How can one guy get so much so wrong? And embarrassingly do so at the top of his lungs ? Skeptico reminds me of concrete – his mind is all mixed up and set solid. He adamantly and persistently disputes that two directly conflicting claims in the same argument is a logical error. Skeptico: “Contradiction is not a fallacy, otherwise you’d never be able to disagree with anyone…” That type of fallacy is widely recognized, even by young children, and goes by the name “Contradiction,” “Internal Contradiction” or “Self Contradiction” http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#contradiction or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contradiction But not according to Skeptico. There is no such fallacy. I guess his arguments are consistent in one odd way– he finds no logical problem with his own numerous contradicting claims. He also insists there is no inherent logic problem with ambiguous key terms in an argument. He then accuses me of not defining “science” as I properly insist that the Genetically Modified food defender do when claiming there is a “war on science.” So I agreed, in writing, that I had not adequately clarified my terms, “difference between me and Eisen and Skeptico is that I am always happy to correct my errors; to help define and explain any terms I use that are unclear. (My use of the ambiguous term “science” is available here.)” and then took responsibility for correcting the ambiguity and wrote up a page with my definitions of what I mean by the term “science” when I use it – http://daviddilworth.com/pol/references/what-do-i-mean-by-science/ (Fasten your seatbelts for a guy who can’t take “yes” for an answer.) Well that wasn’t good enough. Skeptico then falsely accused me of lying that my definitions for my uses of the term “science” had been there for a long time (Wrong there is no such claim, in fact the text indicates the opposite) and then trying to cover up and lie about it. So because he misunderstood what I wrote - he claims it’s a lie; a deliberate, knowing misstatement of fact. Of course that is false. I could have written it clearer, and will add the word “now” the article to help so it will read -- “difference between me and Eisen and Skeptico is that I am always happy to correct my errors; to help define and explain any terms I use that are unclear. (My use of the ambiguous term “science” is now available here.)” Or maybe what I wrote was ambiguous and had more than one possible meaning for the same sentence. Its hard to keep from laughing because he takes himself and his myopic delusions so seriously. So now he can read my definitions, but Skeptico refuses to give his definitions for what the term “science” in the phrase “war on science” means to him. We can now add double-standards to Skeptico's list of logic errors.

To see David's response you may read the article “Skeptico’s Misconstruction of Basic Logical Fallacies – while Spreading his own Fallacy Fog” http://daviddilworth.com/pol/skepticos-absurd-misconstruction-of-basic-logical-fallacies-while-spreading-his-own-fallacy-fog/