Grading the Atlantis Skeptics

The myth of Atlantis may ultimately prove to have been merely an exciting fiction, or it may one day stand as the biggest breakthough in human history. Currently, we do not have enough proof either way. For too many years, the debate about Atlantis has been poorly done by too many participants. Some who are skeptical of the past possible reality of Atlantis have grown arrogant, abusive and sloppy. It does not need to be that way. I hope there are some intelligent, civilized skeptics who are more interested in truth than ego. So, here I up the stakes. Here I grade some of the skeptics on their arguments against Atlantis. Some may take the challenge the wrong way. I hope not. I hope each will see the potential value in escalating the debate, critiquing points of argument, rather than dishing out ad hominem attacks and gratuitous abuse. The search for answers deserves far better.

The grades given below range from D+ to F for skeptical arguments against Atlantis. One of the better articles comes from the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSICOP). The writer for CSICOP had a fairly good handle on form and creativity, but used too much ridicule and failed to build a solid case.

The Atlantis Challenge

If you know of a good argument against Atlantis, please let me know. Here is the challenge. I want to give someone an "A" on this. Why? Because a worthy argument against Atlantis will challenge me to strengthen my arguments and make them better. And that may help Mission Atlantis find the proof or disproof that all would require in solving the Atlantis puzzle. So, bring it on. Take your best shot. If you find a great article arguing against Atlantis, please let me know about it, and if you can, send me a copy or a URL.

Do you want an idea what skepticism should be like? Besides ceasing the use of ad hominem ridicule, and adding the use of better logical argument, there may need to be a paradigm shift. See my blog article, Skeptic's Confusion and a New Paradigm for Science, for details.

And to be fair, I welcome any skeptic to grade the material on this website. If they include specific points of reasoning behind their grades, I may include their write-ups on this website. Such grading should be done with the same reasoned, respectful form given for the grades, below. I welcome constructive criticism.

Grading Methodology

Grades were given based largely on the strength of the logical arguments made directly against Atlantis based on points of fact (not opinion or speculation). Minor points were given for creativity, but these, in many cases, could not overcome the damage from the use of logical fallacies. Errors of form were not usually taken as seriously as errors of substance. Major points were taken away for the use of ad hominem ridicule, especially if such appeal to emotion was blatant. For websites, if the author included replies to reader comments, these were taken into consideration as part of the author's overall argument.

Grading Scale

The Atlantis Grades

Cult and Fringe Archaeology

This article starts out on the wrong foot by referring to Atlantis as a continent. Yet, in its favor, the piece dispassionately delivers its facts, arguing well against the flawed views of some Atlantis enthusiasts. The article offers nothing substantial as an argument against Atlantis. The one claim regarding geology is suggestive, but weak and unsupported. I hope the writer can add material to this otherwise good article, and include something significant regarding specific facts about the Atlantis story.

Scientific American

Mr. Shermer, in this Scientific American article, not only offers nothing substantial as an argument against Atlantis, he makes unsubstantiated claims and argument by innuendo. What little there is in this short article that serves as an argument against Atlantis is crippled by logical fallacy.

The South Australian branch
of the Australian Skeptics

Their PDF on Atlantis has a number of problems with its argument against Atlantis. On their critique of past Atlantis researchers, they have a number of errors of form (poor wording, logical fallacies, and the like) that weaken their argument, in general. An error of substance against the work of Atlantis researchers (their use of "totally invalidate" indicates a poor grasp of logic and of writing accurately. They also commit errors of substance directly on the subject of Atlantis — ad hominem, non sequitur and arguments to ignorance (all logical fallacies). Their use of ad hominem is not as egregious as those of some other skeptics. But there was nothing substantial to their argument against Atlantis. There was some creative thinking, but the effort was lost in their poor use of logic. I hope they will review their material with a critical eye and make another attempt.

The Skeptic's Dictionary

The article contains nothing of substance in the argument against Atlantis. There are several errors of fact and numerous logical fallacies. One key detractor is the use of ad hominem ridicule, not only in the article, but also in the replies to the comments of others. I hope Mr. Carroll will scrap the current article and replace it with something of substance — something that addresses the specific issues of the Atlantis subject, rather than rely on ad hominem ridicule, non sequitur statements, speculation, opinion and arguments to ignorance.

CSICOP
Committee for Skeptical Inquiry

An interesting article, this one has little of substance in the argument against Atlantis. It wins points for creativity and good form, yet it contains several logical flaws including ad hominem. The author argues brilliantly against those researchers who place Atlantis nearly any location on Earth. I sincerely hope the author will look more carefully at the points of fact in the Atlantis case and make arguments against those rather than rely on speculation about the purpose of the story of Atlantis.

Skeptic World

Most of their article is a factual story of the Atlantis tale and the commentators that followed. There is very little in the way of argument against the story of Atlantis, but what is there is stated as uncertain speculation or assertions damaged by logical fallacies. Some of the text has been read verbatim on other websites. Without a list of references, it is impossible to tell who borrowed from whom. Giving them the benefit of the doubt regarding plagiarism, the article still comes up short. No solid argument is given against Atlantis. There were also errors in fact and logical fallacies used. If the author is up to the effort, I would suggest looking closely at the details of Plato's facts and addressing them with something substantive.

Donate to Mission: Atlantis

Help continue the research!