June 12th Service, 10:30 AM
"Minister Emeritus, Rev. John Brigham via Radio"
June 19th, 10:30 AM
No Service - Snake Alley Art Fair
June 26th Service, 10:30 AM
June 12th Service, 10:30 AM
"Minister Emeritus, Rev. John Brigham via Radio"
June 19th, 10:30 AM
No Service - Snake Alley Art Fair
June 26th Service, 10:30 AM
May 1st Service, 10:30 AM
"The First of May, The First of May, just what is it about this day?"
May 8th Service, 10:30 AM
May 15th Service, 10:30 AM (Followed by Business Meeting)
"The Business of Our Mission"
May 22nd Service, 10:30 AM
"Flower Communion Celebration"
May 29th Service, 10:30 AM
This is a transcript of a program presented by James Schuessler on April 24th, 2016.
There is a common cliché or euphemism that everyone has heard of the golden rule that he who has the gold make the rules. Well, the literal definition of economy is “house or home” and “rules or measure.” So, it goes to say that whoever controls the economy makes the rules. The definition by Adam Smith, the18th century philosopher that wrote the first modern work of economics, defines economics as “the Science of Wealth” in “The Wealth of Nations.” Though, the science of wealth was important in the days of mercantilism, today much of the true economy or what I call Anthroeconomics, is much different and more simple and whole than the artificial complexities of math problems used in the fiat, decreed upon high, economic system we use today. The Federal Reserve System, our Central Bank, can through policy make or break the economy at will, and redistribute wealth at a whim, through currency manipulation and inherent defects in a fractional reserve system, which allows Money to printed at will. For every 100 dollars the Federal Reserve puts into circulation, 90 dollars are additionally circulated in the form of fractional reserves and interest. Though there is no endgame to this financial alchemy, there are new and innovative ways to innovate money.
To me the science of wealth, or house rules has little to do with my security, protection, shelter, food, creature comforts, and family. The “True Economy” or anthroeconomics, by my definition is truer to what we consider economics and lifestyle and environmentalism. I define Anthroecology or Anthroeconomics as “The science and measure of the Human Home,” According to Professor Erle C. Ellis, anthroecology is defined in his manuscript, “Ecology in an Anthropogenic Biosphere” In his work, he studies how humans have changed the ecosystem over millennia. In addition, Psychological studies have shown that human happiness and wealth have little to do with each other, but life view is much more important. In other words, a poor eastern Indian living in a shack can have the same score of happiness as someone making a 6 figure salary on wall street. The award winning documentary from 2011, “Happy,” explores this idea.
Ecology, by definition, is the science of a home or house in which we live. Whether that is in the microcosm of a petri dish for bacteria or the entire planet we live for people. Though, I would like to compare ourselves to higher order mammals such as chimpanzees or dolphins. I find my pessimistic side siding with a petri dish analogy. Though we are much more complex than bacteria, we are now at point of crisis for our petri dish, the planet Earth. There are 3 stages of growth in a petri dish, a logarithmic or exponential growth stage. Where everything is great for the bacteria because there is abundant nutrients and plenty of space for all the microorganisms. Next, however, comes a different stage of microbial ecology of the bacteria in an artificial environment. The stationary phase where deaths of bacteria equals new bacterial formed. After this is a lag phase of death and decline of population as the nutrients are slowly depleted and the bacteria die mostly from their own wastes and lack of nutrients. A book from 1972 and updated in 1992 by using system dynamics Professor Jay Forrester of MIT developed, confirms this and has been proven true to this day. The study predicts a drastic decline in population on or before 2050. Where the factors of pollution, food, population, resources, and industrial output are correlated. In 2014 The University of Melbourne confirmed the book, “The Limits to Growth” over 40 years later. Both manuscripts can be found online where you can find the link on the Fellowship’s website as well as other sources I am citing.
The problem when studying economics is that everything is looked at as though we are in a petri dish with infinite resources and no waste, when in fact with us as human beings on this planet indefinitely it is safe to assume we will die from our own wastes unless there is a drastic decline of population. I am an optimist as well though. Through an environmentalist outlook, where instead of us dying from our own waste on the earth. I see the true economy, anthroecology and anthroeconomics, as living in and unto itself. Human life can only change and not end since most high order mammals manage to survive even though we are destroying their and our environment. We have all heard of the great depression and have lived through the great recession and the crash of ’08. Even if the powers that be are either being incompetent or intentionally trying to stamp out the economy it cannot die because humans cannot be easily stamped out through some clever math, credit default swaps, and derivatives. As long as we see our currency as an extension to our life then the economy ending and causing a worldwide depression would only strengthen the Anthroecology of us all. Also, according to the business cycle, which is manic depressive for some reason, the mania from surviving the ordeal would also be a boon to a fiat, artificial, economy while the depression would empower closer communities from local agricultural, walking and biking in our daily commutes, and a better and perhaps happier standard of living in some respects. The artificial economy is based on a fiat currency that can be manipulated. A currency that cannot be manipulated must be used to empower both sides of the coin,of the business cycle, the booms and busts.
The true currency is one more similar to the Nash Equilibrium, or Game theory, which was made popular by the movie “A Beautiful Mind.” Governing dynamics in economics can also be applied mathematically to biological systems. This is where a system of barter and trade provide a better outcome among many parties rather than one source of Capital. In biology, Richard Dawkins, the evolutionary biologist and Atheist philosopher, explained an Evolutionary Arms race based on Game Theory. You can see this in the spring with bird’s mating. It is an arms race to find the best mate for the best offspring per environment. I further extrapolate that the Nash equilibrium can be used as not only an economic and biological theory, but for the foundations for better exchange of a new currency. Bitcoin, created by Satoshi Nakamoto who still remains anonymous, is an example of a currency, mostly unregulated, that allows anonymous peer to peer transactions. If you have not heard of bitcoin, I can briefly explain that it is a crypto-currency that allows for transactions for goods, services, and in some places even real estate. Only by allowing a true laissez faire Monetary system and supply can the true economy flourish and even capitalism and communism meet. By this the best outcome can be achieved, through the Nash Equilibrium, between complete capitalism and complete altruism whether misplaced or genuine.
I say all this in the spirit of Earth Day, for everyday is Earth Day. Is this not our home? Is this not in most all probability going to be our only home? The monetary system in place is not sustaining, neither is the assumption that wealth in and of itself is a science. The Gaia Hypothesis, proposed by James Lovelock, supports my assertion. Many think the “Limits of Growth” model and The Gaia Hypothesis are in contradiction but not if we stick tour Principals. The 7th principal states, "Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.” This must include the true economy, us, or biome and our anthromes, which we have made over millennia. This year the Unitarian Universalist Service Committee has declared, I quote “This Justice Sunday — kicking off April 3 — explore economic justice and be a part of the movement to help people all around the world realize their rights. As the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares, ‘Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favorable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.’” As long as those with the gold make the rules and not treating others as they would like to be treated our future will not change, for the artificial economy is rigged. I say this from the data and not some sort of fatalism.
If you are a believing sort, are we not only stewards to tend this Garden rather than dominant all things? We were thrown from the garden from disobeying the caretaker of it? If so, then we have the knowledge of good as well as evil to truly make this a Shambhala or a return to the garden. If you are unbelieving or a skeptic, then the science cannot be disputed and the so called economy is just an artificial petri dish of some very rich people to play with. I say this again, the true house rules cannot be changed and cannot be undone or manipulated and we are all subject to it because they are the laws of physics and of nature.
Thank you for your time.
Biological Game Theory
“Is Global Collapse Eminent”
April 3rd Service, 10:30 AM
Dr. Cornell West
April 10th Service, 10:30 AM
April 17th Service, 10:30 AM
"A Language of Reverence Revisited"
April 24th Service, 10:30 AM
"Every Day is Earth Day"
March 6th Service, 10:30 AM
"Will Our Democracy Survive Our Election?"
March 13th Service, 10:30 AM
"International Women's Day"
March 20th Service, 10:30 AM
March 27th Service, 10:30 AM
This program is the second part in a series presented by Tyler Owen on February 28th, 2016. You can read the transcript of the first part here.
I mentioned in my previous talk back in December that I consider myself a Scientific Skeptic and a member of the Skeptical movement. My motto is to believe as many true things as possible and as few false things as possible.
Back in December I discussed with you one of the most powerful tools in a skeptic’s arsenal, logical fallacies. When Rick asked me if I would like to give another program for the fellowship I quickly jumped to my old notes. There are so many fascinating logical fallacies that last time I had to limit myself to only 6 or 7. So I’m back today to share some more examples with you, but this time I’m going to see if you can point out the fallacy in the example first. It’s okay if you don’t know the official name of the fallacy, but I think many of you will be able to identify the failures of logic.
Making a special exception to a rule.
Example: Jane: “I think drunk drivers should have to go to jail, but my son is different. He didn’t know what he was doing!”
Explanation: Is your opponent trying to treat a certain situation as a “special” exception? Possibly even “pleading” with you to allow the exception without justification? That’s probably Special Pleading. How does Jane expect us to accept her argument when it goes against the rule she already stated? This is only a fallacy however if there is not sufficient justification given for the exception. In Jane’s case we don’t have any reason to consider her plea other than the fact that the drunk driver is Jane’s son. In contrast, we can consider an instance with proper justification. For example, most people believe that murderers should be jailed. However, we often consider self-defense to be an exception to this rule. Knowing that someone killed because they thought they might be in danger themselves is sufficient justification in most cases.
Lesson: To avoid making this fallacy yourself, make sure you don’t gloss over your justifications. Sometimes we mistakenly believe that others automatically share our opinions or beliefs and assume that they understand our justifications implicitly. You might be accused of special pleading if you do this. Always make your arguments explicit.
Stating that one event will inevitably lead to another.
Example: “When you say it's not a man and a woman anymore, then why not have three men and one woman or four women and one man? Or why not, you know, somebody has a love for an animal...? There is no clear place to draw a line once you eliminate the traditional marriage." -Rep. Louie Gohmert R-Texas
Explanation: Similar to Special Pleading, we seem to be lacking a connection between our argument and our conclusion. Where is the justification for believing that legalizing of gay marriage will lead to polygamy or bestiality? Often you will notice that the resultant events described in a Slippery Slope argument are universally reviled or at the very least generally undesirable. In this way Slippery Slope arguments could be considered a sort of Association Fallacy, where the qualities of one thing are implied to be inherent qualities of another. Somewhere in Rep. Gohmert’s mind marriage equality and bestiality share some negative qualities. This is obviously a negative association Slippery Slope, but it can be used positively as well. You might hear someone argue that if you vote for their candidate it will result in more jobs, higher wages, better health care, and less crime, etc. Saying that these things will be a certain result of your vote is irresponsible and fallacious. You could say that the candidate will fight for those issues, but without the proper data or sufficient justification you cannot profess to know future events.
Lesson: Most Slippery Slope arguments are simply opinions stated as facts. So you can abandon this logical fallacy by making slight adjustments to the way you phrase your arguments. Avoid language that implies you have some predictive power over future events. Stick to what you know or what you believe. Don’t pretend to know what others believe or how they will act.
Answering criticism with criticism.
Example: Dan: “My opponent has said that he has always been against the Iraq war, but in 2002 he voted for the Iraq Resolution in the House.” Steve: “Dan, if I recall correctly I believe that you also voted for that same resolution sir.”
Explanation: To Quoque is Latin for literally “You Also”, as in an accusation of hypocrisy. This is actually a specific form of a Red Herring Fallacy. Something intended to distract from a particular argument. In this example we would like to know why Steve might say he has always been against the Iraq War but his voting history would seem to betray that fact. Dan has rightfully pointed out Steve’s inconsistency regardless of his own vote on the issue. Perhaps Dan still supports the invasion of Iraq (whether you agree with that or not) which would make his statements consistent whereas Steve still needs to explain his inconsistency. In this case the issue presented by Dan is whether or not Steve has lied about his position over time. It is not about whether or not it was appropriate to invade Iraq.
Lesson: This is one of the most tempting fallacies to use in an informal debate, and indeed we see it all the time in the world of politics. Passing up an opportunity to accuse your opponent of hypocrisy can be very difficult, but we have to restrain ourselves and ensure that an accusation of “You Too!” is valid in the context of the argument. If Dan had said “Steve should be ashamed of his vote for the Iraq War in 2002.” then it might be more relevant to point out that Dan made the exact same vote. Even then however, it would be more appropriate for Steve to counter by explaining why he should not be ashamed of his vote. Perhaps giving his reasons for why he voted that way at the time and explaining his change of position. Turning an argument on your opponent can be a compelling emotional gambit, but to truly rid ourselves of fallacious reasoning we must rely on logic rather than emotion.
Asking a question that has an implicit unjustified assumption.
Example: The New Zealand corporal punishment referendum of 2009 was a public voting issue where the question on the ballot read as follows: "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?".
Explanation: I’m actually impressed that this question ever made it to the ballot. The implicit assumption in the question is that smacking your child is part of “good parental correction”. You could make an argument that it is, but the way the question is asked can drastically affect the way voters respond. Perhaps a better way to phrase this question would be “Should hitting a child, including by a parent as part of behavioral correction, be a criminal offence in New Zealand?”. This removes the moral implication while still including the issue of parental correction.
Lesson: Asking questions is one of the most valuable and effective ways to uncover truth and that’s why I find this particular logical fallacy so insidious. It portends to be a way to uncover truth while simultaneously undermining it. Injecting your own biases and preconceptions into a question meant to corner your opponent doesn’t help anyone get closer to the truth. Sometimes we can even do this accidentally. Have you ever heard someone ask “When is the baby due?” only to have the individual respond “I’m not pregnant…”. The question asker in this case may have been well-intentioned, accidentally guilty of a Loaded Question, or perhaps their intent was to shame the individual for their weight, knowing that they were not actually pregnant. The latter explanation is obviously more nefarious and avoidable with just a basic application of our moral compass, but the accidental Loaded Question can be avoided just by making fewer assumptions about our topic or our debate opponent. Are we asking a question for clarification? If so, then ask questions that actually help us uncover truth rather than muddy the waters.
Confusing correlation for causation.
Example: Greg: “Last night I used a ouija board with my roommates and the fire alarm went off! The whole dorm had to be evacuated. I think we angered the spirits.”
Explanation: Greg has jumped to a pretty extreme conclusion based on very little evidence. In fact he has seemingly eliminated the most simple explanation. Some freshmen probably tried making brownies in the common room oven that only gets used like once a year. Smoke alarms tend to go off when there is smoke.
Lesson: As a skeptic, this is one fallacy that I spend a lot of my time trying to fight. Communities around the US are starting to push back against the inclusion of fluoride in municipal water supplies due to the mistaken belief that it causes cancer, ignoring the incredible dental health benefits that are shared, especially for children living in poverty whose families can’t afford proper dental care. Well-meaning parents all over the world have fought to blame vaccines for increased instances of autism with no evidence of causation, despite the incredible strides we have made towards eradicating disease. Environmental activists are fighting to ban genetically modified foods for fear that they will have unforeseen consequences on our health, however, every study shows that we have nothing to fear and in fact we have everything to gain when you consider the ability that GMO foods may have to provide proper nutrition to some of the world’s most suffering populations. The False Cause fallacy runs rampant in our society as a crutch for poorly evidenced fear-mongering. Correlating scary sounding new technologies with even scarier sounding consequences is a major roadblock in the path of social progress. It’s something I could spend an entire program discussing. To avoid this yourself you often need to educate yourself better in the scientific process.
And this is where the Science comes into the label of Scientific Skeptic. The strength of your belief should only be as strong as the evidence that supports it. And that goes for all fallacies, not just the fallacy of the False Cause. Science is a process, not an ideology. And it’s not only for scientists. The cool thing about science is that you can check it all out for yourself. There’s plenty of evidence that vaccines don’t cause autism, but unless you have investigated that evidence for yourself you can’t rely on intuition or common sense to pull your conclusions. One of my favorite political lines from the last five years or so is “I’m not a scientist, but…”. If you ever hear anyone say this you should stop them right there and ask them, “well have you asked a scientist to show you their evidence?” Most scientists I know, my wife included, will be downright thrilled to explain something to you, just as I have been happy to share with you today my understanding of logical fallacies and the importance of skepticism.
Spurious Correlations - A website featuring examples of very close correlations that are obviously absurd to assume that either is a cause of the other (related to the fallacy of the False Cause).
The Believing Brain - An amazing book about why we believe the things we do and why our brains are to blame. Addresses many of the topics that came up during the questions after the program, including superstitions and confirmation biases.
I mentioned GMO foods passively in the False Cause fallacy, but it seemed to spark a lot of discussion after the program. So here are some resources that you might find interesting if you are currently skeptical of GMOs.
Skeptic's Guide to the Universe Episode #428 - An entire episode of the podcast where they discuss the safety of GMO products. Their discussion surrounds an article that contains the following quote (with links to relevant statements/studies):
"Within the scientific community, the debate over the safety of GM foods is over. The overwhelming conclusion is, in the words of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, that "consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques." Major scientific and governmental organizations agree. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences found that "no adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human population," and a report issued by the European Commission made the same claim. The World Health Organization has concluded that GM foods "are not likely, nor have been shown, to present risks for human health."
There are certainly other issues related to GMO products like farming monocultures and corporate interests, but the question of health and safety seems to have been adequately addressed by science, at least to my satisfaction.
Monsanto Myths - A segment from the Skeptic's Guide to the Universe podcast where they discuss many popular myths about Monsanto, a company intrinsically tied to many discussions about the ethics of GMO foods.
February 7th Service, 10:30 AM
"Lee-Jackson-King Day: A Study in Contrasting Histories"
February 14th Service, 10:30 AM
"Will Our Democracy Survive Our Election?"
February 21st Service, 10:30 AM
"A Ride Around Historic North Hill"
February 28th Service, 10:30 AM
"Abandoning Logical Fallacies, Part 2"
January 3rd Service, 10:30 AM
"Another Year Older and Deeper In Debt"
January 10th Service, 10:30 AM
"For a Christian Nation We Sure Have a Pagan Calendar"
January 17th Service, 10:30 AM
"Lee-Jackson-King Day: A Study in Contrasting Histories"
January 24th Service, 10:30 AM
Led by Gregg Eid
January 31st Service, 10:30 AM
"Mental Health Discussion"
The following is the basic transcript of the program presented by Tyler Owen on December 13th, 2015 for the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship at Burlington. A part two was presented on February 28th, 2016 which you can read here.
My name is Tyler Owen and I consider myself a Scientific Skeptic. It is the name of a social movement that can be summed up quite simply: I want to believe as many true things as possible and as few false things as possible. I adopted the title of Skeptic only about 5 years ago, but I think the mentality of Skepticism started when I was young.
I wrestled for a long time with the moral conundrum of homosexuality. I knew I was not gay myself, but being raised in a conservative Christian home I had difficulty understanding why it would be wrong to be homosexual. As I was exposed to the religious arguments against same-sex relationships I could never understand how the conclusions followed logically from the arguments. It just didn’t make sense. It wasn’t until much later that I realized these faulty arguments had a name. They are called Logical Fallacies and they are one of the many mysteries of the human brain. We are all guilty of using them, and yet they can be exceedingly difficult to rid ourselves of. The fact is that we are all tribalistic, biased, pattern-seeking, unreliable observers. Bullet-proof logic is not something we evolved to be especially great at. We simply need practice. So I’m hoping that today I can introduce you to a few specific logical fallacies and perhaps you can use that knowledge to help you be more skeptical in your daily lives.
Misrepresenting someone’s argument to make it easier to attack.
Example: Sally: “Humans share a common ancestor with apes.” Joe: “Well, if humans came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?”
Explanation: Joe responds to a point that Sally never actually made. Sally did not say that humans came from monkeys. She didn’t even say humans came from apes, merely that humans share a common ancestor with apes, which would not imply that apes should no longer exist.
Lesson: Sometimes this fallacy can be used maliciously to purposefully misrepresent the opponent's position. But often times it comes from one side not having a full understanding of their opponent’s position. To avoid this yourself you can have your opponent describe their position in more detail before addressing their argument. Ask direct questions for clarification. Try to repeat their position in your own words and ask if it is accurate. Once you are at a common understanding you can more easily avoid making an accidental Straw man fallacy.
Attacking your opponent’s character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument.
Example: Matt: “I think the school should have lower calorie food options to help students eat healthier.” Jessica: “What would you know about healthy food? You’re the fattest kid in school!”
Explanation: This one should be obvious. Ad Hominems are just mean.
Lesson: A person can still be right about something they are advocating even if you dislike them personally. Try to separate your opinion of someone from their convictions or personal traits. This is one of the most common logical fallacies and it can be tempting to stoop to your opponent’s level when ad hominems are used against you.
Argument from Ignorance / Personal Incredulity
Finding something difficult to understand, or being unaware of how it works, and using that as evidence that it is probably not true.
Example from The Demon-Haunted World by Carl Sagan: “There is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore, UFOs exist, and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe.”
Explanation: The conclusion of the argument may be true, but the reasoning is fallacious. The only time where it would be reasonable to assume that UFOs exist is if we had evidence that supported that. A lack of evidence against something is not equivalent to evidence in support of that same thing.
Lesson: To combat this on a personal level you must constantly reassess the evidence that supports the ideas you believe in. It can be very easy to have inherent biases that lead you to conclusions that are not supported by facts. If there is something you find hard to believe because you don’t understand it, try to find someone who is knowledgeable about that topic and have them explain it to you. Then you will be better prepared to make an assessment.
Judging something as either good or bad on the basis of where it comes from or from whom it came.
Example From Attacking Faulty Reasoning by T. Edward Damer: "You're not going to wear a wedding ring, are you? Don't you know that the wedding ring originally symbolized ankle chains worn by women to prevent them from running away from their husbands? I would not have thought you would be a party to such a sexist practice."
Explanation: These kinds of arguments can be insightful into the origin of a concept, but often times the modern context can be and is separate from the historical origin. In this case the historical origin of wedding bands, even if accurate, does not provide a reason to believe this context still exists today.
Lesson: It can be difficult to avoid using the Genetic Fallacy sometimes. Historical context can elicit a powerful emotional response. It is perfectly acceptable to use historical context in your arguments, but if your argument hinges on something that used to be good or bad, you must still argue on why it is still good or bad today. When most married women and men choose to wear wedding bands it’s difficult to argue that anyone is still being hurt by the practice today. There is one specific Genetic Fallacy that is so common that it has a latin-styled name of it’s own. Reductio ad Hitlerum. It refers to comparing an argument to Hitler or Nazi policies. A common example is to point out that Hitler was one of the earliest proponents for a universal healthcare system. Anyone who makes this comparison is still expected to point out why universal healthcare would be a bad idea. Associating it with Nazis in general is an attempt to discredit the concept as “evil” without providing any concrete reasons to believe so.
Using a personal experience or an isolated example instead of a sound argument or compelling evidence.
Example: “I won’t get a flu shot. I think vaccines actually make you more likely to get sick. My friend got a flu shot once and the next day he had to call in sick to work with the flu.”
Explanation: Anecdotes like this one are not a very reliable means of identifying larger trends or statistical probabilities. There are always exceptions to every trend, and it can be easy to think of our own surroundings as a representative sample of the larger environment, when in reality we may happen to be exposed only to the outliers. In this example, the claim that flu vaccines actually make you more likely to get the flu based on only a single data point has misled the individual and perhaps given them what they feel is a rational excuse to avoid something they already disagree with or find inconvenient.
Lesson: You probably rely on anecdotes more than you might think. For example, you might avoid going to see a movie in theaters because a family member saw it and said it was terrible. In this case your decision is proportional to the evidence you have about the movie and it is not necessarily a fallacy. You might generally agree with your family member’s taste in movies, so a single data point is enough information for you. Plus the decision is largely inconsequential, since you can just watch the movie when it comes out on DVD. With more important issues, an anecdote can still qualify as evidence. Eyewitness testimony is one example of this. But in order to confirm a claim it is always preferable to gather a larger body of evidence. When trying to convince someone of your position be sure to appeal to many sources in addition to your own experiences.
Naturalistic Fallacy / Appeal to Nature
Arguing that because something is “natural” it is therefore valid, justified, inevitable, good, or ideal.
Example From Dr. Bo Bennett: “Nature gives people diseases and sickness; therefore, it is morally wrong to interfere with nature and treat sick people with medicine.”
Explanation: So far I have been fairly abstract in my examples of rebuttals, so let’s try to be more specific with this one. With every logical fallacy there must be some aspect of the argument that does not lead to the conclusion. In this case there are several assumptions that lead to a faulty conclusion. Assumption #1) “Nature” is presented as almost a sort of “force” that “gives” people diseases. The conclusion presents human medicine as an intervention with that force. It could just be the way the argument was phrased, but the opponent has not shown that this force exists nor that it should be allowed to function without intervention. Assumption #2) “Nature” has a discernible morality that is always better than human morality. This point has not been proven in the opponent’s argument. This is actually a logical fallacy within a logical fallacy called Circular Reasoning. What the opponent is essentially saying is that Natural things are good and they are good because they are Natural. Assumption #3) Human intervention is not “Natural”. The opponent here has not provided a definition of Natural that supports this point. The common counterargument would be that humans are indeed a part of nature through evolution and common ancestry.
Lesson: To avoid this fallacy yourself you must be willing to be open-minded and accept that there may be things that are commonly considered “unnatural” which are in fact beneficial or good. There may also be some things that are commonly considered natural that are indeed harmful or worth intervening with.
When you think someone else is guilty of using a logical fallacy it is important to remember that you don’t need to prove their conclusions false, you simply need to point out that there is no reason to accept their conclusions as true until you are presented with more reliable and logically sound evidence. Just because someone is using a fallacy it does not necessarily mean that their conclusion is inaccurate… their conclusion simply does not follow from the argument. And that brings me to one final logical fallacy:
Arguing that because a point has been poorly made, or a fallacy has been used, that the claim itself must be wrong.
Example: Let’s go back to our previous UFO example where the opponent argued “There is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore, UFOs exist, and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe.” Someone responds to this by saying “You have just made an Argument from Ignorance. Your conclusion about the existence of life elsewhere in the Universe is faulty, therefore it is obvious that there is simply no life elsewhere in the Universe.”
Explanation: This responder is guilty of the Fallacy Fallacy.
Logical Fallacies are not a trump card to use in a debate or discussion that will instantly reverse your opponent’s position. Identifying logical fallacies is simply a skill. A skill you can use not just to convince others of your position, but one you can use to analyze your own beliefs and take a neutral position. When discussing difficult topics it is okay to take a middle ground stance. It’s okay to say “I don’t know”. In fact, I think that is one of the most powerful positions you can take. It is a position of humility. It is a position that inspires exploration of further knowledge. A search for truth. At the end of your personal explorations sometimes you will change your position and sometimes you won’t. However, I do believe there is something to be commended for having the strength to change your mind. In our culture, especially American politics, we have a disdain for so-called flip-flopping, but I would argue that changing your mind should never be discouraged. Changing your mind for bad reasons should be.
Thou Shalt Not Commit Logical Fallacies - A website that gives examples of some of the most common fallacies. They also provide a large reference poster that you can print out to help you remember each of the fallacies.
List of Fallacies - A wikipedia page with a comprehensive list of almost all logical fallacies. A great source for helping to identify faulty reasoning.
The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe - A podcast that largely introduced me to the idea of Skeptical thinking and how to identify logical fallacies.
The Moral Landscape - During the discussion portion of today's program we discussed using logic, reason, and science to come to objective moral conclusions. This book by Sam Harris goes into great detail about how this is possible.
December 6th Service, 10:30 AM
"Advent: Anticipating a Blessing"
Christmas Tree Decorating after service
December 13th Service, 10:30 AM
"Christmas is the Season for Reason: Abandoning Logical Fallacies"
Cookie Exchange after service
December 20th Service, 10:30 AM
"The Winter Solstice"
Potluck after service
December 27th Service, 10:30 AM
"What is Boxing Day?"