Grading South Australian Skeptics

"It was explained that a few Atlanteans had survived the inundation and had travelled east and west, taking their advanced knowledge with them. The primitive cultures into which they had settled received an enormous technological boost, propelling them into civilized cultures. Of course, such a claim would of itself totally invalidate Plato's story since he described the Athenians as having been an advanced culture, since they had fought Atlantis on equal terms before the island was destroyed."

This passage contains an error of substance (not directly on Plato's story, but on the commentary of others). Logical fallacy: The writer here ignores the fact that Plato says the Athenians were all but completely destroyed by an earthquake and a flood about the same time Atlantis subsided. Those who would have been left might easily have slipped into primitivism without the infrastructure of their prior society. The writer also ignores his own wording where he states "the primitive cultures into which they settled." The Athenians were not the only culture on Earth, and not necessarily the only ones in the Balkans region. Besides, Plato is not clear about where the refugees went. The writer here assumes that they went only to the Balkans ("totally invalidates" assumes this; "partially invalidates" would allow for settlement elsewhere). And the writer ignores the part in their own writing where the survivors had "traveled east and west." From the putative location of Atlantis, the Balkans is to the East. So, those who went to the West would not have encountered proto-Athenians.

"Despite the fact that Donnelly's book was pure speculation and full of spurious claims,..."

Error of Form (sloppy wording that is a logical fallacy): "Pure speculation" means "100% speculation" which is not proven here. There were many facts detailed in Donnelly's book. These facts were not speculation; thus, the use of the word "pure" is in error. Also, "full of" is a generality that is also a logical fallacy. "Full of" would mean that the book is entirely made of "spurious claims," but again, there were numerous facts included in his book, and these facts were not "spurious."

"...so entrenched is the belief in Atlantis that it has been found that four out of five students commencing studies in archaeology actually believe that Atlantis was a real place!"

Logical fallacy (ad hominem): The ad hominem ridicule used here is more subtle, but nonetheless apparent. The wording suggests that "belief in Atlantis" is a bad thing ("so entrenched," "actually believe," "was a real place!"). The incredulity in the tone seems to suggest that those who believe are somehow defective. This, in itself, is not a logical argument against Atlantis.

"So what are the real facts? Well, it appears that the stories Plato told about Atlantis were a complete myth. That Atlantis was a myth was acknowledged by people close to Plato. Even Aristotle, a former student of Plato, insisted that Atlantis was completely fictional."

Logical fallacy: "Appearing to be a complete myth" is not a "real fact." Using the word "acknowledged" rather than "asserted" presumes that the assertion that Atlantis was only a myth has been proven, which it hasn't. Use of the word "acknowledged" is thus non sequitur. The assertion must be proven, first. These assertions by "people close to Plato" and by Aristotle are not proof. Crantor was a student of Plato's student Xenocrates and reportedly he believed the story was true. However, both the statements by Aristotle and Crantor are no more than opinion and hearsay in the argument about Atlantis.

"A clue that Plato made up the story is revealed in the story itself; one must ask why, given that the Egyptians had their own deities and elaborate creation stories, an Egyptian priest would narrate to Solon the Greek version of creation? It would be rather like asking a Jew or a Christian to explain how the universe was created and having them recount the Greek version of creation instead of the Judeaeo-Christian version found in the Bible."

Logical fallacy (non sequitur): The reasoning behind what the elder Egyptian priest discussed with Solon has nothing to do with the validity of what was told. Solon was an honored guest. The priest was an educated man. As a comparison, I was born a Christian, but when I talk to a Buddhist, I speak in terms of Buddhism as a simple courtesy.

"Although Plato described Atlantis as a huge island, Herodotus stated that Sardinia was the largest known island in the world."

Logical fallacy (non sequitur): The fact that Herodotus stated that Sardinia was the largest known island in the world has nothing to do with the argument about Atlantis. At the time of Herodotus Atlantis did not exist as an island (whether it was fiction or not). And Herodotus, not a citizen of Athens, may not have heard the story from the Solon family descendants. Also, a common error in Atlantis skeptics is that they assume that all Greeks would have known about the story if it were true. This is a false assumption. Very few knew of the story because it was a family tale handed down from Solon, not one incorporated into the myth of Greece. It was an Egyptian tale about Athens, and most Greeks were not Athenians.

Herototus states that, "the greatest danger Athens had ever faced was from the Persians at the Battle of Marathon in 480 BCE."

Logical fallacy (non sequitur; argument to ignorance): Again, the writer assumes here that what Herodotus says is the last word on everything, even though they admit that Herodotus made numerous errors in his histories. This eminent historian was not omniscient. This is also an argument to ignorance, that just because Herodotus didn't know about Atlantis, that proves it didn't exist. Logically this proves no such thing. Herodotus may not have known about dinosaurs, but we know that they did exist.

Herodotus states that, "King Minos of Knossos had created the earliest sea power known in the Mediterranean."

Logical fallacy (argument to ignorance): Again, just because Herodotus didn't know about Atlantis, that proves it didn't exist? This is a logical fallacy.

"The fact is, the physical structure of the floor of the Atlantic Ocean has been extensively mapped and this modern evidence clearly reveals that no island as large as Atlantis could ever have existed in the Atlantic!"

Logical fallacy: Extensively mapping the ocean floor is, in itself, not disproof of Atlantis. The writer omits the critical "modern evidence" that they purport "reveals that no island as large as Atlantis could ever have existed in the Atlantic!" This is perhaps the most critical area of the Atlantis argument and the writer did not provide the meaty specifics that could have made a case against Atlantis. Generalities and non-specifics are hard to argue against, but they also do not prove anything. Interpretation of such evidence is critical in determining the value of that evidence in the Atlantis argument. Without the details, the claim "clearly reveals" is an empty one. Core samples through all sediments and into bedrock in at least a few hundred locations near the Azores might go a long way to disproving Atlantis. I don't remember such ever being done. In order to evaluate such evidence if an extensive drilling program is ever implemented, I would want to know the originating location of each core sample, the depths and the contents.

"As 'America' moved 'westward' and 'Europe and Africa' moved 'eastward' on their tectonic plates, lava filled the ever-widening gap, leaving a relatively 'smooth' ocean floor."

Falsehood: The region encompassing that thought to include Plato's Atlantis is far from a smooth abyssal plain. There are numerous sea mounts in the region, and much of the remaining area is quite hilly compared to the abyssal plains.

"The few Atlantic island groups, such as the Azores, claimed by some to be the tops of Atlantean mountains, are the peaks of relatively small sub-marine volcanoes, which have arisen in, geologically speaking, relatively recent times."

Logical Fallacy (non sequitur): "Relatively small sub-marine volcanoes" and "relatively recent times" have nothing to do with the Atlantis argument. The implication here is that because they are currently relatively small and relatively recent in formation that they have nothing to do with Atlantis. The word "relative" is, well, "relative." And relatively small anything could have been a part of something far larger. "Relatively recent" does not disprove Atlantis, either. Let us look at the facts.

The Madeira Abyssal Plain, near the Azores, is approximately 5,000 meters deep, while Mount Pico is 2,351 meters tall, for a total 7,351 meters (24,118 feet). If all of that were above sea level, then it easily would count among the world's top 100 tallest mountains (all of which are currently in Asia), and would be taller than the tallest volcano on Earth. So, an argument could be made that this mountain is "relatively large."

According to Wikipedia, "Santa Maria Island is the oldest Azorean island, formed 4.8 million years ago." This is plenty of time for Atlantis to form and to break apart. It is also plenty of time for many other geological events to happen. And, compared to some geological events, this is "relatively long ago."

Most of the Azores islands sit on a "relatively large" underwater plateau. This fact, by itself, means nothing in the argument for Atlantis.

"...it is important to understand that ancient writers were not true historians and were much given to manipulating facts to improve the story."

Logical Fallacy: This is a generality unsupported by facts. Certainly some Greeks have been known to do these things, but here we're not talking about a few Greeks, but "all ancient writers." This is also ad hominem criticizing of the character of those ancient writers which have nothing to do with the Atlantis argument. It deflects our attention away from that argument toward the character of those writers.

"With little comprehension of large numbers, an event that occurred 1300 years before, would have seemed little different to something that occurred 9000 years before."

Dropped Out Data: Who are they talking about "comprehending" here? If they're talking about Plato, it would be best to name him, rather than implying.

Unsupported Assertion: Assuming the writer is talking about Plato, there is no proof that he had little comprehension of large numbers, or didn't know the difference between 1,300 and 9,000.

Logical Fallacy (non sequitur and ad hominem): The writer seems to imply that because Plato did not comprehend large numbers, Thera was the inspiration for Atlantis, and Plato's Atlantis was fantasy. First of all, the writer slams the intelligence of Plato (ad hominem) and then implies that this proves something about Atlantis (non sequitur). If Plato was numerically challenged, this would have nothing to do with proving or disproving Atlantis (again, non sequitur).

"Most Greeks had no real appreciation of the size of the world, or how large the Mediterranean Sea was, so the idea that Thera had been a huge island could have been accepted as valid."

Logical Fallacy (non sequitur): The ignorance of "most Greeks" has nothing to do with the validity or invalidity of Atlantis, or whether or not Thera was Atlantis. The writer is also speculating about a speculation ("could have been").

"It seems very likely that the origins of Atlantis are to be found in Plato's personal sense of disillusionment with politics."

Logical Fallacy (non sequitur). Plato's disillusionment is not a disproof of Atlantis. Say for a moment Plato was disillusioned. So what? Anyone who is disillusioned can use tales of fact just as easily as tales of fiction.

Also, the writer here is speculating (they say, "it seems very likely"). This does nothing for the Atlantis argument. I would think they would have to prove Atlantis was fantasy before speculating about Plato's motivation in regard to Atlantis. The point is, a disillusioned Plato, or even a depressed Plato, could have used a real Atlantis in his dialogues.

The author shows creativity, but needs to review the art of logical debate, especially the logical fallacies. Please try again.

Donate to Mission: Atlantis

Help continue the research!