Bach Flower Remedies

Recently we adopted my neighbor's Blue Heeler. We named her Tyche (tie-kee) after the Greek goddess of luck and prosperity since she's now the luckiest dog alive. The neighbors just called her Baby Girl, they never really named her.

To make a long story short, she was left outside 24/7/365 in the rain/heat/freezing cold, to be neglected and lonely. She's the sweetest dog, so loving and smart. The neighbors had her for a year outside, so she's 2 now and has never been housetrained. She's had to fight for every scrap of food. So she's a bit of a handful.

For the past couple of months, she had been escaping her chain and visiting in the mornings. I would go outside and play with her with my other two dogs. They all got along very well. I have  a chocolate lab mix (Koku) and a Siberian Husky (Stazi). Stazi is a very dominant alpha dog. When Tyche came over, she was submissive and my dogs played very well with her.

So here's what's so interesting. When the boy said I could finally have Tyche, he just let her loose. I had no leash so I coaxed her to our yard. And instantly she was ferocious, and so was Stazi! How did they know that she was suddenly part of the family?

Now, she's not fixed (we're going to have that taken care of in a couple of weeks), so that might be part of the problem. But it's been very stressful. We're working on potty training. But Tyche's aggressiveness with Stazi is a real issue. Stazi didn't really fight back at first, and ended up with a big scratch on her ear. The last time Tyche got in Stazi's face, Stazi fought back and it was pretty scary.

Why am I telling you all of this? Well, I made a comment about Stazi's scratched ear on Facebook and I was told by someone to get Bach Flower Pet Rescue Remedy to fix the problem completely. Apparently it had been a "lifesaver" to this person with her 3 cats during a cross-country move.

This got my hackles up because I have a "no woo" policy on Facebook (and in person). But I know the woman meant well so I thanked her for the advice and said I'd rather have a science-based solution to my problem. I did not try to change her mind, I simply said thanks and I might look into it, but that I wasn't interested if it wasn't science-based.

She and her boyfriend then gave me a hard time. This is what their argument boiled down to:

•  Herbs were the only medicine until people started making synthetic ones (Appeal to Tradition, I think*)


• Some vets in the American Veterinary Medical Assoc. apparently recommend Rescue Remedy (Appeal to Authority, probably a small minority who never read the actual studies)


• I can complain to a shrink if I won't take BFRs (Bach Flower Remedies) and they can give me something to calm me - science based (as if that's evil or I should be ashamed of a chemical imbalance in my brain!?) 

Logical Fallacy 14: Special Pleading

Special Pleading is a fallacy where you support your argument with arbitrary exceptions that apply only to you or a group that you have a special interest in. Basically it's creating a Double Standard. This fallacy can be hard to recognize.

This is Part 14 in a series about Logical Fallacies.  Please comment or email if there’s a particular fallacy you want me to tackle, or if you have success with refuting an argument using a good technique you can share.

Special pleading makes an excuse for why someone's situation is the exception to the rule. But there's nothing to back up the ad hoc reasoning.

Examples:

Harold Camping's rapture prediction is a good example. When the rapture didn't happen, Camping eventually said that it did, but that there were special circumstances, namely that it was a spiritual rapture instead of a physical one.

Another one that is more direct: "I believe that all drunk drivers should lose their license. But even though I was legally intoxicated I shouldn't be punished because I was fine and I can hold my liquor better than others."

Another form of Special Pleading is the assertion that you don't have the qualifications to comprehend the person's point of view. For example, "As an atheist, you can't understand God because you're on the outside looking in."

How to Refute Special Pleading:

The first thing you can do is tell the person that they are using a double standard with nothing to back it up. The only other thing I can think of is restate the facts that negate the spurious claim.

Another way to go is to give a similar example to what the person is saying, and get them to admit that in that case things would have to go the normal way. Then say that the case they've brought up is basically the same and should be treated the same.

If you have successfully refuted this logical fallacy, please share how you did it!

Sources:

• Skeptics Guide to the Universe
• Wikipedia

A Revelation!

I realized something this morning. As you might know, I have a second blog with a Catholic friend of mine called AtheistCatholic. We have tried to keep the atmosphere friendly, but the comments get a bit heated and get very debate-like which drives me nuts.

I don't like to debate. For someone like me, it makes me incredibly frustrated. Well, I don't mind having arguments with some people. For instance, I can disagree with my husband and many of my friends and we can have a friendly argument where we have different points of view. I usually end up feeling we both hopefully learned something and it seems productive. Awesome.

But there are some people (and some types of people) that I just can't stand arguing with. With them it turns into a debate and I end up feeling extremely frustrated or downright angry. I don't like being frustrated or angry. My revelation is why it's so irritating.

It's because they don't play fair. They use logical fallacies like cats take naps. They play the "offended card" at the slightest disagreement. But the main reason is that their logic is so flawed that it makes me feel crazy just trying to figure out what they said.

My problem is that I can tell that they are doing these things intuitively now, but I can't name the logical fallacy or explain the flawed logic and straighten it out. Sometimes it's because I know the topic well enough to understand it, but not well enough to explain the mistakes of someone else. For this issue, the only solution I see is to learn more deeply about the topics that matter to me.

And I guess I can study the logical fallacies more, right? But the flawed logic, that just boggles my mind. I think I need to study that more. If you have any suggestions for good books that teach logic, let me know! Preferably something that is understandable in everyday language.

Do you have people that you deal with who don't play fair and are really irritating to argue with? How do you deal with them? How do you avoid debating but still get your point across? I can't figure that out either.

 

The 10 Commandments of Logical Fallacies

1. Thou shall not attack the person’s character, but the argument. (Ad hominem)

2. Thou shall not misrepresent or exaggerate a person’s argument in order to make them easier to attack. (Straw man fallacy)

3. Thou shall not use small numbers to represent the whole. (Hasty generalization)

4. Thou shall not argue thy position by assuming one of its premises is true. (Begging the question)

5. Thou shall not claim that because something occurred before, it must be the cause. (Post Hoc/False cause)

6. Thou shall not reduce the argument down to two possibilities. (False dichotomy)

7. Thou shall not argue that because of our ignorance, claim must be true or false. (Ad ignorantium)

8. Thou shall not select only the supporting information and ignore everything that goes against the claim. (Cherry-picking)

9. Thou shall not assume “this” follows “that” when it has no logical connection. (Non sequitur)

10. Thou shall not claim that because a premise is popular, therefore it must be true.(Bandwagon fallacy)

Which logical fallacies do you think belong on this list?

Slightly adapted from here.

The Jesus Horus Link Revisited For Christmas

Quite awhile ago, I shared some information I had found through American Atheists. It was titled What Other Deities Were Born On Jesus' Birthday? I realized after I published it that it might not have been sourced well, but I left it up because it's an example of how even skeptics and atheists trying to disseminate good information can make mistakes. I fell into the trap of an Appeal to Authority when I wrote it. The original information came from American Atheists, and why wouldn't they always be accurate, right? Well, even people or organizations with the best intentions are human and make mistakes.

I listened to The Skeptic's Testament yesterday and they talked about the Jesus/Horus link and myths borrowing from each other in general. I transcribed that part of the podcast for you (the whole episode is great, so if you can, give it a listen):

The Jesus Horus Link is complete rubbish made up by the movie Zeitgeist. Brian Dunning explains in Skeptoid Episode 196 why it's just fabricated conspiracy mongering.

The following is from The Skeptic's Testament, episode 24:

3:27: With the work of people like Robert Price, which many skeptics have read, they

unjustly make the case that all of the Jesus traditions were borrowed from previous sources. Price doesn't even argue that.

It is incorrect to say that one borrowed from the other. Christianity borrowed from Hinduism or Mithraism or vice versa, simply because the nature of history as a forensic science cannot say anything other than that one came after the other.

To establish sharing like that, or borrowing, and taking, would require something very astounding, something that doesn't fossilize. It would require something that history has never dished up to us before.

This is one example of what we're up against.

Firstly, you would have to establish a trade route between the two factions. Then one would have to show that they swapped stories about their holy men, and furthermore, one party or both went home, conflated the information he just learned about the other faction's holy man or men, and then spread that in the community, only about their own holy men.

Let's Spot The Logical Fallacies!

I get spam or crazy emails every day. Most of them are not even worth acknowledging, but I got one yesterday that I thought was perfect for a Logical Fallacy clinic. This guy first tried to post this message as a comment a few times, then sent an even longer version as the following email. What I'm going to do is post it and then you get to Name the Logical Fallacies!

I am an old guy who has lived in more places than most even visit, done more different types of things than most even consider doing, much actually less do. And I have had many more professions than most.

As a result, I am more more experienced and knowledgeable than most. I am also an Agnostic Atheist Activist who has been an Atheist for around 67 of my 75 years & an Atheist Activist for over fifty years.

I tell you these things so you will know I have more than a clue about the things I share.

While this is about SKEPTICS i have written many other things which should be of interest to REAL "Rational" and Critical Thinkers" (I am very sad to report MANY Atheists are NOT other neither rational or logical than on any subject other than that on the existence of one or more gods.)

Yes, being a Skeptic is great!

ONLY do NOT let your Skeptiism Over Ride your common sense and your use of rational, logical and critical thought as James Randi and some others have.

Randi and some skeptics think because they do not know of something. it can not exist, or be true. They totally fail to even consider the possibility some things which ONLY sound as if they are "too good to be true" may actually BE true.

As I grew up during WWII, the surrender of the Japanese ending it, seemed to be, to the entire world, "too good to be true"

During the Cold War, the 101st Airborne the Division I was a paratrooper in at the time, came very close to parachuting in to Berlin when the Russians were building the Berlin Wall. (We were in the aircraft on the runway with the engines running waiting tor the "GO" Order.)

Years later, when I watched the Berlin Wall being torn down, I can assure you, it seemed to be "Too Good To Be True"

Every week, there are people who win lotteries and I am sure when they do, it seems, it IS "Too Good T Be True" to them.

The point is that SOMETIMES, things which sound or seem, Too Good Too Be True, actually ARE TRUE!

Randi "et all" do not take the advice of Benjamin Franklin and Herbert Spencer who said: "To condemn without investigation is nothing but sheer foolishness."
Ben Franklin

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep man in everlasting ignorance.
This principle is condemnation without investigation." Herbert Spencer

So, DO NOT BE, as Randi is, A FOOL!

Logical Fallacy 13: Non Sequitur

Non Sequitur means "does not follow" in Latin. When the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises, you've committed this logical fallacy. A logical connection is implied where none exists.

This is Part 13 in a series about Logical Fallacies. We are going through one fallacy at a time. There are many types of fallacious arguments. I’m going to try to explain them with examples then find ways to help you refute those arguments when they occur. Please comment or email if there’s a particular fallacy you want me to tackle, or if you have success with refuting an argument using a good technique you can share.

Examples:

First, here's the formula:

1. If A is true, B is true.
2. B is stated to be true.
3. Therefore, A is true.

Even if the both premises and the conclusion are true, the argument is still logically bad since the premises don't support the conclusion.

1. If I am a human, I am a mammal.
2. I am a mammal.
3. Therefore, I'm human.

Even though both the premises and the conclusion are true, the argument is still a fallacy since the premises don't support the conclusion. Non sequitur reasoning can have a true conclusion or lead to a beneficial outcome. Being fallacious means the way of getting to the conclusion is not justified but it does not necessarily mean that the conclusion is false.

Here's a common example with intelligent design:

Proof Against God

The following is an article by GMNightmare which follows up from a previous post titled Your god is Not Omnipotent:

To start out, the definition I am using for god is any given being that can supposedly create matter out of nothing, is omnipotent, and is unbound by physical spatial traits. Furthermore I derive that an omnipotent god constitutes as an unstoppable force or can be the causation of such. The existence of such a god forms my hypothesis (which I will regard as true for this proof); therefore the following mainly concerns itself with monotheistic brands of gods.

Using the above traits, the god from my hypothesis could create an object of infinite size and maximum density. This theoretical object would literally fill the entirety of the universe, with every small speck of space filled with matter. This rock constitutes as an immovable object as there is nowhere left to move the rock and thus it is incapable of movement. As an aside it happens that god can create an object so large that he cannot move it.

However the existence of an immovable object by definition means that an unstoppable force cannot also exist. Since that is a part of the definition of god outlined above, I therefore must reject the hypothesis and assert that such a god cannot and does not exist. In particular a god that can create matter unrestrained cannot also be omnipotent in all regards.

Simple, short, and sweet… but the devil is in the details (ha ha). Any god with boundaries and limitations obviously escapes the above, but from my experience that’s the last thing any monotheist will even begin to contemplate (god being the biggest baddest supernatural being that ever was—who also happened to create everything—just isn’t enough, seemingly god must also have limitless power and ability). So please qualify objections to the below considerations.

1)      Can god create an object so large even he cannot move it?

Funny Tidbits To Make You Smile

Just a few funny tidbits to entertain you. Plus the Pale Blue Dot for a bit of awesomeness. :)

"There have been numerous cases where practicing christians have been obliged to obey the same laws and abide by the same rules as everybody else." (How Barbaric!) Jesus and Mo



God! It's like everyone I've ever slept with is here.

Answering Paul's Questions

A person named Paul commented on HDC on GMNightmare's deconversion story and I thought they were interesting questions. Both Johnny and GMNightmare already gave long answers, also worth noting, instead of letting it get lost in comments. And I added my 2 cents on at the bottom. :)



Here is Paul's comment:

I have a couple of questions that I would like answered, and you seem like the type to answer questions. First of all, what are your thoughts on supernatural phenomena (weird stuff people claim happens, i.e., someone’s ear being cut off, and growing back on)? Is it all just a big hoax?

Secondly, I know that evolution details how the earth came to it’s present state, and the big bang, (do they still call it that?) started all that, but what could have caused the big bang? And how did whatever caused the big bang come into existence? As far as I know, science clearly states that nothing can be infinite, and all things have an end and a beginning. So, if nothing is infinite, than how did the universe get started? Wouldn’t something had to have caused time to exist first, something that wasn’t governed by time, and so couldn’t even be described by adjectives like infinite?

I just have these questions, and no one can really answer them, except with some lame thing like “It just goes on and on”. And what does happen when we die? I know our bodies clearly decompose, we can see that much easily.

But what about our consciousness? It seems to me that consciousness is somewhat of a mystery in and of itself. Scientists can make a body, and they can put blood and oxygen in it, but yet they can’t make it live? So, if a consciousness isn’t something like a body, something that decomposes, what happens when the consciousness dies? Does it really just cease to exist? I can’t even imagine not existing. It just seems so foreign, to not exist.

Lastly, I don’t really get the term “gnostic atheist”. From what I’ve read, gnostics claim to “know” something, that other people don’t. So, if you’re a gnostic atheist, does that just mean that you “know” hands down, that there is not, and has never been, any kind of god?

First, here is Johnny's reply:

I’m sure GMN will have a response; but I just feel the desire to chime in.

How To Argue

Almost all of us argue or have discussions. But there's actually a right way and lots of wrong ways to go about it. As an ethical person, I don't really want to do it wrong because that's being dishonest and unfair. I am definitely not a debater, which is where people actually use logical fallacies on purpose to win an argument. I don't really care for debates because they seem forced to me. It's about winning, not about finding out the truth. I think the main reason I hate arguing is because most people fight dirty. I am sure I've done it too, mainly out of ignorance. Now, with the following information, we can argue more logically.

Yesterday while being domestic, I was listening to podcasts. The following one was so cool, I actually decided to transcribe it for you because it was both concise and chock full of good information.

Here is a pretty close transcript to this podcast episode. It's not exact, so you can listen to it to get everything I left out, which was where someone started a sentence or a thought and didn't finish it, stuff like that. I also turned it into more of an article and less of a conversation. So really, it's a companion to listening to the podcast (which is about 6 minutes) and for your convenience.

How To Structure A Logical Argument
by the Skeptics' Guide 5x5, Episode 62, March 19, 2009

Cherry-Picking and A bible Lesson For Atheists

I was stumbling around the intertoobs and found a blog post at dmiessler titled The Jesus Quote You'll Never Hear In Church. The quote is as follows:

Luke 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

Now, this is actually the end of the parable of the talents that jesus is telling. Basically the lesson that jesus seems to imply is that god takes what is not rightly his and reaps what he didn't sow. Of course, jesus freely admits that he tells parables to confuse people so they will go to hell:

Mark 4:10-12 And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable.
And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

Not very nice, is it? Then again the bible is full of amoral cruelty and malice. Most people talk about the old testament, which is rife with stories of god slaughtering and maiming just about everything because he's so angry and jealous. But the new testament is full of nastiness as well. The Skeptic's Annotated Bible has compiled a nice list to make it easy: Cruelty In The New Testament, so I won't go over each one.

Anyway, regarding the first quote above from the book of Luke, christians will retort that it was a parable, not a quote. But right after the story, he tells his disciples to go steal a colt so that he can ride it into Jerusalem (Luke 19:30). So if he's willing to have his disciples steal for him and take what wasn't his, it really isn't out of context, now is it?

I really must point out one other new testament quote by jesus, because it shows that he is just as petty and cruel as his dad:

Luke 14:26, 33 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.

What kind of kindly, peace-loving godlike person would say such a stupid thing? Then again, just read all the heinous things that god did in the old testament to see that the apple didn't fall far from the tree.

Anyway, this all reminded me about cherry-picking, which is a logical fallacy. I've found that it's quite natural for people to cherry-pick information to suit their needs. You remember the bad times with your ex and happen to forget how many happy times you had together. Or, the most famous and irritating of all, christians take the bible and filter out the parts that support whatever message they are trying to find there and simply ignore the rest. When you call them on it, they say you have to take the icky bits in context, because then they show that they really aren't amoral and cruel or malicious, just misunderstood.

Your god is Not Omnipotent

Why can nobody answer the question "Can God create an object so heavy that even God cannot lift it?" and postulate the answer for it?

I ask again why?

You know, it would be cool if some preacher out there somewhere actually had the brains to answer it but alas, nobody has. Really, the answer is easy--a breeze to anybody who can actually think for themselves. Okay I fibbed, it's not that easy... but all a religious person has to do is pray to their god for the answer. I mean there are numerous examples in the bible I can quote saying that all they had to do was pray. Indeed, the fact that this question has not been answered correctly by a theist yet proves that personal gods do not exist. Yes you read that right, the fact that it hasn't been answered correctly proves it, not the question!

Where Do I Get My First Slave?

Hallelujah!! I've found the Lord! Slavery is OK according to the bible and I get to have one of my very own! I think I might get a breeding pair so that I can grow more. Once you've gone slave master, one is never enough, you know. Plus, I can sell the extra for cash.

I just don't know where to buy my first one. Walmart has knock-off slaves. They may be the least expensive, but they don't last more than 6 months, so it's not worth it. I think I'll try Amazon, they're great for most stuff. My friend got a slave from them and it was damaged in shipping. They replaced it right away, no questions asked. Plus they throw in an owner's guide on care and feeding. Slaves can be tricky, so that might come in handy.

And you're probably about to lynch me for this post, aren't you? Hey don't blame me. PZ Myers helped me find the light of the lord. I guess the shining light of reason really goes to Jean, who really is a visionary. She's a born again christian, who happens to also be black, which in this circumstance only makes her logic so much more compelling. I know that sounds like an ad hominem attack, but no, in fact it is merely an observation. Jean has opened my eyes. Jean is a raging ignorant whackjob moron.

Logical Fallacy 5: Argument From Authority

(also called Appeal to Authority) Stating a claim is true because a person or group of perceived authority says it's true. The claimant emphasizes the many years of experience and/or formal degrees held by the person or organization making the claim.

This argument is the opposite of the Ad Hominem Argument because the arguer appeals to positive characteristics of the source to support their argument, such as its perceived authority. If an advertisement shows someone wearing a white labcoat or a stern business suit, that is an appeal to authority.

This is Part 5 in a series about Logical Fallacies. We are going through one fallacy at a time. There are many types of fallacious arguments. I'm going to try to explain them with examples then find ways to help you refute those arguments when they occur. Please comment or email if there's a particular fallacy you want me to tackle, or if you have success with refuting an argument using a good technique you can share.

While it's reasonable to take into account the proper background of education and credentials, or to be suspicious of someone without such expertise, it must inevitably come down to logic and evidence to support the claim, not the person promoting it.

A good authority supports a position because there is evidence or other justifiable reasons that the argument merits, not the other way around. So, good scientists do not attach significance to their own authority. The theory needs to stand on its own and be peer reviewed. There is no need for an appeal to authority.

Logical Fallacy 4: Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam

Argumentum Ad ignorantiam means the Argument from Ignorance. It basically states that a specific belief is true because we don't know that it isn't true. This logical fallacy can also be called the Negative Proof Argument, or Appeal to Ignorance.

This is Part 4 in a series about Logical Fallacies. We are going through one fallacy at a time. There are many types of fallacious arguments. I'm going to try to explain them with examples then find ways to help you refute those arguments when they occur. Please comment or email if there's a particular fallacy you want me to tackle, or if you have success with refuting an argument using a good technique you can share.

James stated it quite perfectly in the comments of our last fallacy lesson:

Atheist: “You cannot prove that God exists.”
Theist: “Oh yeah? Well, you cannot prove that God DOESN’T exist!”

Of course this brings up the rule: The burden of proof lies on the person making the positive claim. Basically, if you state that god exists, the burden of proof lies on you.

Edit: I found this video today. Here is Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson explaining it:

Logical Fallacy 3: Tu quoque (you too)

Tu quoque is Latin for "You too". So you justify your wrong action because someone else also does it. "My evidence may be invalid, but so is yours."

This is Part 3 in a series about Logical Fallacies. We are going through one fallacy at a time. There are many types of fallacious arguments. I'm going to try to explain them with examples then find ways to help you refute those arguments when they occur. Please comment or email if there's a particular fallacy you want me to tackle, or if you have success with refuting an argument using a good technique you can share.

My mother did this on the phone the other day. We were talking about religion when my mother told me I should start a cult or my own religion, because they make so much money. (WTF?)

Logical Fallacy 2: Ad Hominem- A Personal Attack

Today's logical fallacy is also very common, in my experience. It's called Ad Hominem, which is roughly translated from the Latin for "to the person." It's a personal attack against you instead of your argument. It can be subtle because it isn't just that they call you a bad name, but they use a weakness or characteristic of you to imply that your argument is weak.

This is Part 2 in a series about Logical Fallacies. We are going through one fallacy at a time. There are many types of fallacious arguments. I'm going to try to explain them with examples then find ways to help you refute those arguments when they occur. Please comment or email if there's a particular fallacy you want me to tackle, or if you have success with refuting an argument using a good technique you can share.

Example: You: I don't believe in UFO's.
Opponent: You're so close minded!

Example: Opponent: I believe in UFO's.
You: You're crazy and/or stupid.

Logical Fallacy 1: Straw Man

This is Part 1 in a series about Logical Fallacies. We are going through one fallacy at a time. There are many types of fallacious arguments. I'm going to try to explain them with examples then find ways to help you refute those arguments when they occur. Please comment or email if there's a particular fallacy you want me to tackle, or if you have success with refuting an argument using a good technique you can share.

Our first Logical Fallacy is the Straw Man Argument. This is a great one to start with on our journey because it's quite common and easy to spot.

A straw man: a dummy stuffed with straw. It's too weak to fight back.

Arguing against a position specifically created to be easy to argue against, rather than the position held by someone who opposes that point of view.

So, when you state your position, your opponent replies not to what you said, but to a distorted and exaggerated caricature of what you said, that is obviously harder to defend.

Example: You state your argument: People who commit minor offenses should be let out of jail sooner.
Opponent replies: Emptying out all the jails would create havoc in society.

While that may be true, it isn't what you suggested. It's irrelevant. Your opponent didn't refute your point, he invented a different point that is easier to argue against. The opponent can take satisfaction in having a point that no reasonable person could argue with. He appears to have successfully defeated your argument when in fact he simply dodged it.