Grading CSICOP

"From the fringe-science wing, readers may choose from..." (books arguing for Atlantis) and "To readers looking for a more grounded, skeptical discussion, I strongly recommend..." (for books arguing against Atlantis). "Unfortunately these cranks and several scholars agree on the second possibility,..." [that Atlantis is a blend of fact, fiction, and error].

Logical Fallacy (ad hominem): Perhaps not as blatant as with other writers, the ad hominem is not entirely subtle. The word "fringe" applied to books arguing for Atlantis, suggests something negative about those books, rather than arguing on the facts. The use of the word "unfortunately" with regard to those who support the possible past reality of Atlantis, is an unfortunate choice of words that conveys the writer's distaste for that point of view, but says nothing about the specific merits or demerits involved.

"But the more that Plato's dates, location, and other details are changed, the less stands to be proven about the truth of Atlantis. It becomes as ridiculous as arguing that a missing Victorian house in Hackensack, New Jersey was really a Spanish Villa in Mexico City all along, QED."

Bravo! Excellent point.

"Then we need to examine the legend in the context of its literary source: as the sequel dialogue to the Republic of Plato."

Logical Fallacy (non sequitur): No judgments about Atlantis can be made based on the "context of the literary source." If the author, Kevin Christopher, is implying that there is something about the relationship between the "Atlantis" dialogues and Plato's "Republic" that disproves Atlantis as a real place, then that same "logic" should be applicable to every location mentioned in the dialogues. However, such a conclusion does not follow the premise. Egypt, Gadira, Tyrrhenian Sea and Libya are real places mentioned in Timaeus. This fact does not prove Atlantis was real, but by the same token Mr. Christopher's "context" does not disprove Atlantis, either.

"Before Plato, there are absolutely no references in any literature anywhere to the alleged civilization-an absence from the literary and mythological traditions of ancient Greece that speaks volumes."

Logical Fallacy (argument to ignorance): Lack of knowledge by earlier Greeks of the story of Atlantis does not disprove Atlantis. I don't know anything about Mr. Christopher's first childhood pet, but that doesn't disprove that it ever existed. And Mr. Christopher seems not to be sufficiently familiar with Plato's story of Atlantis, because the Greek philosopher explains why the ancient Greeks knew nothing about Atlantis. As the elder priest of Saïs told Solon, the ancient Greeks were all "young in mind" and possessed no knowledge "hoary with age." Just as the Middle Age Europeans had forgotten about the wisdom of the ancient Greeks, that did not mean that such wisdom never existed. That wisdom merely needed to be recovered from the Islamic world which happened to be in their Golden Age.

"Cranks who argue that the Atlantis tale is a sort of treasure map to some undiscovered country beneath the waves..." and "Unfortunately Schliemann often serves as the poster child for isolated cranks who draw hope from his success."

Logical Fallacy (ad hominem). Mr. Christopher uses "crank(s)" five times in his article. From a purely logical standpoint, that is five times too many. I could just as easily talk about the arrogance of some scientists who assume they know the truth of something without full investigation. Mr. Christopher's example of Schliemann and Troy is but one of many examples of such scientific arrogance. Scientists were certain that many stories were purely myth only to be proven wrong at a later date. Among those stories are Minoan Crete, Mycenaean Greece, Amazon warriors and the true "island" of Odysseus. The fact that these myths have all been proven to be based on real places, people and events says nothing about proving Atlantis. The fact that people may draw inspiration from these discoveries, despite what the naysayers would have had us believe, has nothing to do with disproving Atlantis. This same attitude of arrogance crippled North American anthropology for many years as the "Clovis first" dogma held valid discoveries in ridicule.

"There are important distinctions between Homer's Troy and Plato's Atlantis: the obvious one is that the ruins of Troy have been found where Homer said they were: the proof is in the pudding."

Logical Fallacy (argument to ignorance): The author makes a good point about Troy, but the implication that Atlantis doesn't exist because the ruins have not been found is based on a logical fallacy. Finding Troy was also comparatively easy compared to finding Atlantis where Plato said it was. If Plato's Atlantis existed, its remains are likely underneath 1–3 kilometers of ocean water. A lot of work needs to be done to disprove Atlantis. It is feasible, but it could turn out to be prohibitively expensive. To be blunt, the past reality of Troy has nothing to do with the argument for or against Atlantis. And, if Mr. Christopher's "cranks" should not use Schliemann's Troy as putative proof of Atlantis, he should not use it as disproof, either (a bit of "non sequitur" humor).

"Also, the Iliad and its heroes are part of a mythic tradition that suffused Greek art and culture.... There is even solid evidence that Iliad (and its companion work, the Odyssey) themselves have deep roots into the past."

Logical Fallacy (non sequitur, argument to ignorance): The author implies that because the Iliad and the Odyssey were part of longstanding Greek culture and Atlantis wasn't that this disproves Atlantis. It proves no such thing.

"There is no evidence to show that tales of Atlantis were handed down through generations from an age long before Plato."

Logical Fallacy (non sequitur, argument to ignorance): Again, Mr. Christopher is implying that because the ancient Greeks did not have a long tradition about Atlantis, it did not exist. How many paleontologists have made first-of-a-kind discoveries? How many archaeologists? How many anthropologists? Because we never knew about those things before they were discovered, that proves they never existed? And again, Mr. Christopher forgets the fact that the Atlantis story was a recent import from Egypt and one not widely distributed.

"However, the priests of Saïs — as Plato's character Critias tells — insisted that the Atlantean-Athenian war was waged some 8,000 years before Solon's lifetime-circa 9,000 b.c.: far older than any evidence modern archeologists have thus far found for civilization in the Mediterranean Basin, or anywhere in the world for that matter."

Error in fact: Plato says that the Atlantean-Athenian war raged some 9,000 years before Solon's visit (not 8,000 years before Solon's lifetime).

Logical Fallacy (argument to ignorance): The lack of proof does not disprove a thesis. When Mr. Christopher wrote his article (September, 2001 is the date at the top of the web page), perhaps the ruins at Göbekli Tepe, Turkey had not yet been dated. Those ruins are recognized as the oldest man-made place of worship yet discovered, dating to circa 9,500 BCE. As of 2009, only about 5% of the site's total area has been excavated. Excavations have been conducted since 1994 by the German Archaeological Institute and a Turkish museum. Had this site not yet been discovered, Mr. Christopher's statement would still suffer from the same logical fallacy. The discovery of Göbekli Tepe only emphasizes this point.

"Beyond any doubt, there simply were no Egyptian writing, no Egyptian priests, nor any Egyptian civilization 11,000 years ago."

Logical Fallacy (argument to ignorance): Mr. Christopher is not omniscient. All of the locations in Egypt have not yet been excavated. What we do not know, we do not know, despite what Mr. Christopher claims. His assertion is that there is no doubt Egyptian civilization did not exist 11,000 years ago. I am skeptical of that assertion. Isn't Mr. Christopher abandoning his own skepticism by making such an absolute claim? Some Atlantis enthusiasts are equally certain Atlantis existed because it has not been disproven. Both views are logically fallacious (arguments to ignorance).

"...and finally this Critias, now a grown man, recounts the tale for Socrates and his guests in a semi-fictional dialogue recorded by Plato."

Unsupported claim: Mr. Christopher calls the talk covered by the two dialogues, Timaeus and Critias, was "semi-fictional." On what does he base this assertion? Without specific facts to back this up, it can only be taken as opinion.

"The Atlantis legend — if you believe Plato's provenance — seems quite a stretch to lend credibility to a story about the distant past."

Speculation: Mr. Christopher states here that this "seems quite a stretch." If he is implying that because the story passed through so many hands before reaching Plato, the story might not be true, he makes a good point. Many things could have happened to a story with so many transfers. And, of course, we do not know for certain that the string of characters in the provenance for the story ever really heard the story of Atlantis. If Mr. Christopher implies that this somehow means the story of Atlantis is false, then he would be committing another logical fallacy (argument to ignorance).

"The power of any possible proof that Atlantis existed depends on sticking to definitions, especially Plato's."

Bravo, again! Well put.

"...and until a large submerged island is found in the Atlantic with ruins of an ancient seafaring civilization that existed 11,000 years ago, the skeptic can comfortably assume that Atlantis never existed."

Logical Fallacy (non sequitur and argument to ignorance): The "comfortably assume" does not follow the premise. Mr. Christopher apparently assumes that "skeptic" means restraint from accepting the "Atlantis is real" thesis. Perhaps this definition needs to be broadened to include restraint from jumping to any unsupported conclusions, including restraint from accepting the "Atlantis is false" thesis. Neither thesis has been proven.

"Plato's Purpose in Writing the Atlantis Myth"

Unproven Assertion: This entire section is opinion about Plato's purpose for including Atlantis. Plato's use of the "noble lie" in other instances says nothing about the validity of Atlantis, except that such designation is possible. The assertion has not been proven, and likewise, this does not disprove Atlantis.

"There is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that Atlantis represented any real place at any time.... All of the evidence points to the story being one of Plato's noble lies: useful fictions used to make a point, not to refer to the past."

Falsehood: There is a great deal of evidence to indicate that Plato's Atlantis existed right where he said it did. This evidence is not conclusive any more than Mr. Christopher's evidence. The evidence on this website shows that a large island likely existed right where Plato said it did. The geological mechanisms for both the creation and destruction of Atlantis are understood and fit the same location. There is also evidence of an Atlantis-sized landmass subsiding somewhere in the oceans of Earth at exactly the time Plato gives for the subsidence of Atlantis. Blind skepticism can be just as bad as blind enthusiasm. Both prevent the person from looking any further than their own fixed ideas.

The author, Kevin Christopher, states, "Yet all the evidence shows, I will argue, that Plato's Atlantis account is beyond a reasonable doubt entirely fictional." This is a strong assertion, but not backed up by facts as presented. Please try again.

Donate to Mission: Atlantis

Help continue the research!