I'm an Evangelist

This picture and quote from the Dalai Lama was put on my Facebook wall by a future relative who we will call Rachel.

Now, considering our mildly confrontational Facebook exchanges in the past, I felt chided and I admit I got a bit defensive in the conversation that unfolded.

I won't bore you with the whole exchange, but here is the key point she made:

Rachel: ..."It basically says that changing the beliefs of others and judging the Life Path of others is not your duty or responsibility, just as it is no one's duty or responsibility to change YOUR beliefs or judge YOUR Life Path. When one makes a mission out of converting others to their way of thinking, they become a missionary... an extremist. And no one likes an extremist. Live and let live!"

Now, I certainly felt she was accusing me of being a missionary for atheism, and therefore an extremist. Which of course, is faulty logic. (I believe that's the slippery slope) In other words, she's saying if I talk about my atheism to try to change another's beliefs, I am an atheist missionary which means I am automatically an extremist. It's excluding the middle and saying if you do it at all, you go to the Extreme! (you have to shout the word extreme like you are in a commercial for the WWE)

I'm glad she posted this picture and said that to me because it helped me to clarify how I go about interacting with people. First, I do not go onto the walls of other people on Facebook and foist my worldview onto them. I do not engage with people unless they come to me first and start the conversation.

Logical Fallacy 15: Bandwagon Fallacy

The Bandwagon Fallacy goes by several names. Two other common ones are Appeal to Popularity and Argumentum ad Populum.

Basically, if X is popular it must be good or correct (or if X is unpopular, it's wrong). 

"The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence that it is not utterly absurd; indeed, in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible." Bertrand Russell

This is Part 15 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.

This fallacy is used to try to convince someone that a popular idea is true.

• There are over 2.2 billion Christians in the world, so Christianity is the true religion.
• All of my friends are doing it.
• That film made more money than any other so it must be the best ever made.

It's also used to try to convince someone that an unpopular idea is false.

• That candidate is unpopular so his ideas are wrong.
• No one went to see that movie so it must be awful.

One of the most common usages is in advertising.

• Everyone loves Coke so you should buy Coke too.  
• Everyone watches this show so you have to as well.

Examples

11-11-11

My friend received the following email recently:

This is the year of MONEY! In Chinese, this is a lucky number!
Check this out! This year we will experience 4 unusual dates.... 1/1/11, 1/11/11/,  11/1/11, 11/11/11!
So figure this out.. take the last 2 digits of the year you were born plus the age you will be this year and it will equal 111!
October of 2011 has 5 Saturdays, 5 Sundays and 5 Mondays! This only happens once every 823 years! This is called Money Bags.
Send this to 11 friends within 11 minutes and in 4 days money will come to you! If you don't forward this, no money will come to you.
It Works! 

This was basically 3 different chain emails rolled into one. So here is a nice dose of reality.

• First, 1 and 11 are not auspicious numbers in China. Also, even numbers are generally considered luckier than uneven. But four is the exception as it sounds like "death" so it's considered unlucky and is avoided. 
• Forwarding a chain email only irritates the people you send it to. Nothing magical happens. There is no mechanism in physics or natural law that supports such a ridiculous notion. 
• If someone forwards an email to you to reach their demanded quota, email them after the time that they were promised their money/luck/etc. See how many times those people win the lottery in those days. (It can happen, but that would be random chance, nothing more)
• Yes, we do have 4 mildly interesting dates this year. So what? You can find these little number patterns almost any year. Nothing magical or amazing happened in the world on 1/11/11 or 11/1/11, did it? Nothing magical will happen on 11/1/11 or 11/11/11 either.
• It is also meaningless and completely arbitrary. Read about the history of calendars. We use the Gregorian calendar now. They are fairly arbitrary. 
• If the good luck comes from Chinese beliefs, this isn't even 2011 in their calendar. 
• Not to mention the year isn't 11, it's 2011. If you add that factor in, it all falls apart. 
• Every month that has 31 says include 5 occurrences of 3 days of the week that follow a simple pattern that repeats every several years. 
• Money bags in Feng Shui have nothing to do with 5, days of the week, or 4. In fact, remember 4 is very unlucky and 5 isn't luck for them either. A "money bag" in Feng Shui has 9 Chinese coins tied up in red cloth with a red ribbon, and is placed where money is received or generated. This is superstitious, arbitrary nonsense. 
• Adding the last 2 digits of your birth year to your age for this year will always come up with the last two digits of the current year. For example, I was born in 1969. I arbitrarily ignore the 19 (so that they trick will work) then at 42 to that and I'll get 111. Spooky, huh? Ok, in 2010 I would add 69 to 41 and get 110. Nothing magical. Just numbers doing their thing.

Resources:

• Snopes 
• Snopes
• Wikipedia
• Travel China Guide

As an added bonus, check out the ridiculous woo proclaimed regarding 11:11.

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 Solution To My Problem

I mentioned my frustration with people insisting on debating (arguing) with me the other day in a post called A Revelation.

Well, I posted it to the HDC Facebook Page and got some suggestions there as well. One by Susan is a video clip that I think is the most awesome response to most of the arguments I have had to try to deal with:



This is the principal in Billy Madison. I've never seen the movie but it's quite helpful. I have a feeling I will want to link to this video often in the future! HA!

Thanks so much, Susan!

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 Secret To Teen Power is Harmful Bullshit

Awhile ago my friend's daughter turned 21 and received a copy of The Secret to Teen Power by Paul Harrington. While I'll leave it to you to mull over giving a teen book to someone turning 21, it was not well received. Of course, having written a previous article titled The Law of Attraction - And The Secret - Are Bullshit, I was keen to see how ‘insightful and helpful’ this new book was. My friend was kind enough to send it to me. It's taken me a year to get up the energy to even look at this piece of work.

My first surprise was that it wasn't written by Rhonda Byrne, who wrote The Secret. The guy who wrote this bunch of drivel is an employee for Byrne, although in the acknowledgments he says she is his best friend and mentor as well.

Let's cut to the chase of this book, which is #6 in teen health/mental health on Amazon. The reviews are mostly glowing. The ones I read were of parents and people who gave the book to kids, which I find disturbing.

Here is exactly what the Secret is: (pg 5-6)

According to science, there are certain laws that govern the Universe. There's the law of gravity - whatever goes up must come down. And there's Einstein's law of relativity - everything in the Universe is made of energy. And then there's "string theory" - everything in the Universe vibrates, everything has its own vibe. But the most powerful law in the entire Universe is ... the law of attraction. THE SECRET is the law of attraction. Everything that happens in your life all comes down to attraction. You attract all the stuff that happens to you,  every last little thing, no matter whether it's totally awesome or truly awful, it's all about you. And you do it with the power of your thoughts. Whatever you think about, that's what goes down, that's what happens.

OMFSM! My brain exploded! My BS meter overloaded. And I only got to page 6! Not only is this bullshit, it's Harmful Bullshit. We need some sanity! On the book’s page on Amazon, this is the first (most excellent) review, which sums up some of my thoughts:

Happy Easter Fellow Heathens!

Happy Easter, fellow heathens! Jesus died for your sins but came back for your BRAAAAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIINNNNNNNSSSSSS!

I hope you are enjoying ham, chocolate and good company. Here is some irreverent, blasphemous humor for you today:

Now we know how Easter Eggs are made!

 

All Hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster! He is Risen!

Thought Experiment "J" Followup

Last week I posted the following hypothetical Thought Experiment J:

You represent a human aid organization in central Africa and help refugees and victims of a gruesome tribal war based on local religion. It is a country without natural resources, the UN won't intervene. You make no distinction and help the hungry and wounded of both factions/tribes. For your organization to work safely in that area, both war lords demand payment in terms of food and money. You give away a part of your resources (food, medical aid supplies) for your aid workers to be safe. Here's the dilemma:

- You help and treat both sides. Since there is no distinction between civilians and soldiers (there is no army, they do not wear uniforms and do not know the Geneva convention), once wounded combatants drop their AK47 and report at your hospital, you identify them as civilian and you treat them. But when they leave healed, they pick up an AK47 somewhere and start fighting again. The warlords have food, manpower and money, so the fighting continues. While 50,000 die each year, you save an estimated 200,000 lives each year. You feel you make a difference. The bad side is, this war has raged for 10 years already and will continue at least another 10 years, if not longer.

The alternative:

- You stop giving aid. About 250,000 people die each year of famine, sickness or fatal wounds. Because of the high casualty rate, one side claims victory in 2 years, but the county is a graveyard (think Rwanda). Still, peace settles in after the war has ended.

As a rational thinker, you can do the math (500,000 dead in both cases). On moral grounds, you meet difficulty. Still, you'll have to make a choice: Will you stand by and watch genocide happen or will you intervene, but let the war continue? What will you do? This is a very hard question, if not a bit of a sick one, I admit. But it has tested my thinking and ethics. Also, when people are acting/intervening based on religious grounds (especially if one side is christian!), what would happen?

Thanks so much to all of you who tackled this hypothetical question. My favorite answer came from Jay Knight who said he'd get a sniper rifle and go in and kill one of the leaders, then leave a note saying the other leader did it, then repeat as necessary. I love the answer even though it isn't following the "unspoken rules" of the thought experiment (that you have to stay within the parameters given). Instead of leaving the note that Jay suggested, I would leave a note from God himself (not sure how that would work) where God tells people in the note that he disapproves of war and to love one another. My other idea for a note to leave after killing one leader is to say, "This war is not cool. I will kill any leader that perpetuates it." And leave it at that.

Personally I feel the above Question is one of those lose-lose situations that I just can't stand. What would I do? I've thought about this for awhile now and I just don't know. If I stay within the parameters of the Question, I guess I'd have to not give aid because it lengthens the war and accomplishes nothing. No extra people are saved, but different people die. I think I'd have to find better ways to use my time than help perpetuate such a pointless war.

Jobson, who sent me the question, has a very long answer:

Thought Experiment "J"

Recently I was sent the following thought experiment by Jobson, a frequent commenter here on HDC. Here is what he said:

If I may add another question / thought experiment here, one I have been contemplating on for many years. It was once postulated by some woman of the UN council ( I can't remember her name) and she was heavily criticized for it. But I agree she had a very important point. Imagine the following hypothetical (but very realistic!) case:

You represent a human aid organization in central Africa and help refugees and victims of a gruesome tribal war based on local religion. It is a country without natural resources, the UN won't intervene. You make no distinction and help the hungry and wounded of both factions/tribes. For your organization to work safely in that area, both war lords demand payment in terms of food and money. You give away a part of your resources (food, medical aid supplies) for your aid workers to be safe. Here's the dilemma:

- You help and treat both sides. Since there is no distinction between civilians and soldiers (there is no army, they do not wear uniforms and do not know the Geneva convention), once wounded combatants drop their AK47 and report at your hospital, you identify them as civilian and you treat them. But when they leave healed, they pick up an AK47 somewhere and start fighting again. The warlords have food, manpower and money, so the fighting continues. While 50,000 die each year, you save an estimated 200,000 lives each year. You feel you make a difference. The bad side is, this war has raged for 10 years already and will continue at least another 10 years, if not longer.

The alternative:

- You stop giving aid. About 250,000 people die each year of famine, sickness or fatal wounds. Because of the high casualty rate, one side claims victory in 2 years, but the county is a graveyard (think Rwanda). Still, peace settles in after the war has ended.

As a rational thinker, you can do the math (500,000 dead in both cases). On moral grounds, you meet difficulty. Still, you'll have to make a choice: Will you stand by and watch genocide happen or will you intervene, but let the war continue? What will you do? This is a very hard question, if not a bit of a sick one, I admit. But it has tested my thinking and ethics. Also, when people are acting/intervening based on religious grounds (especially if one side is christian!), what would happen?

Jobson and I want to know how you'd handle this situation before we give our answers. So what would you do? It's a tough one, isn't it?

The God Meme

The internet is full of memes. One of my favorites are the God Meme. Basically it' s a picture of The Almighty with a little bit about how he operates.

Instead of listing them in all their bad graphic glory, I am just going to write  them out for you. (I'm sure this breaks some uber-nerd interwebs code of ethics)

Create AIDs - Forbid condoms.

Help actresses win awards - Do nothing about world hunger.

Wrath is a sin - Blow up cities to show who's boss.

Bow before me.  - I need the attention.

Create homosexuals - Ban homosexuality.

No worshiping idols  - Hang a cross in your home.

Omnipotent, perfect - Jealous.

Create world for humans - 70% salt water.

Japanese wave at me - I wave back.

Jews are my chosen people - LOL Holocaust.

Day 1: create light - Day 4: create light source.

Humanity descended from one man and one woman - Who only had sons.

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.

A Delicate Situation

As you may know, I used to unquestioningly believe in the power of "energy". I became an atheist long before I became a skeptic. I still "knew" that there was an energy force in the universe, that we reincarnated after death, that there was justice in the form of karma, and that people could be healed by energy.

I never had any reason to doubt my beliefs. In fact, I had a lot of selective bias that showed I was pretty good at giving readings (I didn't know it but I was good at warm and cold readings), and I was very good at doing energy healings. People told me they felt better just talking to me. Now I know that just paying attention to people can be help someone feel better. I did reiki healing which is very comforting. I would pay a lot of attention to a person and really listen to them compassionately. The placebo effect did the rest.

Long before I discovered skepticism I heard something about the power of suggestion, so without knowing I was doing science (roughly) I tested out the claim that energy healing is all about just making people feel cared for and is no better than placebo. I "turned off" my healing hands (reiki) several times and people still thanked me and told me I gave them a wonderful healing.

That's when I started getting out of it all. I realized I was just doing therapy for people, and that it was psychological and not "magical" so I gracefully extricated myself from the spiritual community.

I had many friends in the spiritual community back then. Most of them stopped talking to me when I stopped giving readings and healings. One woman, we'll call her Barbara, kept asking me for readings. She would call me all the time, every few days, asking for advice. I am horrible at confrontation, so after trying to tell her I didn't do readings anymore, I broke out the cards and went ahead and tried to help her. I did my best, but I started to feel more and more uncomfortable as time went on.

Harry Potter Gets Rational

It's funny how you can spend years reading a series of books and never notice something glaringly obvious until someone points it out to you. Then of course it's, well, glaringly obvious!

I read the first 6 Harry Potter books and thought they were great. I thought they were something I could recommend to a young person to read, but then I just learned about Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality and I realized, Harry never questioned the magic, never thought critically about it, never tested it. He just instantly accepted it as the new reality.

The Methods of Rationality is fan fiction, but I hear from Julia Galef over at Rationally Speaking, that this is good stuff. In it Harry Potter uses rational and critical thinking to analyze whether things are really magical or if there is a more plausible explanation. He devises experiments and tests his hypotheses. So far I think there are 63 chapters.

I have to confess, I haven't read any of it yet, this is all going on Julia's recommendation, so if it's really horrible, let me know! I am still reading The Selfish Gene so this is on my list for when I'm done.

Go Here for the pdf, epub and mobi (for kindle) versions that you can download and let me know what you think!

The Afterlife and Sentient Rocks

Last night our local group of heathens and extended friends had our Winter Solstice/Festivus/FSM Holiday/Christmas/Hanukkah party. It was fun. The conversation was very interesting and incredibly diverse. Here are two topics I discussed.

I was talking to a Buddhist physicist who works for NASA part time. He started talking about how the earth and rocks have sentience. I disagreed, of course. He had this weird logic that was completely flawed. He said something about how humans are sentient, and we need the sun and the earth so they are sentient too. Um, what? And he works for NASA?

My friend Eric works for NASA. He went to his office christmas party where they prayed at the beginning "in jesus name".

This is fascinating and disturbing. I had this idea that people in places like NASA are rational and critical thinkers. But I guess you can be smart in one area and compartmentalize your beliefs and faith in the supernatural in another, and blithely eschew critical thinking. I think early and lifelong indoctrination is definitely a factor. It is disheartening, though.

~

One of my friends, Jim, is a grief counselor so he and I ended up talking about death and the afterlife. Cheery, huh?

We both agreed that as atheists, there is no fear of death. Being dead is natural. It's the end. For about 14 billion years before you were born you didn't exist. Now you do. Eventually (hopefully later rather than sooner, after a rewarding and wonderful life) you will die. We all die.

Where I have problems with death is the actual act of dying. I really don't want to suffer. I don't like pain. I don't want to lose all of my dignity. As Jim said, though, we are really working on that.

Anyway, if you're religious, you are led to believe that there is an afterlife. Well, some religions anyway. Apparently the jews don't hold to that notion. So if you're a muslim and you do good deeds like kill a bunch of innocent infidels you and 72 members of your family go to heaven where you get 72 virgins (see inside label for details).

If you're a christian, you get two choices (well, catholics get purgatory, too). You're going to hell unless you get saved and accept jesus as your savior (rules and restrictions may differ for your denomination. See insert). Then you get to go to heaven to worship god for all eternity.

Neil C. Reinhardt Shows His True Colors

When someone sends me spam, I figure the information sent to me is fair game. Remember the guy who sent me the email about noni juice? I blogged about it twice: (here and here).

In the second post, I went through his email line by line and stated the logical fallacy. I made no personal attacks (except one, I'm only human after all). When I published the post, I removed his name. I wasn't trying to attack the spammer personally. I just thought it was an excellent exercise for us.

What I didn't do, is write back to the guy. As I said, it seemed like spam, and I didn't want to get into it with him. I figured I'd never hear from him again. I heard from him 5 times this evening. Oh, lucky me, I just got another one from him. That makes 6.

When he sent the first ones, he apparently hadn't seen the articles. In the first email of the evening he wrote:

"P.S. FYI The odds of you ever knowing, and/or ever meeting, anyone who is MORE truthful than I am is zero!"

To which I replied, "In my experience when someone starts out saying how [insert noble quality such as honesty, fidelity, etc. here] they usually prove to be either self-delusional or outright liars."

He didn't like that. He said later that my experience was limited. Which I have to say, he's right. My data pool is not immense. But it's a good rule of thumb in my experience. When someone tells me, "I'm so honest, I'm so faithful, I never lie, I'll always do this behavior" I will remember that. It's usually a huge red flag that they will fail in that exact respect sooner rather than later.

I'm not a psychologist but it seems to me that that there are two things going on. Either you're lying to yourself when you say such a thing, or you're lying to whoever you say it to. Or some combination thereof.

Anyway, I started to reply to this guy's email. I wanted to make it very clear that I didn't want his juice and I didn't want to argue with him. The way he talked about James Randi was another red flag I should have heeded.

He sent a long email of glowing reviews from other people. (I gather he is on a forum or something). This is anecdotal and irrelevant to me.

Another email was vague and I have no idea what it was about.

Then the kicker. Obviously he visited HDC. If you don't want to read strong language, skip this. It's exactly as he sent it in its entirety. Notice I do not do the courtesy of removing his name this time:

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!

More on Critical Thinking

Here's another great video about critical thinking. QualiaSoup makes some really awesome educational videos.



I transcribed it to make it easy to follow and reference:

Give someone a fish and they'll eat that day. Teach them how to catch a fish and they'll never grow hungry. Proverbs like this remind us how learning skills help to move us toward self-reliance. This is never more true than with critical thinking.

Memorize the solution to a problem and you may master that particular problem. Improve your critical thinking and you'll give yourself the tools to create your own effective solutions to a multitude of unfamiliar problems.

Tips For A Skeptical Outlook

Here are a few points on how to have a skeptical outlook. These come from The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe. They're just snippets from some of their older episodes that I thought were worth sharing.

To avoid the ego blow of admitting you were wrong, adopt this point of view:

"My opinions are dependent upon the existing evidence. I could be wrong. If new evidence comes out I'll happily change my opinion to correspond to it."
~
Later, they sum it up a bit differently:

Practice science and skepticism: Attach yourself to the process, not the conclusion. The process has to be valid, has to be scientific, has to be legitimate. Don't be emotionally invested in the conclusion. As long as the process is valid, it leads wherever it leads.

That means if new information comes up, or if someone shows that a different logic is more appropriate, then you can happily change your conclusion because you have no attachment to it.

It's just that you have to get the process right.

That's science in a nutshell. Science is a process. It's about the process, not about the conclusion.

Pseudoscience begins with the conclusion, then they pervert the process. They warp the process to continue to match their forgone conclusion. It can seem very logical and reasonable. It's still not science.
~

This applies to all areas of thought, from science and pseudoscience to religion, politics and just the world in general. If you're attached to your beliefs and ideas, that's dogma. The secret is to be attached to the truth and let it take you where it leads, and always be open to change your mind if new and compelling evidence comes to light.

In this way, learning new things is a wonderful adventure, it's fun and exciting. When you're close-minded and set on your narrow world view, you then have to lie to yourself and others to make your limiting belief make sense to you. You have to close out the real world to keep the little bubble of dogma around you intact. It's not very much fun. You're constantly threatened by new facts and information that threaten you.

Then again, a lot of us have Sacred Cows. A sacred cow is some area in your life that can't be criticized. It could be a person, an institution, a belief, an area of belief, or a custom.

What are your Sacred Cows? Why have you made them immune to criticism? What would help you to hold them up to the light of reason?