Comment Guidelines

The comments sections are for people to explore issues raised by the posts in more detail – to add additional information or references, and to cover things you think I missed or got wrong in my original post. Clearly this means many people will post disagreeing with what I have written, and will often disagree vigorously, and this is OK. Sometimes people may even be a little insulting or will use some bad language. This is understandable and OK to a point. But where the comments are just insulting without any content, and/or if the bad language is just gratuitous or excessively vulgar, the tone can be such that other people are discouraged from reading this blog. This is what I want to avoid.

With this in mind, please note the following list of things that will get your posts deleted and possibly get you banned from commenting. Where reasonable I will give warnings to violators before deleting posts and/or banning people.

Excessive Profanities

I realize that sometimes only a well placed F word will express how you really feel – just don’t go overboard. Where I consider profanities to be gratuitous or excessive, or where the noise to signal ratio is too high, I will delete posts.

Off Topic

Please stick to the topic of the original post. Comments that are wildly off-topic may be deleted.

Posting Names and Sock Puppets

Please use a name in the “Name” box. It doesn’t have to be your real name but please use the same name each time you post a comment. Anyone I find using sock puppets – posting different comments under different names – will be instantly  banned. You don’t have to validate with an email address.

Copy and Paste

Please do not copy and paste massive amounts of screed, and especially don’t do this implying it is your own work. Copy a few paragraphs if you want with a link to the full article.

Signal to Noise Ratio

I understand that sometimes you wish to post insults about another commenter – just make sure please that the majority of what you post is reasoned argument, reasonable questions to another commenter, citations, answers to questions etc. If people read paragraph after paragraph of just personal insults they will likely be driven away.

Please note, I will be extremely flexible and easy going in applying these rules. I don’t want to put people off commenting and I especially don’t want dissenters or non-skeptics to feel they can’t post exactly how they feel. But only post comments please if you are actually interested in reasoned debate, or in imparting some valid information about the subject in hand. The overriding rule is simple – don’t be a jerk. If you honestly follow that rule there will be no problem.

Fallacies

While the above might be considered “rules”, there follows a summary of fallacious arguments we have all heard before -  arguments that you might like to avoid using. Please read the following summary of fallacious arguments – read the more detailed explanations at the links – and unless you can explain why these are not fallacies, expect to be ridiculed if you use any of these arguments. Up to you of course.

In no particular order, you should try avoiding the following:

The appeal to be open-minded

The really lame fallback of the non-skeptic. An open mind is open to all ideas, but it must be open to the possibility that the idea could be true or false. It is not closed-minded to reject claims that make no sense, but if you can’t accept the possibility that an idea might be false, then you are the closed minded one.

The appeal to other ways of knowing

An example of this would be to claim that alternative medicine can’t be tested by science. Science has proved to be the most reliable method we know for evaluating claims and figuring out how the universe works. If the you claim there is a better method, it is up to you to describe that better method and explain why it is better.

The appeal to “science doesn’t know everything”

This would include, for example, pointing out that that for hundreds of years nobody could prove the presence of atoms, electricity or radio waves, or that people used to think the Earth was flat. Of course, these things are true and science doesn’t know everything, but the corollary is not that any idea you like the sound of, that cannot be proven false, is worthy of consideration. Something is only worthy of consideration if there is a reason to suppose it is true. So please provide one.

The appeal to “science was wrong before”

This argument will be to point out previous errors in science, as if that justified your claim. Of course science is sometimes wrong, but science has proven the most reliable method we know for evaluating claims and figuring out how the universe works. This argument is just a smoke screen to disguise the fact that the you have no evidence for your claim.

Ad Hominem

Not a mere insult, as most people think. It means attacking the motives or qualifications of the person making the claim, rather than the evidence they present for their claim. Examples would be to call someone a “Pharma Shill” to indicate they were perhaps being paid by the pharmaceutical companies to write what they are writing. The motives of the person making the argument are irrelevant; only the data are important. You need to show exactly what is wrong with the actual data.

Equivocation

This is when you use the same word in different meanings in an argument, implying that the word means the same each time. For example, someone asserts that I have “faith” in science, and then implies this is the same as religious faith. Obviously they are different.

Appeals to Quantum Mechanics

Please don’t bother telling us that if only we understood quantum mechanics we’d know that your brand of woo is real. First, several people who comment here regularly understand QM fairly well and will quickly expose your ignorance. Second, and more importantly, you will need to explain exactly how QM proves your point. And citing What The Bleep Do We Know as a reference will not cut it.

Appeals to personal experience

There is a reason that randomized double-blind studies are used to determine the efficacy of therapies – personal experience is unreliable. Please don’t tell us that your woo therapy worked because you felt better just after you were treated, unless you can explain why the improvement you experienced could not possibly be due to one of the following:

1. Placebo
2. Temporary mood improvements due to the personal nature of the treatment
3. Psychological investment of the patient in the success of the therapy
4. Misdirection
5. Incorrect diagnosis to start with
6. The cyclical nature of the illness (gets worse/gets better/gets worse/gets better…)
7. Other medicines the patient is taking
8. The illness just goes away by itself.
9. Release of endorphins (mainly with acupuncture)

Also, please see this list or this list of additional fallacious arguments to avoid, as well as this list of Doggerell to avoid. Trust me, we have heard and debunked all these arguments more times than we like to remember. So unless you can explain why these arguments are not fallacious, you might want to avoid using them and embarrassing yourself.

I will amend and update this page as I see fit.

Note

The comments to this post are open for people to comment on the comment policy – ie for people to say what they like/dislike about the comment policy, and perhaps make suggestions for changes/new items.

For some reason, several people have apparently decided the comments to this post are open for a general whine about skeptics, and/or whine about your favorite subject and/or to prove that they can break the “don’t be a jerk” rule and/or break other rules in the actual post where the rules are stated. I’m not going to try to speculate why it is that woos who visit this site are especially stupid and juvenile with so little of actual substance to say. Life is too short. But I will emphasize that on this post especially I will be enforcing the rules stated above. Especially the “don’t post off topic” and the “don’t be a jerk” rules. The reasons are explained in detail above and I am not going to bother to repeat them.  If you want to rant freestyle and post any drivel on any topic on the internet - get your own blog.

If people continue, despite this warning, to ignore my requests to stay on topic etc, I will implement comment moderation again.

Comments

[Mel]

Some silly and futile arguments you might want to add to the forbidden list (that I've noticed a lot in blogs recently):

1. The unappreciated prophet: Any claim to being a misunderstood genius whose "theory" could revolutionize everything if only people would listen--without providing anything resembling any kind of conventional support, credentials, or being able to convey any understanding of the paradigm to be replaced by your work (and ideally express this understanding without persistent and egregious spelling mistakes).

2. The gullible narcissist: Argument from a single anecdote ("it worked for me!") while dismissing any counter anecdote ("if it didn't work for you, you didn't do it right, so try it again, because it worked for me!")

3. The bible thumper: Using any religious text to prove itself, with or without threats of eternal damnation for foes, expressions of pity for the unbelievers, and smug expectations of eternal life by the poster.

4. The congenital chemical imbalance, too many drugs back in the day, or sheer intellectual laziness: Claiming that human language, logic, or whatnot is inadequate for expressing "the truth," and that you have a deeper and better understanding than can't be conveyed by these means.

5. Sentinel from the good-old-days: Blaming any point of view as a future, present, or past factor responsible for the decline and fall of civilization, marriages, or families without a clear explanation of the causal relationship and a modicum of proof.

6. The smarty-pants: a snarky post, kind of like this one, but differentiated (hopefully) in that the poster, although willing to make fun of someone else, is totally unwilling to laugh at him/herself.

[Theriomorph]

Nice list, and I like Mel's additions too - I would like to propose, re: addendum #6, that commenters ranking high on the Sarcasmatron who also prove willing to mock themselves be called 'Snarky-Pants.'

[mark]

I want to just steal it whole hog. Seems I can't start a thread on anything without a troll hijacking it, and you just end up spending all your time addressing the same fallacies over and over.

But then again, I asked for it when I proposed to come up with a unified theory of the crank.

Obviously nobody has checked lately if it's permissable to even yask this question :"Why did the Chicken cross the road?"
With the constitutional challenges these days, I believe, the question must be modified when asked in a public venue so not to offend some segments of our non-religious population. Therefore before the US Supreme Court gets into this fray, let's do the right thing and omitt the word "cross" and from this day forward the question will be "Why did the checken the road?"

[Birdman]

My first contribution after admiring your method of proving that photography exists to a blind man. Enough of the flattery already: I suggest that your comment guidelines need a lot more time than you were able able to allocate on first drafting. They lack rigour and the few postings I have read by the author himself would result in self-moderation under the fallacies rules.

The Appeals to Other Ways of Knowing, Science Doesn't Know Everything, Science has been Wrong Before

I searched for 'black swan' across the site finding no instances. Suppose we used the scientific method to check whether 'all swans are white', starting in England. Enumerating all such birds would prove their uniform whiteness. Same for Europe, Asia, the Polar continents ... and the Americas (once discovered). We might be tempted to the joint pronouncement that 'all swans are white' and that 'science has proved to be the most reliable method we know for evaluating claims and figuring out how the universe works'. Unfortunately Australians, by producing a single black swan from the outback, would be able to discredit the colour claim and raise some doubts about the method of its incorrect prediction.

Suppose I deal from a pack of 52 cards, whose faces you cannot see, and you track the discards. With two cards left you observe all cards are accounted for except the two black aces. What is the probability that the last card is the Ace of spades? Are you sure it is 0.5? What if the 51st card is revealed as Mr. Bun the Baker?

I suspect there is no way of knowing for sure ... and would admit that it might be possible to make a lucky guess, to have intuition, to be a genius. I like Einstein's analogy of the universe as a clock whose mechanism we (science) can guess at but will never have the luxury of seeing: the structure is sealed and we may only observe the external workings.
Having said all that I agree that science is 'the most reliable method'. However my initial impression is that your site is self-limited to acknowledging science alone ... and that this is an appeal to its sole way of knowing, despite being completely wrong on many occasions and employing a proven defective process. Because no-one can demonstrate a better way does not mean one should be guided solely by a known defective method.

Ad Hominem
Your article 'What The Bleep' shows why such an attack may be of value: the 'Enlightened' presenters would appear to have a hidden agenda. Similarly Meadows evidence on cot deaths was accurate as to the chances of a single death ... but his grasp of conditional probability totally flawed. Exposure of his inexperience in mathematics would have cast the necessary doubt on his calculations. Knowing a politician's affiliation also makes it a cinch to predict his (party line) answer to various questions.

Yes, an argument must stand in its own right and may not consist of an appeal alone. I guess I'm saying we can find out which propositions are likely to be bogus and the area of their likely discreditation by assessing the presenter. The point of the black swan is that one can prove something wrong with a single counterexample ... but empiricism is not adequate for proving something right. Nonethless empiricism will be very useful for debunking snake oil, if that is your sole concern. I am very fond of Sherlock Holmes 'eliminating the impossible, whatever remaining, however improbable, being the truth.' It seems to me that the scientific method operates very much like that and is the fastest route to what is likely to be true in the majority of situations. You end the "Lack critical thinking, go to jail" article with 'As for Sherlock Holmes, despite his reputation he really wasn’t much of a critical thinker. But that shouldn’t be too surprising: his creator believed in fairies at the bottom of the garden.' Careful - the moderator will ban you for attacking the poster's reputation ;-) I shall consider myself in Alcatraz until further notice.

Coming full circle I am interested in why people think they know, and in ways of persuading them that they do not know. Psychology as much as logic and empiricism would seem to be the order of the day.
No sock puppets ... so I need a handle ... let's see ... BIRDMAN!

[Skeptico]

Skeptico replies to Birdman

Re: I suggest that your comment guidelines … lack rigour and the few postings I have read by the author himself would result in self-moderation under the fallacies rules.

Which postings, and why?

(And before you reply, please read the “Signal to Noise Ratio” paragraph above, and the “I will be extremely flexible and easy going in applying these rules” sentence.)

Re: The Appeals to Other Ways of Knowing, Science Doesn't Know Everything, Science has been Wrong Before

I searched for 'black swan' across the site finding no instances. Suppose we used the scientific method to check whether 'all swans are white', starting in England. Enumerating all such birds would prove their uniform whiteness. Same for Europe, Asia, the Polar continents ... and the Americas (once discovered). We might be tempted to the joint pronouncement that 'all swans are white' and that 'science has proved to be the most reliable method we know for evaluating claims and figuring out how the universe works'. Unfortunately Australians, by producing a single black swan from the outback, would be able to discredit the colour claim and raise some doubts about the method of its incorrect prediction.

No. This is just a version of “science was wrong before”. As I wrote, “Of course science is sometimes wrong, but science has proven the most reliable method we know for evaluating claims and figuring out how the universe works. This argument is just a smoke screen to disguise the fact that the you have no evidence for your claim”. All your argument shows is that even using the scientific method, you can sometimes be wrong. No one is debating that. It is still not a reason to accept a claim for which there is no evidence.

Re: Suppose I deal from a pack of 52 cards, whose faces you cannot see, and you track the discards. With two cards left you observe all cards are accounted for except the two black aces. What is the probability that the last card is the Ace of spades? Are you sure it is 0.5? What if the 51st card is revealed as Mr. Bun the Baker?

I really have no idea what point you are trying to make here. If we had evaluated the pack beforehand and determined it was a conventional pack of cards, then the answer would be, “50% it is the ace of spades”. If you had not checked the pack, then you wouldn’t be able to say for sure. So what?

Re: Having said all that I agree that science is 'the most reliable method'. However my initial impression is that your site is self-limited to acknowledging science alone ... and that this is an appeal to its sole way of knowing,

Again, no. I am saying I don’t know of a better way. Unless you have a better way, in which case please describe it. If you can’t, what else would you suggest we do?

Re: despite being completely wrong on many occasions

Appeal to science was wrong before. So what?

Re: and employing a proven defective process. Because no-one can demonstrate a better way does not mean one should be guided solely by a known defective method.

Since (as you apparently agree), no-one can demonstrate a better way, why should we use any other (agreed to be worse) method?

Re: Ad Hominem
Your article 'What The Bleep' shows why such an attack may be of value: the 'Enlightened' presenters would appear to have a hidden agenda.

No. It is the fact that their data was wrong that makes What The Bleep wrong. Their agenda just explains why.

Re: Similarly Meadows evidence on cot deaths was accurate as to the chances of a single death ... but his grasp of conditional probability totally flawed. Exposure of his inexperience in mathematics would have cast the necessary doubt on his calculations.

No, the errors in his calculations would have cast the necessary doubt on his calculations. And if his grasp of statistics was poor then his errors should have been obvious.

In fact, the Meadows case demonstrates it is the data and not the qualifications of the person presenting the data that matters. Meadows was considered an unimpeachable authority, which is why the jury believed him. The defense lawyer should have discovered what was wrong with the data.

Re: Knowing a politician's affiliation also makes it a cinch to predict his (party line) answer to various questions.

The bias of the source should alert you to possible errors in the source’s answers, but the bias of the source does not in and of itself demonstrate if the argument is right or wrong. And this can be easily demonstrated. For example, see Chuck Hagel’s recent comments about the Iraq war. His arguments are directly opposed to that of the Bush’s administration, and yet they are both in the same party. By your logic this would be impossible.

Re: Yes, an argument must stand in its own right and may not consist of an appeal alone. I guess I'm saying we can find out which propositions are likely to be bogus and the area of their likely discreditation by assessing the presenter. The point of the black swan is that one can prove something wrong with a single counterexample ... but empiricism is not adequate for proving something right.

The black swan (usually known as the white crow) demonstrates that it is not possible, strictly speaking, to prove a hypothesis right, only wrong. But that describes the scientific method exactly. It also says nothing to your point about assessing the presenter – what does knowledge of the “presenter” have to do with whether there is a black swan or not?

Re: Nonethless empiricism will be very useful for debunking snake oil, if that is your sole concern. I am very fond of Sherlock Holmes 'eliminating the impossible, whatever remaining, however improbable, being the truth.' It seems to me that the scientific method operates very much like that and is the fastest route to what is likely to be true in the majority of situations.

No, the scientific method requires evidence for something – not just evidence against everything else you can think of. The scientific method starts with a hypothesis – a working explanation of what the scientist thinks is happening. They then try to prove it wrong. If they can’t prove it wrong they eventually provisionally conclude the hypothesis is correct.

This is totally different from proving several different explanations wrong and therefore concluding the final hypothesis (ie whatever remains, however improbable), is correct. They still have to have a way of falsifying that final hypothesis – proving it wrong if it were wrong.

[Tom Foss]

despite being completely wrong on many occasions and employing a proven defective process. Because no-one can demonstrate a better way does not mean one should be guided solely by a known defective method.

Your analogy is flawed and your assumptions about science are moreso. You're right, discovery of a black swan would invalidate the claim that "all swans are white." This is not a mark against science, it's an understanding of the basic premise of scientific thought, namely that all knowledge is based on available evidence and is tentative on the discovery of new evidence.

So, if I see one white swan, it would be foolish to generalize that "all swans are white." Generalizing from a sample size of one is a tricky thing, which is why we do multiple experiments and observations. So, let's say I've observed a hundred and one swans, all of them white. It becomes more reasonable to say "all swans are white" as the sample size increases. So I travel the world, studying swans. I see big and small swans, European and Asian swans, Northern and Southern swans, and all of them are white.

What I am doing in these repeated observations is testing a hypothesis. As a scientist, I go into any experiment assuming a null hypothesis. In this case, we may phrase the null hypothesis as "a non-white swan does not exist." Finding a non-white swan would invalidate the null hypothesis, but until such evidence is found, we assume the null hypothesis to be true. So whether you're assuming "there are no non-white swans" or "the speed of light is not constant" or any other empirical claim, you may safely make that statement until it is shown to be false.

This is part of the self-correcting nature of science, and it is a strength, not a weakness.

Going to your playing card example, it's all about probabilities. If I observe you dealing 50 cards from a standard deck of playing cards, then it would be a reasonable assumption, based on the evidence and probability that the next card will also come from a standard deck of playing cards. This prediction may be wrong, but it is the best possible prediction based on the evidence. Similarly, it is reasonable to assume that tomorrow, the sun will rise in the East and set in the West. I can make this prediction based on my own personal experience of sunrise, and my knowledge of the mechanisms involved. Now, it may be that tomorrow the sun does not rise, or that it rises in the North or the South. All those outcomes have a nonzero probability, but my best prediction, based on available evidence, is that the sun will rise in the East.

Again, this is not a flaw. Nor is it a bad thing that this prediction may be wrong. Science not only allows for these predictions and assumptions to be wrong, but counts on them. Falsifiability is one of the cornerstones of scientific thought. It is by making hypotheses, testing them, falsifying some and accepting others, that science is able to progress.

And to address your last point, that we should not be guided by a defective method, we've got a preparation for that, too. "There is a better method for understanding the universe than the scientific method" is a testable claim. Show us your better method, we'll test it. If it proves to be better than science, we'll accept it. Until such a method can be shown, it's reasonable to conclude that science is the best method we have.

Your article 'What The Bleep' shows why such an attack may be of value: the 'Enlightened' presenters would appear to have a hidden agenda. Similarly Meadows evidence on cot deaths was accurate as to the chances of a single death ... but his grasp of conditional probability totally flawed. Exposure of his inexperience in mathematics would have cast the necessary doubt on his calculations. Knowing a politician's affiliation also makes it a cinch to predict his (party line) answer to various questions.

And while it may be important to know the background of people making arguments, it has little to do with the facts. It's one thing to question the motives of people, to cast doubt upon their background, or to use their affiliations to make assumptions about them. However, all these are incidental to whether or not they have their facts right and whether or not they present a coherent argument.

In other words, pointing out that someone believes that they are possessed by a 35,000-year-old Atlantean Warrior is not grounds to dismiss their argument. Once you have dismissed their argument on scientifically and philosophically valid grounds, though, pointing out their kooky beliefs helps you understand what their motives are for making such an argument. This is not ad hominem, it is an exploration of motive.

Yes, an argument must stand in its own right and may not consist of an appeal alone. I guess I'm saying we can find out which propositions are likely to be bogus and the area of their likely discreditation by assessing the presenter.

And this may even be accurate in some cases. But it is not a philosophically or scientifically valid way of discrediting someone's argument. You can yell at someone for being a tool of the tobacco industry all you want, but if their facts are right and their argument is coherent, you can't dismiss them on those grounds.

The point of the black swan is that one can prove something wrong with a single counterexample ... but empiricism is not adequate for proving something right.

It's a good thing, then, that science isn't in the business of proving things right. Science is in the business of showing that things are likely to be true based on the available evidence.

I am very fond of Sherlock Holmes 'eliminating the impossible, whatever remaining, however improbable, being the truth.'

"Holmes himself, though apparently an intellect of huge proportions, could not have survived outside the fictional world that Doyle wove about him. For his deductions to be correct, the consistency of his world was absolutely necessary. People in particular had to conform to type; otherwise Holmes would have been hopelessly wrong."--James Randi, Flim-Flam, p. 21.

Holmes was a smart character, but what he did wasn't particularly scientific. First, we have little criteria to judge something as "impossible." In fact, we can say with some degree of certainty that nothing is entirely impossible. Some things have a very, very, very low probability of ever occurring, but that only makes them highly improbable. And by what criteria should we judge what is possible? Common sense would tell us that my hand cannot pass through a solid wall without breaking the wall. Quantum physics, on the other hand, tells us that precisely such a thing is possible, though not likely at all, through quantum tunneling.

Finally, science doesn't show things to be true, it shows them to be well-supported. In some ways, that quotation is the opposite of scientific evidence, as it would have us accept a conclusion based on disproving other hypotheses. Science, conversely, has us accept the conclusion that is best-supported by the evidence, with the knowledge that new evidence may lead to a different conclusion.

Assume the null hypothesis, gather the evidence, make observations. Whatever explanation is best supported by the evidence is (tentatively) true. And new evidence, however improbable, may require us to accept a different conclusion.

You end the "Lack critical thinking, go to jail" article with 'As for Sherlock Holmes, despite his reputation he really wasn’t much of a critical thinker. But that shouldn’t be too surprising: his creator believed in fairies at the bottom of the garden.' Careful - the moderator will ban you for attacking the poster's reputation ;-) I shall consider myself in Alcatraz until further notice.

I'm not sure where the alleged ad hominem comes into play there. We have an author who does not demonstrate critical thinking, a character who is shown to be not much of a critical thinker, and a proposed link between the two observations.

Coming full circle I am interested in why people think they know, and in ways of persuading them that they do not know.

I try not to make claims of knowledge. I make claims of acceptance. I accept what the evidence shows. If evidence shows something that goes contrary to what I accept, then I will examine the new evidence and potentially change my conclusion.

Hello, Your site is great. Regards, Valintino Guxxi

[Damian Stryker]

Great guidelines! If I thought it would work, I'd print them on a T-shirt (with your permission, of course) and insist that anyone who wants to converse with me has to agree to them.

"The Secret" seems to have shaken ALL the money-grubbing wingnuts out of the trees. The "Quantum Life Coaches" are especially bad. A friend of a close relative of mine, who doesn't have the best reasoning skills, almost got sucked in by Kristen Kopp and her website www.nudgez.com. (I dare anyone sensible to peruse this site and not get a nosebleed!)

Luckily I was in town and able to keep the family friend from sending money to this gray-haired shyster. The charlatan actually claims she can repair broken glass by focusing her "attention" on it! For a fee she'll teach you how to train your mind to "use quantum mechanics" to perform feats like this as well.

I used to try explaining basic scientific concepts to people like this, then I realized that they don't care about reality, they only care how much money they can bilk out of the gullible.

I really appreciate sites like yours; they remind me that there ARE people with critical thinking skills out there.

[Birdman]

Thank you very much for your time in answering my ill-considered and poor quality initial post: I accept all your arguments.

I've just noticed that the posting guidelines consist predominantly of 'donts' - how about some 'dos'.

Take Care with Language
Write as plainly as possible. The onus is on the presenter to make his argument clear ... but when reviewing try to follow the presenter's line of reasoning. When unsure as to the train of thought or the point being made ask for a rephrasing rather than putting your words into the presenter's mouth. Avoid discussions of semantics.

'Science is in the business of showing that things are likely to be true based on the available evidence. ... So, let's say I've observed a hundred and one swans, all of them white. It becomes more reasonable to say "all swans are white" as the sample size increases.'

I find it disquieting that using the scientific method I may consider it more and more likely/reasonable that something false is true. You'll have to put me down as very tentative! What might be done? How about analysing the evidence gathering process to look for ways of speeding up falsifications? And definitions of 'levels of reasonableness' and effective techniques to reach them. Make these regular debating topics in critical thinking forums (or link to those whose job you think this is).

[michael lane]

what i have to say has to do with "astrology". i do not subscribe to astrology or am not a believer. i met another man who was born within a few days of me and immediately could perceive some similarities of mannerisms with the two of us. so i looked into it and found that most of "astrology" was arbitrary and invalid. however, there is something to the idea. jung described the principle as synchronicity, and he has the most intelligent things to say about this subject that i have found. what he means by synchronicity is that people are not influenced by the stars or the planets, these are basically just a detailed calender and unnecessary. if we are to understand the principle of the time of birth and its' correlation to personality and physical characteristics, we must almost ignore what has already been said about the subject. i have summed up what i think about this by saying, i do not learn about people from astrology, i learn about astrology from people. the real proof of astrology or more specifically the principle i just described will be revealed when a person can line up a large set of people born in the same year in the order they were born and isolate these people to a particular race and gender and then study their physical characteristics until the pattern is made evident. please write me back and let me know what you think about what i have said. thank you. mike lane

[Bronze Dog]

You may want to look up "confirmation bias", mike.

[Jimmy_Blue]

You may want to post on a thread about astrology Michael, and not get off topic here.

Try here:
Astrology is a waste of space

[James Hamilton]

It's so refreshing to know that there's others like the amazing Randi out there that are so sure of themselves. I really thought he was the last jerk out there that had the idea that personal experience didn't count for anything. I won't waste your or my time...since you obviously know how it all works anyway..*LMAO*

[Tom Foss]

It's so refreshing to know that there's others like the amazing Randi out there that are so sure of themselves.

Actually, I tend to find that it's the people Randi tests who are "so sure of themselves." Right up until they fail, of course.

I really thought he was the last jerk out there that had the idea that personal experience didn't count for anything.

No, you'll find varying degrees of that from every scientist, physician, and police officer in the world. Personal experience is the most suspect sort of evidence you can have. Ask any police officer how reliable eyewitness testimony, ask any doctor why they do double-blind placebo-controlled tests, ask any scientists why they ask that results be independently verifiable and reproducible, and it'll come down to "personal testimony is unreliable."

I won't waste your or my time...since you obviously know how it all works anyway..*LMAO*

We don't know how "it all" works. What we know is how to figure out how it all works.

[Jimmy_Blue]

I really thought he was the last jerk out there that had the idea that personal experience didn't count for anything.

Obviously you'll be able to cite exactly where Randi and the rest of us say personal experience doesn't count for anything. I mean you wouldn't have just made an unsupported generalisation based on your own prejudices would you? No? Well we await your evidence then.

Since you obviously know how we all work.

I won't waste your or my time

Too late.

[Jimmy_Blue]

sorry, didn't close the bold tag in the previous post.

[Bronze Dog]

For me, personal experience does count for something, but any other sort of evidence overrides it: Stuff like double-blind control studies are immune to my personal biases and perceptual flaws.

I hold no delusions of personal perfection.

[Big Al]

I'd like to ask that people understand the meanings of simple scientific terms before using them.

Force, energy and power, for example, are not interchangeable terms, and they have very definite and simple meanings. If your theoretical spiritual prime mover doesn't correspond to these well-understood definitions, please substitute a suitable word of your own devising, along with a suitable definition that is understandable or demonstrable to the rest of us.

[Emma]

Dude, we all have opinions, but you can't just go around slagging off every single religion. it's not cool.
And i'll tell you something else- it doesn't matter whether or not there's a god. if believing in one makes you a better person, LET THEM BE!!!!!

[Big Al]

Is there any evidence that being religious does make one a better person?

[Bronze Dog]

I certainly haven't seen the evidence.

And Emma, why can't we voice our opinions that religion is, overall, a bad thing? Are we not entitled to our opinions?

[Rockstar Ryan]

Something I find even more strange - all these concern trolls expunge their verbal excrement in the Comment Guidelines of all places...WTF?

[Skeptico]

Emma:

The comments on this post are open for people to comment on the comment guidelines, so your comment was off topic. I'll allow it this once, but in future, please stay on topic. As I indicated above, future off-topic comments will be deleted.

[Jordan]

alrite, I can see this site is completely centered around logic, you have made it clear that you will not allow comments that bring faith, god, or any other non-scientific matter into the picture. You make very little room for counter arguements. That's why all of the people on here agree that everyone else is retarted, and that "they" are a little ahead of the curve. They feel they have this healthy since of shame, and understanding of reality. I will not argue in favor of god, and I will not say that "The Secret" is scientifically sound. However, I do know this. we live in a world where self-doubt is natural, we all have it, and of course we all have cynical know it all assholes that no one really likes (Like the majority of people who post on this site)You people almost seem to enjoy taking away any fantastic possibilities or mystery away from life. Perhaps instead of saying "The Secret" is retarted (making absolutely no progress for humanity) You should look at possible logical connections. For instance. Let's just use the Bible real quick, I know it scares all of you off who know it's false (especially since everyone reads it, and knows all about it.) In the Old Testament Adam and Eve were made to feel shame when eve ate the forbidden fruit, what is a major feeling that shame evokes? Self Doubt. Perhaps the universe, god...whatever you want to call it was knocked off course, and we were made to feel these emotions. I don't know how, and I don't know the physics behind it(you assholes can analyze all day). and "The Secret" is how do we get back to that blissful state. Perhaps we are starting to find some clues. I don't offer this as any truth, just a logical connection. I know one of you fucking nerds will make a comment on my spelling, or something else, but I'd rather just live in my retarted world than be one of you guys. Just remember this in the movies, stories, legends. It is never the realist who attracts people, or things...It is the "Cowboy" who dosent give a damn, who already knows they are the best, the James Bonds who make good things happen. This is what the secret is talking abot, we love watching these people in movies and in real life, who seem to posess this strong positive energy.

[Bronze Dog]

Wow. Somehow, I have a feeling Jordan is doing a LOT of projection. He's certainly spouting a lot of unrealistic Hollywood skeptic stereotypes at the very least.

You people almost seem to enjoy taking away any fantastic possibilities or mystery away from life.

One of the greatest joys of having a mystery is the thrill of solving it. If you can't experience that, I pity you and your tiny, tiny world. Reality is one big mystery, and I, for one, do not want woos holding us back, arbitrarily declaring some topics as taboo, immune to investigation, or too uncomfortable to think about.

Just remember this in the movies, stories, legends. It is never the realist who attracts people, or things...It is the "Cowboy" who dosent give a damn, who already knows they are the best, the James Bonds who make good things happen.

Looks like I was right. A born cynic like you will never look at reality because you're trapped in the woo-friendly escapism of Hollywood, where passion for truth is a vice, and the eeeee-ville skeptic doubts right up until the monster eats him.

Of course, they have to lie about the methods of skeptics, and pretend they're exactly the same as woos, only opposite on every pole. They have to pretend that skeptics blindly shake their heads, while the woos blindly nod (and happen to be correct in the movie), rather than actually use the scientific method to reach a conclusion. In the woo's mind, everything is dogmatic certainty, and the attitude of 'let's find out' is an alien concept.

Here's a great skeptical line from a heroic mentor figure in one of my favorite movies you should give some serious thought: "Your eyes can deceive you. Don't trust them."

Rather than using a Force no one has been able to demonstrate, though, we use the scientific method to force us to abandon our biases in experiments, rather than pretend they don't exist. Good experiments are designed to produce objective, unambiguous results.

Know thyself. We skeptics know that we're fallible creatures and we take that into account every time we conduct an experiment.

Woos, however, always seem to think of themselves as perfect gods with infallible senses, memories, and trains of thought who can do no wrong. Such certainty is anathema to curiosity.

[Skeptico]

Skeptico replies to Jordan

Re: I can see this site is completely centered around logic, you have made it clear that you will not allow comments that bring faith, god, or any other non-scientific matter into the picture.

That’s not what I said at all. You can comment how you like. What I did say is that if you appeal to faith or god as proof of something, or if you claim that science can’t test your brand of woo, someone will point out that you are using flawed logic. Up to you of course.

[Jimmy_Blue]

Skeptico:

This would ultimately mean a lot more work for you, but how about having a 'junk' thread where comments like this can be dumped so we don't go off topic here but can reply?

And now I'll reply anyway. Sorry.

Jordan:
you have made it clear that you will not allow comments that bring faith, god, or any other non-scientific matter into the picture.

I guess that reading comprehension is as big a problem as spelling with you.

Even a remotely cursory glance on almost any thread on the blog would clearly show Skeptico is more than happy to let any idiot with a half arsed idea proclaim it to the world. He just also lets the rest of us ridicule/disprove it. The very definition of free speech really. Can you say the same is true of woo or bleever blogs, without committing a sin?

You make very little room for counter arguements.

Really? You really haven't read anything but this thread have you? I see the concept of evidence has completely passed you by, let's just hope jury service also does.

That's why all of the people on here agree that everyone else is retarted

Retarted? Is that anything to do with microwaving a day old pie? (come on people, catch up)

I put it to you sir that anyone who is willing to call others retarded, but can't spell it, would do better to keep his mouth shut. As I believe Confucius said:

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.

However, I do know this. we live in a world where self-doubt is natural, we all have it, and of course we all have cynical know it all assholes that no one really likes (Like the majority of people who post on this site)

Oh no, nobody likes me. Boo hoo. Jordan knows everyone, and everyone dislikes skeptics. How horrid. I will change my ways immediately. Do you people all get instructions on what to type on a skeptical website from the same source? This has been said and refuted many times before. Grow up. Popularity only means something if you're a shallow idiot in high school or a contestant on brain dead drivel like Pop Idol.

You people almost seem to enjoy taking away any fantastic possibilities or mystery away from life.

Wow. What an original argument. Never ever EVER heard that one before. Do please stop projecting your personality on me. For instance, I marvel at the mystery that anyone like you can fully function in a modern civilised society. That's just one example.

And then there's some drivel about the Bible explaining stuff, and a pathetic attempt to be snarky by stating sarcastically we have all read it. Well, yes I have actually. I was raised a Catholic and spent 14 years in Catholic schools. Fortunately I never stopped asking questions. For instance, did you know that the last 12 verses of Mark's Gospel were added after the original author had finished his work? The earliest manuscripts of the text we have don't include them, but the modern Bible does. Doesn't that seem strange to you for a book meant to be the literal and inspired word of god?

It is the "Cowboy" who dosent give a damn, who already knows they are the best

Yes, and look where 'Cowboys' get us. Illegal wars and thousands of casualties. Go cowboys!

This has to have been a joke. Come on Jordan, confess.

[Bethany]

I don't think we can definitively know at this point why astrology works. I'm pretty good at accurately guessing a stranger's (who knows nothing about astrology) sun sign after talking to them for about twenty to thirty minutes. Sure I get some wrong but the percentage I guess right is so high and continually gets higher the more I learn about astrology. This should not prove that astrology is real but that the percentages of accurately guessed sun signs are too high to dismiss it all together. Of course we should be skeptical of something we cannot prove. Yet one can reason that by guessing right so many times, it’s not likely that the accuracy of these results are just coincidence. I would like to know myself why astrology affects our personalities.

[Martin]

Beth:

"I would like to know myself why astrology affects our personalities."

The skeptics want to know IF it affects our personalities first. Good luck :)

[Bronze Dog]

Exactly, Martin.

Continuing on Bethany's post:

This should not prove that astrology is real but that the percentages of accurately guessed sun signs are too high to dismiss it all together.

Ever heard of the Forer effect? Additionally, what were the controls you used in this anecdote? If it's 'none', then that's all it is: An uncontrolled anecdote.

Of course we should be skeptical of something we cannot prove.

Don't wall things off from science for no reason. It's a defeatist attitude.

Yet one can reason that by guessing right so many times, it’s not likely that the accuracy of these results are just coincidence.

Straw man. Coincidence is just one possible reason out of several (and the weakest): Other causes include confirmation bias, inaccurate memories, shoehorning, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. With all those confounding factors caused by flawed human perception, that makes for a very strong case of why we need the scientific method to achieve objective results from bias-eliminating protocols.

[Skeptico]

Bethany / Others

This is off topic. Completely off topic.

If you really want to discuss astrology, please go to this post and answer the question at the end. The question is under the sub-heading ”Question for astrology proponents”. Please read the advice that follows the question. You will also need to read this list of tests astrology failed before you try to answer the question.

Also, if you really can determine someone’s sun-sign the way you claim, why don’t you apply for Randi’s million dollars? Please answer that question too in the comments to the above-linked astrology post.

[Tom Foss]

As I believe Confucius said:

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that was Mark Twain.

[Ray Dave]

Comment deleted by Skeptico.

Reason - Ray Dave being a jerk.

[Ryan]

Hey RayDave,
Stop bothering people with your [off topic] bull shit.
Just enjoy life. For one day. Enjoy something.
Stop trying to act like you are so important.
Rockstar

[Bronze Dog]

Doggerel #35. Try reading something outside your tiny world of cliches and Hollywood stereotypes once in a while.

[Jimmy_Blue]

Why are so many people dumping there nonsense here and not in the relevant threads?

Can you move posts or is it way too much hassle Skeptico? I'd like to respond and so will do so in the thread you suggest but will the people who post here actually read the responses not posted here?

Tom, seen it attributed to Lincoln, Socrates and Madison as well!

[Skyla_Lit]

Comment deleted by Skeptico - Reason - off topic

[Bronze Dog]

Skyla, why do you woos have to be such a downer?

[Skeptico]

Note

The comments to this post are open for people to comment on the comment policy – ie for people to say what they like/dislike about the comment policy, and perhaps make suggestions for changes/new items.

For some reason, several people have apparently decided the comments to this post are open for a general whine about skeptics, and/or whine about your favorite subject and/or to prove that they can break the “don’t be a jerk” rule and/or break other rules in the actual post where the rules are stated. I’m not going to try to speculate why it is that woos who visit this site are especially stupid and juvenile with so little of actual substance to say. Life is too short. But I will emphasize that on this post especially I will be enforcing the rules stated above. Especially the “don’t post off topic” and the “don’t be a jerk” rules. The reasons are explained in detail above and I am not going to bother to repeat them. If you want to rant freestyle and post any drivel on any topic on the internet - get your own blog.

If people continue, despite this warning, to ignore my requests to stay on topic etc, I will implement comment moderation again.

[Alex Smith]

Wow. Your list was certainly enlightening, and I was really encouraged by the links to fallacious arguments sites, as I have just gotten into a bit of a rumble with someone who used many of the above. I found, however, that I, also, have broken many of these rules in my own posts.

I have, however, one question which may help me clear up some of my own peccadilloes: as you say, the appeal to personal data (I have been trained to call this "anecdotal evidence") is more often than not inherently flawed, and yet I wonder, given my limited readings thus far of your blog, how often you have allowed such arguments. That is, I am sure that such arguments can be moving, but when are they compelling enough to allow on to the site? Or are these arguments simply always moot?

[Skeptico]

Alex:

I think anecdotal evidence can be interesting and may sometimes have validity. It’s hard to determine specific “rules” about this, but my opinion would be that the more extraordinary the claim the better the evidence has to be for it – usually because the extraordinary claim contradicts other claims that are backed by good evidence. So extraordinary claims require better than anecdotes and personal experience.

An example of an extraordinary claim would be homeopathy – because we know it (a) was not derived by experiment and (b) conflicts with everything we know about the chemistry of water.

Hope that helps.

[michael (lucky) dubois]

Completely off-topic post deleted by Skeptico.

[Sev]

Post moved to here by admin.

[Frank]

Off-topic whine about negativity and The Secret deleted by Skeptico.

What is wrong with you people? Seriously. What part of:

Please stick to the topic of the original post. Comments that are wildly off-topic may be deleted.

..is so hard to understand?

[J.]

The only problem with your fallacies is that they aren't fallacies. You only reference one actual fallacy, and even got the definition wrong. These are known fallacious arguments: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

[Skeptico]

J.

The only problem with your comment about fallacies is that you haven’t demonstrated that they aren't fallacies. Thanks for playing though.

[Tom Foss]

Granted, quite a few of the entries in Skeptico's list won't be found in your average list of logical fallacies; this doesn't make them any less fallacious. Most of those items are just specific versions of fallacious arguments which we often encounter. Just as, for instance, an ad hominem argument is a subset of the non sequitur fallacy, the "appeal to be open-minded" is a subset of special pleading. The "appeal to science doesn't know everything" is a mix of a non sequitur (that science is not all-knowing has nothing to do with the truth of the claim) and a straw man (science doesn't claim to know everything).

The others are similar variations on common fallacies, but crop up so often in discussions with woos that they're worth mentioning specifically.

[Skeptico]

You are quite correct Tom. Most of the fallacies listed above will not be found in the regular fallacies lists such as the Nizcor Fallacies List that J. listed. Of course, that’s why I wrote them.

J appears to be saying that if a fallacy is not listed on the “known fallacious arguments” website he wants us to use, then it’s not a fallacy. Something doesn’t have to be on the Nizcor list to be a fallacious argument.

[Bronze Dog]

J appears to be saying that if a fallacy is not listed on the “known fallacious arguments” website he wants us to use, then it’s not a fallacy. Something doesn’t have to be on the Nizcor list to be a fallacious argument.

Or, more simply, J's making an argument from authority. Kind of reminds me of people who selectively use Webster's Dictionary definitions over scientific definitions used by scientists for arguing about science.

And, of course, all of the fallacies you've written, and the vast bulk of my Doggerel Index can be described as specific types of other fallacies. A hell of a lot of them are subject changes, also known as the red herring.