in an interview: “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://byfaithonline.com/page/in-the-world/richard-dawkins-the-atheist-evangelist&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The interviewer wrote, regarding the Hitler comment, &amp;quot;I was stupefied. He had readily conceded that his own [[philosophy|philosophical]] position did not offer a rational basis for moral judgments. His intellectual honesty was refreshing, if somewhat disturbing on this point.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://byfaithonline.com/page/in-the-world/richard-dawkins-the-atheist-evangelist&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Adolf Hitler and Abortion ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''For more information see:'' [[Abortion and Adolf Hitler]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1942 Adolf Hitler declared:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|In view of the large families of the Slav native population, it could only suit us if girls and women there had as many abortions as possible. We are not interested in seeing the non-[[German]] population multiply…We must use every means to instill in the population the idea that it is harmful to have several children, the expenses that they cause and the dangerous effect on woman's health… It will be necessary to open special institutions for abortions and doctors must be able to help out there in case there is any question of this being a breach of their professional ethics. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/sep/07090708.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== External links ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Hitler Siegestor Munich Victory Gate.jpg|thumb|Watercolor of the Arch of Triumph in Munich by Hitler.]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.eucontest.org/go.php?pdf=www1.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft%20Word%20-%201994.pdf Extracts From Mein Kampf by Hitler]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/ Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler.] Full text.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.snyderstreasures.com/pages/hartworks.htm Adolf Hitler ORIGINAL Watercolor Artworks.]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Further reading==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.ushmm.org/research/doctors/medical.htm STATE MEDICAL SERVICES OF THE THIRD REICH], FROM THE OPENING STATEMENT BY TELFORD TAYLOR,  Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10. Nuremberg, October 1946–April 1949. Washington, D.C.: U.S. G.P.O, 1949–1953.] Retrieved from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|2}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Sources==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;*[http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/h/hitler-adolf/oss-papers/text/profile-index.htmlA Psychological Analysis of Adolf Hitler, His Life and Legend], Walter C. Langer, Office of Strategic Services, Washington, D.C.&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{DEFAULTSORT: Hitler, Adolf}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Dictators]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Mass Murderers]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Nazis]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Evolutionists]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Totalitarianism]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Anti-Semitism]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:German History]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:World War II]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Evolutionary Racists]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Tyl110</name></author>
	</entry>
</feed>