What's Your 'Favorite' Pseudoscience?

First, what is pseudoscience? Pseudoscience: a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to a valid scientific methodology, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status. Pseudoscience Hallmarks:

• Experimental results are not reproducible or able to be verified by others, sometimes through lack of openness of data


• Lack of effective controls (not properly randomized or double blinded, as the case may be)


• The scientific method has not been rigorously adhered to


• Not falsifiable (the result can not be disproved)


• Not testable


• Often overturns established science and proven laws of nature


• Vague scientific claims, often lack specific measurements


• Failure to define the operational terms so that others can independently measure or test them


• Failure to use Occam's Razor (the explanation that requires the fewest possible additional assumptions is usually the most accurate)


• Technical jargon or obscure language meant to confuse and sound like an authority in science


• Lack of boundary conditions (real science specifies limits where the predicted phenomena do and do not apply)


• Heavy reliance on testimonial and anecdotal evidence or personal experience


• Argument from ignorance (just because a claim hasn't been proven false, they say it must be true)


• Selection Bias (cherry picking the results to only use the hits and suppress the misses)


• Evades peer review before publicizing results

I'm Now A True Believer of Intelligent Design!

I've recently purchased a very handy book that explains Intelligent Design so well that I must abandon my godless heathen ways and start believing. Praise be to my wonderful friend Dan who shared this deeply moving tome with me! May the Intelligent Designer bless you and actually answer your prayers!

I am sure you'll want to get this great book too. It's so easy to read, which is what I like. No big fancy words or concepts. It's called The Intelligent Design Coloring Book by Pastor Brett Pirkle. It's not just a coloring book, it also has other activities in at as well! What more could you ask for?

Be honest, wouldn't you rather read a fun book with pictures to color and "science glasses" to cut out and wear, than try to muddle through some dry old book like God Is Not Great by some guy who uses big words in a foreign language like British? I knew you'd agree.

Need more convincing? How about the picture of the front cover? This book is blissfully 100% Fact Free! What more can you ask for? Who needs boring old facts when you can just have Faith?

You're still not convinced? Boy, you sure are a Doubting Thomas. The Intelligent Designer is going to make you burn in Hell for all eternity if you don't start believing without evidence. You don't want that, do you? Do You?! No, I didn't think so!

Ok, here is an excerpt:

Faith and Science

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:

For Entertainment Purposes Only

Hi everyone! I probably should have warned you ahead of time, but I've been so busy I really haven't had much of a chance. Labor Day weekend is "family time." Butch (my longsuffering and adoring husband) had his brother and best friend in town for the annual Labor Day family reunion. So I cleaned and polished and got ready for his friend to stay with us for a few days, and then prepared for several days of family events including the reunion on Sunday. I ate WAY too much delicious Italian food and laughed an awful lot. It all wrapped up last night and now I'm trying to recover. It's a lot for a curmudgeonly, grinch-hearted, soulless, socially phobic hermit to deal with every year.

So, I just wanted to say hi and give you some lolcats and funny pictures to amuse you till I can get back on track. I hope you had a great, long weekend as well.

Little did you know that the freezer is a closely guarded porthole to hell.

For a brief moment Basement Cat had the whole world in his hands. Then he dropped it.

Arguments For God's Existence Are Wrong - Teleological Argument

Recently, the Morgantown Atheists hosted a satirical night of (re)Conversion where our Brights friend Rachel tried all the arguments she could think of to convince us to turn back to god. No one took her up on her offer. But she did go through a bunch of classical arguments that I thought I might share with you. It's good to hear what people use as excuses for believing in god, and it's good to have sound arguments against those beliefs.

Let's start out with the Teleological Argument.

Teleology: the philosophical study of design and purpose. The supposition that there is purpose or direction in the works and processes of nature.

Teleological Argument: the Argument from Design: argues for the existence of god or a creator based on perceived evidence of order, purpose, design or direction in nature.

Here's the basic argument:

• The universe is too complex, orderly, adaptive, apparently purposeful or beautiful to have occurred randomly or accidentally.


• Therefore the universe must have been created by a sentient, intelligent, wise or purposeful being.


• god is a sentient, intelligent, wise or purposeful being.


• Therefore god exists.

You can substitute just about anything in for the universe. The eye, humans, the fundamental constants of the universe, etc.

Many great men have used this argument over the centuries, but that doesn't make it valid. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and Cicero to name a few. Cicero started the Watchmaker Analogy:

"When you see a sundial or a water-clock, you see that it tells the time by design and not by chance. How then can you imagine that the universe as a whole is devoid of purpose and intelligence, when it embraces everything, including these artifacts themselves and their artificers?" (Cicero, De Natura Deorum, ii. 34)