There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff—we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity. |
Fighting pseudoscience isn't free. We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $10, $20 or whatever you can today with ![]() ![]() |
Talk:Ad hoc
"hastily constructed"[edit]
I know that "hastily constructed" is how this is often explained, but for me, it's more a explanation that doesn't really match what it's trying to explain. I guess that phrase always is odd, as the speed at which an argument is made should have little to do with its validity. talk 03:11, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- Very correct. I noticed this problem and changed the article to be more enlightening. Brianpansky (talk) 05:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Noah's ark as example of ad hoc (removed)[edit]
In theory, noah's ark could indeed float, based on scientific modelling and our current understanding of measurements.
In their study, students decided on an average length for their calculations: 48.2 centimeters. This means that, by their approximations, the ark would have been 144.6 meters long, 24.1 meters wide, and 14.46 meters tall—the size of a very small cargo ship. They went with cypress wood, though pine and cedar wood have similar densities. Using the density of cypress, they calculated the weight of this hypothetical ark: 1,200,000 kilograms (by comparison the Titanic weighed about 53,000,000 kilograms). Based on the density of sea water, they figured out that an empty box-shaped ark would float with it's hull only dipping 0.34 meters into the water.
- From the study itself;
"Therefore, regardless of which figure is correct, we believe the ark to be of sufficient buoyancy. Of course, this does not conclude whether logistically Noah’s ark was possible, it remains to be concluded if the size of the boat is sufficient to house all the animals."
- It clearly wasn't. Now, watch this instead. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:30, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Piecemeal rebuttal[edit]
I added a section for piecemeal rebuttals, but I'm unsure if there's a better article for it (perhaps something that already describes it), or if it's deserving of its own. Since the arguments are by definition ad-hoc, I figured this is the closest match: Gish gallop is related but that's more about overwhelming the opponent. This is more on the side of having a poor rebuttal for everything. Countless counterfeits fallacy is more about the goal to make the arguments seem valid and the position to validate those poor arguments: "surely it can't all be false". I see 'piecemeal rebuttal' emphasizes the fact the arguments result in an incompatible mess. If I'm mixing up terminology, I'd very much like to be corrected. --Nomoresecrets (talk) 02:48, 4 February 2025 (UTC)