• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Top 5 Skeptical Fallacies

Possibly a future Olympic event.

Gold medal bollock wobbler. The silver medalist was insufficiently wobbly, and the bronze medalist was simply wasting our time.
 
In one swell foop, the OP has proven the existence of leprechauns, sprites, centaurs, extant non-avian dinosaurs, unicorns, bigfeetsei, denialists, meany-head pseudoskeptics, Loch Ness monstrositudes, vampires, yetis, UFOs and stupidity.
 
Craig4 said:
Wait, didn't they guy who made the costume come forward a while ago?
Click to expand...

Yes, the guy who made the base suit that Patterson modified (Phillip Morris) and the guy who wore the suit (Bob Heironimus) have both come forward.
 
The only one that really bothers me is the "poisoning the well"-fallacy, which skeptics and non-skeptics (if we allow for this to be a brief dichotomy in this context) have often been known to use as a personal safe-guard/firewall reflex, in my anecdotal experience. ;)
 
Vortigern99 said:
In one swell foop, the OP has proven the existence of leprechauns, sprites, centaurs, extant non-avian dinosaurs, unicorns, bigfeetsei, denialists, meany-head pseudoskeptics, Loch Ness monstrositudes, vampires, yetis, UFOs and stupidity.
Click to expand...
Don't forget the Fairies!

Jono said:
The only one that really bothers me is the "poisoning the well"-fallacy, which ..
Click to expand...
Bigfoot tried to pee in the well, but he did not exist.
 
Is there a name for the fallacy of believing in hoaxes that the hoax perpetrator has admitted is a hoax?
 
I still don't understand the vehemence with which people attack people who think there's a large, hairy beast on the loose. They're not selling sasquatch cure-all, or reading minds or casting spells, they're walking in the woods.

There's a really cool disconnect between Forum Management - where the argument that the poster must not be attacked is agreed upon by 100% of people.

Yet in this - and other "woo" threads - abusing the poster rather than the post is so de rigeur it neatly segues back into logical fallacies:

Argumentum ad hominem.

Dinwar said:
More generally, in science all statements need to be supported by evidence. If you say there's a new species--regardless of what that species is--you are obliged to provide evidence, or we are obligated to dismiss your arguments. We literally have no other honest option.
Click to expand...

This is incorrect.

There is no necessity to dismiss the argument at all. The only necessity is to ask for more evidence.

In terms of evidence, most people aren't relying on PG, but eye-witness testimony. USA has the fortunate point of having bears, which from a distance and in bush cover, can easily look like a large, hairy ape.

So, they're wrong. Big deal.

Dinwar said:
Welcome to science. Your reputation is EVERYTHING, and if you gain a reputation for fraud we will dismiss your evidence without further consideration. This is because science relies on the honesty of its participants, and those who violate that pact of honesty are threates to the entire enterprise.
Click to expand...

Wow. Science as religion. Wish I'd thought that one up.

Isn't that what peer-review is for?

jakesteele said:
What if an atheist makes the first claim and says, "There is no God."

Could a religious person then say, "Prove it." Would the religious person have no burden, then"?
Click to expand...

Correct; the positive claim requires the evidence.

In the case of bigfoot, the lack of skeletal and photographic evidence can be used to back a negative proposition, but if you try that with god/s, you'll come a cropper at the first hurdle.

Bigfoot at least has the property of being a physical object.
 
The Atheist said:
This is incorrect.

There is no necessity to dismiss the argument at all. The only necessity is to ask for more evidence.
Click to expand...
I'll accept that different groups hold to different traditions. It's pretty clear in biology, however, that no evidence=case dismissed. Again, it's against the rules. Literally. Don't believe me? Fine, I can be convinced. Please cite the specific clause in the ICZN that allows for naming a new species absent evidence for one. (Fair warning: there are two options I know of that you could use if you don't actually understand the ICZN.) The ICZN also provides specific criteria for evidence in this context.

Never forget: This is a biological issue, and specifically a question of whether this organism qualifies as a newly-named species. That's the heart and sole of this issue. Therefore, the applicable criteria are the ICZN.

Wow. Science as religion. Wish I'd thought that one up.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: If that's how you interpreted this, I can only conclude you lead a sheltered career. Or are reading this in the absolute worst light possible.

It's not religion--it's all about intellectual integrity. If you demonstrate that you have none, we cannot trust you to provide accurate information and at that point you become irrelevant. I suppose you can still publish, but no one will pay attention to you.

This sort of thing is so well documented that I feel no obligation to provide you with references; if you spend a few minutes looking into it you'll see ample evidence. Again, Richard Owen was one of the top scientists IN THE WORLD and was brought down due to a few cases of fraud. The reason is simple: when you demonstrate that you're going to distort evidence, you demonstrate that you've abandoned science, and generally you cannot be trusted in the future. It calls everything you've done, are doing, and will do into question.

Isn't that what peer-review is for?
Click to expand...
No. Not at all. For one thing, the idea that peer review is the sum total of science is a dishonest myth perpetuated by non-scientists. Scientists know that most of science is conducted much less formally. Why do you think conventions such as GSA and the like are a part of scientific culture? Secondly, formal peer review is only the first--and easiest--review process. The INformal review--the analysis of your publication by experts--is at least in theory perpetual (I routinely cite papers 100+ years old) and is much, much harsher.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom