Much Respect, But What's With All The Tittle-Tattling?

[DBTrek]

Just to clarify (since it was mentioned twice) by "Jerry Springer like appeal" I'm referring to that added dimension of the show where you know that there's the possibility of a riot breaking out at any time. Not just a riot perhaps, but a long, drawn-out fued . . . and it's going to be messy (and that's entertaining)!

I'm not saying the Paracast is the podcast equivalent of Springer. I don't think Gene and David are choosing guests for the sake of baiting a riot. It's just a bonus they throw in for free.

-DBTrek

 

[Aaron LeClair]

Just to clarify (since it was mentioned twice) by "Jerry Springer like appeal" I'm referring to that added dimension of the show where you know that there's the possibility of a riot breaking out at any time. Not just a riot perhaps, but a long, drawn-out fued . . . and it's going to be messy (and that's entertaining)!

I'm not saying the Paracast is the podcast equivalent of Springer. I don't think Gene and David are choosing guests for the sake of baiting a riot. It's just a bonus they throw in for free.

-DBTrek

This week David will be saying "Talk to the hand, Talk to the hand". Gene will give his closing thoughts. We need some woman to go topless some time on air. Too bad I won't be able to see it, but hey, Howard Stern did it. Nude women on radio is entertaining for some reason....

 

[Gene Steinberg]

This week David will be saying "Talk to the hand, Talk to the hand". Gene will give his closing thoughts. We need some woman to go topless some time on air. Too bad I won't be able to see it, but hey, Howard Stern did it. Nude women on radio is entertaining for some reason....

But don't talk about their hair styles ("nappy" or otherwise) or whether or not they are "hos," or the entire country will be ganging up to hound you off the air pronto

 

[Rick Deckard]

Here you go:
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp

It is a list of the "Top 20" Logical Fallacies. I try to always refer to this list when corresponding with people promoting paranormal beliefs without any evidence.

Why, can't you think for yourself?

In future, I'll have to see how many 'bells' I can ring on your list - should be fun.

Wow - No. 3 - Argument from Authority - that must mean everyone is talking crap because we all pretty much rely on other people's research...

...so, I believe we landed on the moon *because NASA said so* - must be crap.


Hmmm - No. 7 - Confusing currently unexplained with unexplainable - Because we do not currently have an adequate explanation for a phenomenon does not mean that it is forever unexplainable, or that it therefore defies the laws of nature or requires a paranormal explanation...

...so a paranormal investigator might conclude he's seen a ghost. He's therefore explained the phenomena. What's wrong with that? Or is it that *science* won't accept *that* explanation?


Hah - No. 11 - The Moving Goalpost - A method of denial arbitrarily moving the criteria for "proof" or acceptance out of range of whatever evidence currently exists.

...often exercised by so-called 'sceptics' - how does it go again "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - yeah and who defines what is *extraordinary*?


This stuff reminds me of the Bible - The 20 Commandments - it tells you *how to think*. Brilliant.

Thanks for the link - I know what I'm up against now.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

But don't talk about their hair styles ("nappy" or otherwise) or whether or not they are "hos," or the entire country will be ganging up to hound you off the air pronto

Ah, took me a few seconds to get the Imus thing. I only know a little about it via a family member. I turn on CNN sometimes when I nuke food, which doesn't take long. Imus was on today. Only watched about 30 seconds of it. I was hoping the water discovery on another planet would be on instead. Oh well. I miss Britney's bald head...

 

[dorkbot]

This stuff reminds me of the Bible - The 20 Commandments - it tells you *how to think*. Brilliant.

I don't know if I would characterize it like that. In my view this is one specific set of tools for expanding human knowledge and narrowing down what actually is logical evidence out of the giant pool of stuff that people claim as evidence.

The fact that a famous and respected astronomer says you can't travel to the moon does not make it so. His credentials simply mean you might want to listen to his argument, not accept it on the basis of his "authority" alone. That an Air Force Colonel says a flying saucer crashed is very interesting and demands further investigation but does not by itself mean the event occurred.

"Science" by definition demands hypothesis that can be tested in a manner that is reproducible by anyone. That a phenomena eludes reproducible results in a controlled manner does not mean it does not exist it just means that we have not yet met the requirements to say that we have scientifically proved this or that. I do think that an interesting consideration that most scientists don't normally bring up in paranormal discussion is how the scientific method should be wielded in the potential case of attempting to study an intelligence that may be vastly more intelligent than the scientist and may also be interested in actively screwing with the test results.

One of the most frequently used in paranormal discussion is the false dichotomy. People argue that it must be aliens from outer space OR beings from another dimension. Since we have no hard evidence for either case I see no reason to exclude a third possibility that some ufos are from outer space and some are interdimensional. Feel free to add a third or fourth or fifth possibility. There is zero evidence that every occurrence of the phenomena has the same source or cause.

I could go on and on. That a given statement is a logical fallacy does not mean that the entire argument is false, it just means that a particular piece of it is and should be clarified with additional supporting evidence or restated in a more logical manner. If we have some kind of evidence or statement being presented that seems to be a logical fallacy we don't need to immediately discard it but we should be openly recognizing that it matches a logical fallacy rather than pretending that there is nothing at all wrong with it.

Discard this set of tools at your peril.

 

[Empty Planet]

I'm completely with Dorkbot on this one (whoever thought I would ever write such a sentence! ).

Critical thinking seems almost a forgotten talent these days, and what could be more important than knowing how to separate the wheat from the chaff? If every school spent a full year teaching critical thinking and only critical thinking to its students, I would be absolutely thrilled.

One only has to glance around one's self at humanity's spectacular idiocy to realize that this is a skill very few have bothered to learn.


Cheers.

 

[derekcbart]

Well put, Dorkbot.

That is exactly what the list is designed to do.

If someone cannot support their argument without using logical fallacies then the argument itself must be called into question.

Your example of the Air Force Colonel is dead on. You always need to have more evidence than just simply saying "I'm an expert, therefore believe what I say."

 

[Rick Deckard]

If every school spent a full year teaching critical thinking and only critical thinking to its students, I would be absolutely thrilled.

You wouldn't be able to finish a single lesson 'cause if you applied your "20 commandments" to some of the stuff they spoon-feed you in school you'd have to discard it and fail your exams.

For example, my physics teacher kept insisting that you can't create or destroy energy so I asked him "then where did it come from?" and he said "the big bang". So, we *know* that you can't create or destroy energy *except* that it came from *nowhere*.

In another lesson - "light is sometimes a particle and sometimes a wave". So I asked "how?". The reply "that isn't important for the exam".

Brilliant. How's that for scientific logic...

...all I see with your '20 commandments' is another set of blinkers. I'd like to keep my horizons 'unrestricted' thank you very much.

 

[Rick Deckard]

You always need to have more evidence than just simply saying "I'm an expert, therefore believe what I say."

Except if you paid enough leading scientists to claim that the moon was made of cheese then that would become the consensual reality.

 

[Rick Deckard]

I don't know if I would characterize it like that. In my view this is one specific set of tools for expanding human knowledge and narrowing down what actually is logical evidence out of the giant pool of stuff that people claim as evidence.

I would characterize it as a set of tools for stifling honest debate by drowning the signal with 'noise' about logical inconsistencies...

I would argue that this is a set of intellectual 'filters' designed to keep out what can't easily be explained with an equation and a test tube...

...but hey, that's just me

 

[derekcbart]

Except if you paid enough leading scientists to claim that the moon was made of cheese then that would become the consensual reality.

This is not true. Evidence would exist that the moon was not made of cheese no matter how many scientists were paid to say something otherwise.

All claims need to be treated with the same level of skeptical inquiry.

 

[Rick Deckard]

This is not true. Evidence would exist that the moon was not made of cheese no matter how many scientists were paid to say something otherwise.

All claims need to be treated with the same level of skeptical inquiry.

The example of "a moon made of cheese" isn't integral to the point I'm making.

Isn't this #16 - A Straw Man?

Try again.

 

[CapnG]

...but hey, that's just me

Yes. Yes it is. I'll stick with logic, thank you.

 

[Rick Deckard]

Yes. Yes it is. I'll stick with logic, thank you.

Me too or are you implying that I don't use logic? If so, please provide 'evidence' to support your implication. Thank you.

BTW, well done for hitting #1 on the fallacies list - Ad hominem.

 

[dorkbot]

I would characterize it as a set of tools for stifling honest debate by drowning the signal with 'noise' about logical inconsistencies...

I would argue that this is a set of intellectual 'filters' designed to keep out what can't easily be explained with an equation and a test tube...

In the grand scheme of things they are a set of tools that can be used or misused. They are indeed an intellectual filter, one designed to separate that which is formally logical and that which is not. If they are employed as a mechanism to deny further examination of something which we can't presently neatly explain then they are misused. I think they are used correctly when they expose arguments that attempt to masquerade as being formally logical when they are not.

If a phenomenon exists that has a high degree of apparent absurdity, is persistent and attempts to quantify it seem to lead to logical fallacies, we aren't going to advance our understanding of it by insisting that it there are no logical problems with our descriptions.

I can even accept as a possibility that there may exist some superset of reality that is unknowable to humans and logical reasoning because the human brain does not have the capacity to perceive it. However, I wouldn't try to pretend that I had a formally logical argument for such a possibility.

As we are stuck with being human we have to use all the tools that we have available. What the scientific method is and how scientists as people behave are two entirely different things. In other words, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[Rick Deckard]

If a phenomenon exists that has a high degree of apparent absurdity, is persistent and attempts to quantify it seem to lead to logical fallacies, we aren't going to advance our understanding of it by insisting that it there are no logical problems with our descriptions.

Who defines the scope of 'apparent absurdity'? Who defines the criteria for a 'rational explanation'? Can an explanation that was once 'irrational' become 'rational', and if so, what process is required to bring about that change?

I can even accept as a possibility that there may exist some superset of reality that is unknowable to humans and logical reasoning because the human brain does not have the capacity to perceive it. However, I wouldn't try to pretend that I had a formally logical argument for such a possibility.

Good. That's very noble of you. I would suggest that some 'skeptics' are less noble.

As we are stuck with being human we have to use all the tools that we have available. What the scientific method is and how scientists as people behave are two entirely different things. In other words, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

We also have to be careful that we don't limit ourselves to rigid patterns of thinking. Is it not possible that 'the scientific method' may not be fit for purpose in it's current form?

The more I think about my own position the more I realise that as well as being 'skeptical' about the 'believers' position I'm also 'skeptical' about the 'skeptics' position. I've been looking at some of the skeptics sites today and I have to say that they seem to be as blinkered in their way of thinking as the Michael Horn/FIGU/Billy Meier crowd.

 

[derekcbart]

The more I think about my own position the more I realise that as well as being 'skeptical' about the 'believers' position I'm also 'skeptical' about the 'skeptics' position. I've been looking at some of the skeptics sites today and I have to say that they seem to be as blinkered in their way of thinking as the Michael Horn/FIGU/Billy Meier crowd.

There are times that I would have to agree with you on this point. Every now and then there are people who too quickly dismiss things because they have had to deal with so much BS over time that when they see something that appears to be BS they say that it is BS before fully examining it. As much as I admire James Randi he has a tendency to fall into this pattern. Although I don't know of any other skeptic who has had to deal with as many BS claims as he has done.

The IIG has always strived to be the group of nice and polite skeptics. Like all people, we don't always succeed when dealing with certain situations, but we always strive for it.

 

[Rick Deckard]

There are times that I would have to agree with you on this point. Every now and then there are people who too quickly dismiss things because they have had to deal with so much BS over time that when they see something that appears to be BS they say that it is BS before fully examining it. As much as I admire James Randi he has a tendency to fall into this pattern. Although I don't know of any other skeptic who has had to deal with as many BS claims as he has done.

But isn't that the danger of aligning yourself with a particular mindset? Isn't there a temptation to demonstrate your mastery of 'skeptical' skills to your peers *rather* than following your instinct, which might actually be in conflict with your chosen idealogy?

If you look at the FIGU forums they have several core members who rally the troops, draw up 'targets' and plan 'offensive' strategies. The 'troops' then dutifully head off to attack the said target and then report back for 'tea and medals' while kidding themselves that they're somehow doing something constructive for their 'cause' when the reality is exactly the opposite.

 

[Empty Planet]

But isn't that the danger of aligning yourself with a particular mindset? Isn't there a temptation to demonstrate your mastery of 'skeptical' skills to your peers *rather* than following your instinct, which might actually be in conflict with your chosen idealogy?

Rick, I really think you're confusing two orders of thought here. Skeptical thinking isn't a filter for everything you accept into your brain and everything one experiences. That would be absurd, as you point out. It's merely a set of tests designed to separate what has legs from what doesn't. It's simply a very rigorous set of criteria designed to be applied to what presents itself as fact. It only has that one purpose. It's designed to combat the credulousness we see in evidence all around us.

It is NOT meant to stifle flights of fancy, or creative thought, or brainstorming, or any form of free thinking. The teachers you quote, sadly, misunderstood what it was to be a good teacher, or a good scientist. To be a good scientist is to be equal parts childlike, creative thinker and skeptical truth-seeker. One absolutely has to be able to dream and imagine and wonder about the possible, but it's also true that as far as actually advancing hard science, there has to be pretty stringent criteria for what we accept as our understanding of fact at this present point in time. One can have beliefs, and one can work toward establishing them as facts, but at the end of the day there has to be a real test for what we accept as "fact."


Cheers.