Simple Logic

December 22nd, 2009 ShawnMilo 1 comment
Here are a few logical fallacies that I think are among the most important, and most commonly committed by people who are trying to support something irrational. I expect anyone who wants to debate/discuss/argue with me to read and accept these points. If they do not, then it will be a waste of time for both of us.


The fallacies have been identified and defined long before I learned of them. However, the examples given below are my own.


1. Burden of proof.
The burden of proof is on the party making a positive claim. Simple enough. Example: Fred says that he has a red Porche, but he keeps it in another state. If Barney doesn’t believe him, Fred can not respond by asking Barney to prove he doesn’t have a red Porsche. Either Fred has to provide evidence that convinces Barney, or live the fact that Barney doesn’t believe he has a Porche. Obviously this doesn’t mean Fred, in fact, has a Porche. He may or may not. But the burden of proof is on him if he wants Barney to accept it.


2. Logical Fallacy: Argument from Ignorance
The argument from ignorance fallacy is when a person makes a claim and, when asked why they think it’s true, they respond that they can not conceive of any other explanation. This is a worthless argument. Example: Something is missing from my house, and I blame the cable guy who was here last week. When asked if I saw him take it, I say that there’s no other way it could have gone missing. This is a worthless argument, because I could have misplaced the item, someone else could have taken it, or I could be mistaken in thinking it was at home when I actually left it in the car, at work, or whatever.


3. Intellectual Honesty
Intellectual honesty means applying the same standards to your beliefs in all situations. Example: If I think that there should be a strict zero-tolerance policy on weapons in schools, and that any child caught bringing a knife to school should be expelled, I can’t then demand anything different if my own child accidentally brings a pocket knife to school. Either I believe one thing or the other, but it can’t vary based on the situation.


4. Ad Hominem
The ad hominem logical fallacy is attempting to dispute an argument by attacking the person making the argument rather than the argument itself. For example, if someone with a criminal record is arguing for or against a government policy, it is incorrect to attack their position by bringing up their past crime. If they’re wrong, they’re wrong. If they’re right, they’re right. But the actual item being discussed is objectively true or false, independent of the personalities involved in the argument. So not liking something about a person’s personality or actions is irrelevant.


5. Argument from Authority
An argument from authority is when someone claims that something is true, because the person they heard it from is an authority figure. For example, if my doctor tells me that I can’t put a swimming pool in my yard without a building permit, that’s not good enough, even if my doctor is much smarter than I am. Note that this doesn’t mean that something is less likely to be true — it could be perfectly true. But it’s true or false on its own — it doesn’t matter who says it. An important point to understand here is that not every appeal to authority is an “argument from authority” fallacy. If we were to bring a dead bee to a scientist who has studied insects his entire career and asked him to identify the species and sex of the bee, it is reasonable to say we believe we know the correct species and sex because of who told us. Obviously people can be wrong, so an expert’s claims aren’t to be assumed to guarantee the truth of a thing, but they can be a valid reason to sway our opinion in one direction.


6. Correlation is not Causation
If two things happen together frequently, people often detect the pattern and assume that one causes the other. This is sometimes true and sometimes not, so it should never be automatically assumed that one causes the other. Example: If a school starts buying the food for their lunches from a different company and student grades go up, it is incorrect to claim that the different food made them smarter. Maybe it did. Maybe it didn’t. Maybe there is another cause which caused both things to happen, such as an administrator trying new teaching methods and trying to improve school lunch nutrition.


7. Unexplained Does Not Equal Unexplainable
At one time, people did not know what caused thunder, how water turns into ice, or what determines whether a baby is male or female. There are still a great many things that people don’t know. However, it is incorrect to claim that it’s impossible to know something, or that it will never happen.


8. False Dichotomy
This one is extremely common, and is very similar to the argument from ignorance. It happens when a person says that something is either A or B, and since it’s not A, that proves that it must be B. The problem is that there could be any number of alternatives they are not considering. So, if the last piece of cake is gone from the refrigerator, and I tell my wife that, obviously either she ate it or I ate it, and I know I didn’t eat it so therefore she ate it, then I am creating a false dichotomy. Despite the fact that I’m too lazy, stupid, or intent on being right that I claim it can only be one or the other, there are many other completely reasonable explanations.


9. Reductio ad Absurdum
This is taking an valid argument and applying it incorrectly to a clearly incompatible argument. For example, if I don’t believe in bigfoot because I’ve never seen one, someone might say that therefore I must not believe in air I’ve never seen that either. In one case, there is no reason to believe it. In the other case, there are many independent reasons to believe the claim.


10. Special Pleading
A special pleading is making an untestable claim in order to defend a claim that has been tested and the test failed to prove the claim. For example, if I say I have an invisible friend, and you scatter flour all over him so you can see him, obviously you’re not going to suddenly see his form covered in flour. If I claim that there’s something special about him that allows flour to pass right through him, or not stick to his skin, that’s special pleading.


11. Tautology
Circular reasoning. If I say I know something is true because you told me, and I know you’re honest because you told me you would never lie to me, that is circular reasoning.


12. Moving the Goalpost
When someone makes a demand, it is met, and they claim that this isn’t good enough and that they want more, this is moving the goalpost. It is dishonest and usually a clear indicator that the person will not accept any evidence they disagree with. Example: Fred tells Barney that he was at Woodstock. Barney says he doesn’t believe it, and wants to ask Fred’s wife. Fred’s wife confirms the story, but then Barney says that obviously she would lie for her husband, and wants to see a photograph. Fred actually has a photograph and shows it to Barney, but Barney says that the photo could be faked, or that the picture isn’t actually of Woodstock. In this case, Barney is asking for evidence he won’t accept each time, and coming up with a new reason to dismiss every piece of evidence that is brought to him. Note that none of this makes what Fred is saying a fact. It’s entirely possible that Fred is lying and faked the photo. But if Barney has a good reason to suspect Fred is lying, he should not pretend that he’ll change his mind if a certain condition is met and then add a new condition.
Categories: Miscellaneous Tags:

The Burden of Proof

November 3rd, 2009 ShawnMilo No comments

When there is a disagreement, one side has the task of justifying their ideas. But which is it? The burden of proof always lies with the party making the positive claim. A positive claim is one where an assertion is made, such as claiming that a god exists or that one owns two dogs and a parrot. Other examples are claiming that a god does not exist, or that your neighbor does not own a lawnmower. Anyone claiming any of those things could be justifiably challenged to provide evidence to back up those claims.

This means that the skeptic has no burden of proof. If a UFO nut claims that alien spacecraft have visited the earth, and a skeptic says “I don’t think so,” the UFO nut can not demand that the skeptic “prove him wrong.” It just doesn’t work that way. If the skeptic made the claim that such a thing was impossible, or that there is no life beyond the planet Earth, then the other guy would be justified in asking for evidence.

This is easy to see as a plain fact when looked at practically. If this was not true, then anyone could come up with random ideas all day long about fairies, magic dust, unicorns that sneeze rainbows, and leprechauns that turn invisible at will, and everyone would be obligated to believe every single one of those things until they are proven false.

The easiest way to think about it is to consider that, until an idea is proposed to a person, they can have no opinion. Nobody is born believing in Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, or Yahweh. Someone has to put the idea into their heads in the first place. That person has the responsibility to justify their beliefs. Unfortunately, many people aren’t raised to think skeptically, and they accept any old garbage told to them by an authority figure. I guarantee that if nobody was taught their parents’ religion until they were legally adults, all religions would disappear from this planet.

Categories: Freethought Tags:

Knock Knock

August 17th, 2009 ShawnMilo 1 comment

Well, I had a lovely chat with a couple of Jehovah’s Witnesses last weekend. It’s about time! I’ve been waiting forever for them to show up at my house. Somehow it has taken them years. I have only a tiny spark of hope that they might do some investigating for themselves, but it was worthwhile.

The most interesting point in the conversation was when I brought up the story of Lot. I had asked the ladies if they read the bible. Of course they said yes. I asked if they read all of it, or just certain parts. They claimed to read it all. So I mentioned the story of Lot and asked them what they thought of it. The more talkative one somehow assumed I was questioning Yahweh turning Lot’s wife into a pillar of salt for simply looking behind her, and went into an apologetic about how it wasn’t looking that was the crime, but the “longing” she was doing for such a terrible place. Fascinating, but not really relevant in the bigger picture.

The part I wanted to discuss was when Lot, under pressure from the evildoers of Sodom to deliver a pair of angels to them for gang-rape, instead offered his virgin daughters to the mob. No, I’m not joking. Read Genesis 19. Seriously. Remember now, this is the man that was so righteous that Yahweh sent actual angels to his house to lead him out of town before all the fire and brimstone. Lot said that he had these virgin daughters, and the mob could do whatever they wanted to them, but to leave the “men” (the mob didn’t know they were angels) alone, because they were under his roof, and therefore his protection.

Interestingly, recounting this tale was returned with a shy smile and a blank look. This story was news to them. I encouraged them to read it. Maybe they will.

The point is, if you think “the bible” (there’s no original, many different published versions, and no possible way of reconstructing what the original said) is the inerrant word  of the almighty creator of the universe and provides the moral guidelines you should live by, you might want to read it first. Just saying.

Categories: Freethought Tags:

The Arrogance of Ignorance

August 22nd, 2008 ShawnMilo 33 comments

While contemplating the ludicrous  scribblings of an apologist, I had an epiphany. Creationists, and other people who allow religion to limit their thinking, do not only fail to have any curiosity (because their religion already has all the answers), but they persecute anyone who is curious. Consider the whole concept of a geocentric universe: Once you believe a story that says a magic invisible man created Earth for humans and gave us a light bulb called the sun, you’re all done. There’s no need to consider the sun rising in the morning or setting in the evening. Obviously the sun is a mere accessory for Earth — we are the center of the universe as we know it.

Then some guy has the nerve to make observations, write things down, do some math, and ask questions. With nothing other than solid evidence to back him up, he claims that Earth orbits the sun.  What happens? The Catholic Church persecutes him and places him under house arrest until his death.

Of course, now that the  fact is completely indisputable, the church has apologized. But that’s not the point. That they were completely wrong is not the problem at all. People are wrong all the time, and they disagree with others all the time. What is so aggregious about their behavior is that they forced their self-imposed limitations on others. It’s like being afraid of the monster under the bed, but refusing to turn on the light and look. Silly, sure. But when it becomes evil is when you punish your brother for trying to check under the bed himself.

For those who choose to limit their sphere of knowledge, that is a sad thing indeed. But inflicting your ignorance on others is just evil.

Categories: Freethought Tags:

Consider the Source

August 12th, 2008 ShawnMilo No comments

While trying to explain to a theist why it isn’t their fault that they were raised irrationally, I hit upon a fantastic rule of thumb. Basically, it goes like this: “The less likely you would have been to believe something if you had heard it from an unknown source, the more you need to examine it before accepting it.”

Parents force religion onto their children before they learn to think about something before accepting it as true. For young children, accepting their parents’ words without question is vital — it keeps them from getting hit by cars and burning themselves in the kitchen.

The same idea applies to anyone we trust. Spouses, parents, teachers, and friends have undue influence on us. So the next time someone tells you about some government conspiracy, a new-age “alternative” to medication, or a UFO sighting, consider the facts before believing them — even if they are someone you love.

Categories: Freethought Tags:

Sillier and Sillier

August 7th, 2008 ShawnMilo No comments

As time passes, the whole idea of religion just gets sillier to me. We live in a world where most people  believe in something they can not see. The results of their prayers are indistinguishable from random chance, good things are attributed to their favorite deity, and bad things are written off as beyond our understanding.

Not a single person has a sound reason for their religious beliefs. If such a reason existed, they would have spread it and large numbers of people (if not everyone in the world) would have converted to their religion. Instead, each religion has a set of teachings which were written by people who didn’t know that germs cause illness and that washing your hands prevents the spread of disease.

It’s just a thing people do. Like becoming obsessed with a favorite TV show or celebrity. Some people are so into a video game that they dress up as characters from it and go to national conventions. Humans are a social species, and we like to find others to identify with to become part of an in-group. Religion fills that need very well. The problem is that it comes with a lot of baggage which cause people to do harm to one another.

Basically, being a devoted member of a religion isn’t any different than being a devoted Star Trek fan who speaks fluent Klingon and goes to all the conventions in costume. It’s all a lifestyle choice. So if you have a pet religion at the moment, take a look at it. Ask yourself why you believe it, and what reason you would give someone else so that they can believe in it. You’ll find that it all comes down to the fact that you choose to accept it without reason because you feel like you’re accepted somewhere. You can find that in many other places without all the built-in guilt, fear, and tales of eternal hellfire.

Categories: Freethought Tags:

Told you so!

March 28th, 2008 ShawnMilo 10 comments

I realized recently (probably fairly late to the game), that there is a simple refutation to all religious beliefs. It can not be contradicted by any honest person. There are only two possible responses: Think about it honestly, or choose to ignore the truth.

Here it is:

Anyone who believes in any gods does so for no other reason than somebody else telling them to. If their religion has a holy book, they only believe the book to have authority because someone told them it does.

That’s it — plain and simple.

Categories: Freethought Tags:

The Obvious Choice

February 25th, 2008 ShawnMilo No comments

If there was any proof of Islam, Christians would convert.

If there was any proof of Hinduism, Jews would convert.

If there was any proof of Buddhism, Muslims would convert.

The simple truth is that more people de-convert and become atheists than convert from one religion to another. Recent polls show that the fastest growing group on surveys about religious affiliation is “None.” Makes perfect sense to me. As a society, we have moved further from superstition, and have become much more capable of dealing with the natural world as it is. Some of this comes from understanding the previously unexplained.

I am happy to see that reason is overcoming superstition at a growing rate. It has come to the point where theists are publishing books with which desperately try to refute the legitimate criticisms of their preferred religion — and failing in that task.

I have started reading a couple of books in that vein, and will write about them on this site. In the meantime, you may perform an extremely simple test. Go to the book store and find a book which attempts to attack rational arguments about how their particular religious beliefs don’t hold water. You will probably find that their representation of the argument against is pretty accurate — they don’t want to be accused of skirting the issue. Next, read their “refutation.” It will always be wordy, imprecise, and will fail to back up any of its claims with facts.

These are exciting times indeed for human enlightenment.

Categories: Freethought Tags:

“A Christian and an Atheist” thoughts, Part 1

January 24th, 2008 ShawnMilo 1 comment

I was listening to the podcast “A Christian and an Atheist” on my way to work this morning, and I had a lot of thoughts about things which were said, but even more about things which were not said. In my next few posts, I’m going to go over some of those things. In this episode, Emery (an atheist), interviewed Pastor Scott Barger. They discussed a list of questions Barger had prepared for atheists.

The first question from Barger was how so many atheists could claim the knowledge that no god exists. He further claims that such people should more honestly refer to themselves as agnostics.

I have two main thoughts about this. The first one is that atheism is simply disbelief in any gods. The fact that some atheists will go further and claim that no gods exist is simply a matter of choice. This shows a misunderstanding of atheism, which was also hinted at when Barger refers to atheism as a “system” and to atheists as people who follow that system. For more on this, see my article “Everything You’ve Heard About Atheists is Wrong — Except one Thing.”

Secondly, the unstated implication of Scott Barger’s question is that people who claim that no god exists should be agnostics, because agnosticism allows for the question to remain open. Obviously, this sentiment stems from his belief in the existence of a god, and his desire for the rest of us to leave the possibility open in case we’re wrong. There are, however, two major flaws in this idea. First, an atheist is open to new information, and can be convinced of the existence of a god if the evidence is presented to us. Most of us will freely admit that. However, agnostics take the position that it’s impossible to know in either case. So while they would, in theory, be convinced as quickly as an atheist in the presence of evidence, their philosophy precludes even looking for such evidence, since they don’t believe there is any possibility of finding any for or against.

Also, and most importantly from a logical perspective, is the simple fact that leaving yourself open to the possibility that there may be a god does not mean that it is just as likely as the non-existence of a god. It’s not a 50-50 bet. Based upon the evidence we have, there is no reason or evidence which indicates that a god exists. That makes the bet more like 100-0 against than 50-50.

Full credit for civility goes to both Scott and Emery for this conversation. It was a respectful, non-combative conversation, which is rare between theists and non-theists. In fact, I don’t remember ever hearing a conversation in which points were made strongly by one side and conceded by the other. I can only hope that these concessions mean that our global conversation on these issues can begin to shed the tired old arguments which have long since been decided and discuss the core of the matter.

Categories: Freethought Tags:

Site Change

November 27th, 2007 ShawnMilo 3 comments

Putting up good content regularly requires a lot of time. I did it for a few months, then I asked for some feedback from you (see most recent post before this). Nearly two weeks have passed since then, and not a single person said so much as “hello.” I intentionally did not post since then so it would remain the top post, and get more exposure.

So, I’ll be posting irregularly when I have something I really want to write about, but I will no longer add content multiple times weekly. I was hoping to have a community of readers who were interested in discussing some of these topics, but maybe most of my readers are hitting the site through Google searches.

Also, I have already posted the most important topics I really wanted to get out there, and I don’t want to be repetitive. I will maintain the site for the foreseeable future in the hope that people will stumble across my favorite essays, and hope that I do some good in the world.

Shawn

Categories: Miscellaneous Tags: