I'm Still Alive!

Dear Readers,

Don't panic!! Not that the ending of this Blog would provoke panic, but I assure you that I have not retired Skeptics 4 Life. It is closing in on finals week of my senior year of college. So "needless to say" I am very preoccupied right now. I will do my best to write something new soon and get back into the routine. For now I leave you with an episode from Carl Sagan's Cosmos.

Episode 2: One Voice in the Cosmic Fugue

Ear Candling

Too much ear wax? Need a pseudo-scientific therapeutic cleaning to remove your ear wax and other impurities? Well look no farther! Check out ear candling! Not only will it not drain your ear wax but it will drain your wallet! But don't take my word for it, listen to Dr. Lisa Roazen in her article Why Ear Candling is Not a Good Idea:

"'Ear candling,' also known as auricular candling or coning, refers to various procedures that involve placing a cone-shaped device in the ear canal and supposedly extracting earwax and other impurities with the help of smoke or a burning wick. The origins of candling are obscure. Ancient Tibet, China, Egypt, the pre-Columbian Americas, and even the mythical city of Atlantis are cited as possible contributors. The procedures supposedly create a low-level vacuum that draws wax and other debris out of the ear canal. Some proponents even claim that impurities are removed from the inner ear, the facial sinuses, or even the brain itself, all of which are somehow connected to the canal."

Here is a personal account by Diane Boehme who suffered permanent hearing damage. Better yet check out this study I found on PubMed called Ear Candles--Efficacy and Safety:

"Ear candles are a popular and inexpensive alternative health treatment advocated for cerumen removal. A hollow candle is burned with one end in the ear canal with the intent of creating negative pressure and drawing cerumen from the ear. If effective, significant savings could result from the use of ear candles. This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of this alternative method for cerumen management. Tympanometric measurements in an ear canal model demonstrated that ear candles do not produce negative pressure. A limited clinical trial (eight ears) showed no removal of cerumen from the external auditory canal. Candle wax was actually deposited in some. A survey of 122 otolaryngologists identified 21 ear injuries resulting from ear candle use. Ear candles have no benefit in the management of cerumen and may result in serious injury."

Science Based Parenting

While searching through crap perpetuated by Jenny McCarthy I found lots of great information cites. One of which is the Stop Jenny McCarthy website. This is a great website that includes testimonials of parents effected by her false propaganda and accurate vaccine information.

I also found the Jenny McCarthy Body Count website that updates the numbers of vaccine preventable cases and deaths on a weekly basis. Right now (April 3rd) the illness count is at 720 and the death toll is at 142. The question you should be asking is: Is Jenny McCarthy directly responsible for every vaccine preventable illness and every vaccine preventable death reported on this page? The answer is no. However, as the unofficial spokesperson for the United States anti-vaccination movement she may be indirectly responsible for at least some of these illnesses and deaths. And in the case of health, one vaccine preventable illness or vaccine preventable death is one too many.

Upon browsing the Stop Jenny McCarthy site I also found a link to a wonderful blog called Science Based Parenting. This father of two from Cincinnati says the purpose of his site "is to promote quality science and refute different types of speculative claims such as the supernatural, pseudoscience, alternative medicine, and any other extraordinary claim that contradicts facts established by science or common knowledge." I think this is a valuable starting point for parents who are skeptical about what's best for their children. Check out Science Based Parenting today.

Logical Fallacies 2

Here are some more logical fallacies. This is a continuation of the article Logical Fallacies.

Ad Hominem

An ad hominem argument is any that attempts to counter another person's claims or conclusions by attacking the person, rather than addressing the argument itself. True believers will often commit this fallacy by countering the arguments of skeptics by stating that skeptics are closed minded. Skeptics, on the other hand, may fall into the trap of dismissing the claims of UFO believers, for example, by stating that people who believe in UFO's are crazy or stupid.

Ad Ignorantiam

The argument from ignorance basically states that a specific belief is true because we don't know that it isn't true. Defenders of extrasensory perception, for example, will often overemphasize how much we do not know about the human brain. UFO proponents will argue: I saw an object in the sky that i could not identify, it must be an alien spacecraft.

Argument from Authority

Stating that a claim is true because a person or group of perceived authority says it is true. Often this argument is implied by emphasizing the many years of experience, or the formal degrees held by the individual making a specific claim. For example: Einstein's religious beliefs are more valid than anyone else's because he was very intelligent. Einstein was an authority on physics not religion. Another example is: My Priest is evidence that God exists. In addition to being a non-sequitur, this would be an irrelevant appeal to authority because religion is by its very nature a controversial field. It is reasonable to give more credence to the claims of those with the proper background, education, and credentials, or to be suspicious of the claims of someone making authoritative statements in an area for which they cannot demonstrate expertise. But the truth of a claim should ultimately rest on logic and evidence, not the authority of the person promoting it.

Argument From Final Consequences

Such arguments (also called teleological) are based on a reversal of cause and effect, because they argue that something is caused by the ultimate effect that it has, or purpose that is serves. For example: God must exist, because otherwise life would have no meaning.

Argument from Personal Incredulity

I cannot explain or understand this, therefore it cannot be true. Creationists are fond of making the following argument: I cannot imagine the complexity of life resulting from blind evolution, therefore it can't be true. Unfortunately for them, that does not mean that life did not evolve.

Logical Fallacies

All of the fallacies and descriptions here are also found on the Skeptics Guide to the Universe website.

How does an argument work?

All arguments have the same basic structure: A therefore B. They begin with one or more premises (A), which is a fact or assumption upon which the argument is based. They then apply a logical principle (therefore) to arrive at a conclusion (B). An example of a logical principle is that of equivalence. For example, if you begin with the premises that A=B and B=C, you can apply the logical principle of equivalence to conclude that A=C.

What is a logical fallacy?

A logical fallacy is a false or incorrect logical principle. An argument that is based upon a logical fallacy is therefore not valid. Valid logic applied to one or more false premises, leads to an invalid argument. However, if an argument is not valid the conclusion may, by chance, still be true.

It is important to note that if the logic of an argument is valid and all the premises are true, then the conclusion will always be a true statement.

Examples: We will begin with a few basic fallacies. I will post more fallacies in the future.

Non-Sequitur

In Latin this term translates to "doesn't follow". This refers to an argument in which the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises. In other words, a logical connection is implied where none exists. For example, we should consult a psychic because the police haven't been able to solve the case. The fact that the case hasn't been solved using traditional police methods is irrelevant to whether consulting a psychic is a method that should be used.

Post-Hoc Fallacy

The "post-hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy follows the basic format of: A preceded B, therefore A caused B, and therefore assumes cause and effect for two events just because they are temporally related (the Latin translates to "after this, therefore because of this"). There are many examples of post-hoc reasoning: You have a cold, so you drink fluids and two weeks later your cold goes away, therefore drinking fluids cured your cold. Another example is: You perform some task exceptionally well after forgetting to bathe, so the next time you have to perform the same task you shouldn't before hand bathe.

Straw Man

Arguing against a position which you create specifically to be easy to argue against, rather than the position actually held by those who oppose your point of view. A common straw man argument made by evolution denialists is: We did not evolve from monkeys because... This is a straw man because no one believes we evolved from modern prime-apes, the real argument is that we share a common ancestor.

Tu Quoque Fallacy

Literally, you too. This is an attempt to justify wrong action because someone else also does it. "My evidence may be invalid, but so is yours." For example, I may be wrong about the date of creation, but you are wrong about the age of the universe.