January 25, 2009
Now, what does the penis enlargement spam has anything to do with the “covering both side” fallacy, you say? Well, I got sent a spam in my debunking of “Our Undiscovered Universe” post which said:
I think you are thinking like sukrat, but I think you should cover the other side of the topic in the post too…
Well, it is strange for me. I didn’t think a spammer actually had any other life than spamming. Now, some of you wondering why that is a fallacy? I mean, there are always division in opinion. The problem with that assumption is that when it comes to reality, it is not a matter of opinion. Sorry, but the Earth is a spheroid, and goes around the sun no matter how much you wish it wouldn’t. The same thing is with physics. No matter how much you hate quantum mechanics (Terrence Witt dislike quantum mechanics), it is a very close approximation of how particles behave, so you might as well consider it a fact that particles move in a probabilistic manner.
Though seriously, spammers actually do something other than post spams, and really do have some sort of primitive brain, probably consisting of just the brain stem and the limbic system. I am not joking.
July 5, 2008
This is probably the most irritatin argument for me personally (other than the all natural stuff). The following sketch was designed to get my point across in a short manner. It goes like this: (and anyone religious, please, don’t be offended, it is just that this kind of argument doesn’t cut it with me, and this is a satire which expresses my feelings in a hyperbolic way)
Questioner: I wonder why is the sky blue?
Know-it-all: I don’t know… Wait, I know! Since we don’t know, this universe must be working by some myterious force! It must be all perfect, since it must be able to encompass all unknown phenomenal… I know! It must be God! So, yeah, the answer is God.
Questioner: Okay! Wow, you really know your stuff. So… do you know why people don’t fly off the Earth even though it rotates?
Know-it-all: It is God pulling us down, duh.
Questioner: Why does the sun burn?
Know-it-all: God is using his awesome power to burn it and make it last forever.
Questioner: Okay, now you are pushing it, but gosh! God sure solves a lot of problems.
Now, replace all of the question with “how was the universe created?” And you get the ultimate god of the gaps, religion. See the problem I have with god (and faith in general)? One pretends to know everything without knowing anything. You can’t know anything by following your guts. Since when has anyone gotten an A+ in a test by guessing in all multiple choice questions? (Extra Credit if anyone answers all of the questions above :) )
July 2, 2008
Have you ever heard of this argument? “Do it, it is all natural.” I did, and my parents say it a lot, making it one of the most detestable argument for me, and I am tired of it, which is why I am ranting on this post. I have been skeptical of this since I was a lad. They use the arguments in things like food and multi vitamins. They think because, lets say, orange juice from mom is natural, it is better for you. Now, let’s pick apart this argument, shall we?
So what?, don’t other companies use orange, so what if they do it in factories? Even if they use concentrates, if they add the right amount of nutrients, even though it can taste different, it can have the same nutritional values (except the extra fibers). When one evaluates whether something is healthy or not, one should look at ingredients like sugar and the processes, and one could add that they don’t like the taste of the factory produced juice. Now, there may be scary sounding ingredients that are say… preservatives. How can one discern whether such chemical is unhealthy without reaserching it and by pulling the “it is a chemical, so it is bad”? Certainly everything is chemical, but just because something sounds scary doesn’t mean it is.
See what kind of problems I have with “it is all natural.”? An argument should be able to stand up based on its own evidence, not by its origin. If the origin sounds good, but the evidence is bad, what point is there by saying it came from such and such place? By pulling the all natural gambit, it implies that one doesn’t have enough evidence for it, and therefore, one needs to apply it because there are no other good enough arguments. Not only that, some bad stuff are all natural like poison, so the argument doesn’t even make sense. Arguments without the all natural excuse should be like this: It is bad because it contains etc etc etc, and they do this and this and this (or replace bad with good, whatever you feel like defending).