Grading Scientific American

"Myths are stories that express meaning, morality or motivation. Whether they are true or not is irrelevant. But because we live in an age of science, we have a preoccupation with corroborating our myths."

Opinion: Mr. Shermer's statement, "Whether they [myths] are true or not is irrelevant," is a bold claim and only opinion. Are human history and prehistory irrelevant? Are anthropology, geology, archaeology, astronomy, paleontology and a host of other sciences that study the past irrelevant? It is my opinion that all of these sciences about the past are very relevant. And I pose the idea that any myth that was based on a true event reveals something of our prehistory and is thus also relevant. Some myths may fit into this category. I doubt if Mr. Shermer is omniscient enough to know the status of all myths, including that of Atlantis.

"What if Plato made up the story for mythic purposes? He did."

Unsupported Claim: Only two words ("He did") are used to state and support a thesis. This is also bold and not at all logical. If Mr. Shermer alludes to any of the articles that discuss and compare Plato's writing looking for patterns and possible motivations, any conclusions derived from these regarding Plato's Atlantis are only opinion. And to claim that Atlantis was fiction based on these analyses is non sequitur (a logical fallacy). One would have to interview Plato in order to answer the question of Plato's motivation for adding the story of Atlantis. If Solon knew of the story of Atlantis, then Plato added it because it was a part of history as the story of a historical figure, Solon. Alas, we cannot interview either of these gentlemen, so we are left only with opinion in this matter of Plato's motivation.

"Plato's purpose was to warn his fellow Athenians to pull back from the precipice created by war and wealth."

Opinion: If by "purpose" Mr. Shermer means a purpose of Plato's for including Atlantis in the story, he is probably right. The story of Atlantis fits that theme. If he means that this was Plato's only purpose, then this would be only opinion, unsupported by facts.

"...'Pillars of Hercules' (usually identified by Atlantologists as the Strait of Gibraltar)"

Error of Omission: Mr. Shermer curiously slants his phrase here with the use of "Atlantologists." The "Pillars of Hercules" are usually identified with the Strait of Gibraltar by scholars, as well.

"(Your myth-detection alarm should be going off about now.)"

Logical Fallacy (non sequitur): The subtext here seems to be that Mr. Shermer does not believe such numbers of military are possible for Atlantis, and that anyone who believes these figures are crazy. If this is his intent, then this would also be ad hominem (another logical fallacy). Mr. Shermer's disbelief is not the basis for logical debate and is thus non sequitur. This is also more obvious as a blatant appeal to emotion, unworthy of inclusion in a magazine of science.

"...and, most tellingly, the year before he was born an earthquake flattened a military outpost on the small island of Atalante."

Logical Fallacy (non sequitur): Some supporters of the Atlantis story like to point out names that begin with "At" and include an "L" as clues to Atlantis. I find it curious that a skeptic would be using the same approach. Such an argument is weak at best and hardly "most telling."

"Plato wove historical fact into literary myth."

This is an interesting point, but with the lack of logical assertions based on fact in Mr. Shermer's article, we are left with the possibility that part of the "historical fact" Plato used was the story of Atlantis.

I find it a bit funny and also a bit sad that Scientific American would include Mr. Shermer's article. Why is it so popular to be so illogical about Atlantis? Both fanatics and skeptics seem to go crazy with illogical statements concerning Plato's lost island. What is it about the story that drives so many educated people to logical fallacy madness? As with all of the articles graded so far, Mr. Shermer's includes nothing substantial as an argument against Atlantis. And because he adds little else to contribute to the discussion of Atlantis, his article receives a failing mark. I hope Mr. Shermer and Scientific American will try again.

Donate to Mission: Atlantis

Help continue the research!