Fanboyism

Ever since buying an iPad and reading reviews about it, and the associated comments on websites, the almost religious fervor with which people either love Apple or hate it has left me quite bemused. This post at Gizmodo goes through the cognitive biases that allow us to rationalize our choices in brand loyalty (or hating, as the case often is). 


For the record - as listed on my gdgt profile - to date I've owned 2 Windows Mobile PDAs, an ASUS eeepc netbook on which I ran Windows XP and then Ubuntu Linux, and an iPod Touch. I certainly have no brand loyalty. I really only have loyalty to my wallet... The iPad is easily the best mobile computing device I've ever owned. 

Podcast - Hunting Humbug 101: Tutorial 36 - False Attribution

In this podcast we take a look at the fallacy False Attribution. Specific examples include taking a scientist out of context, and deliberately creating a false news report.

The ABC’s Media Watch explains this example in full detail and can be found here - deception detection fallacy.

We also discuss the ‘Ultimate False Attribution‘.

Featuring new cohost Ben Retschlag.

Listen Now:

Powered by Podbean.com

Or download

Too much information

Here is a poor choice of analogy:

The truth of the matter is there is nothing wrong. As I said, sometimes sex is just sex; it’s what you do when you are married. Just like cleaning the toilet is what you do to keep your house clean…and I bet you don’t have this great desire or huge emotional connection to scrubbing the porcelain! You do it because it needs to be done and that’s the way it is with married sex… it does need to be done! It’s the glue that God gave us to bond us to one another. The bible is very clear that it is your responsibility as a spouse.

Hopefully this is a false analogy for all you married people out there...

HT: Pharyngula

Podcast - Episode 35 - The Best of Jef

This belated podcast is a ‘best of’ of sorts, that is dedicated to my co-host, coauthor and most significantly, father, Jef Clark. Dad has been fighting his second battle with cancer over the last 6 months. He passed away this weekend. He was 61. I love you mate. You’ll always be with me and all of us.

In the podcast I mention Dad’s writing for the Australian Skeptic. You can read his articles here: http://www.skeptics.com.au/publications/magazine/

See issues: 23.4 | 24.1 | 24.2 | 24.3 | 24. 4 | 25.2 | 25.3 | 25.4 | 26.1 | 26.2 | 26.4 | 27.2 | 27.3

Listen Now:

Powered by Podbean.com

Or download the mp3.

Global warming deniers, skeptics or contrarians?

I've noticed on some of the podcasts I listen to, blogs I read and twitter streams I follow the use of the word "denier" to refer to self identified anthropogenic global-warming / climate change "skeptics". (I've also noticed politicians using both interchangeably.)

 

However, I think attempting to re-label such people as "deniers" associates them with the vile deniers of the holocaust. It could just be me - but if I were to do a cloze activity like the following: 

"Well known ___________ denier will be giving a talk at..." 

I'd be more likely to insert "holocaust" than "global-warming". 

Google "denier" (by this I mean search for the term "denier" in google - like this - not someone who denies the existence of google), look through the first 100 or so links and you'll see they are to both climate change deniers and holocaust deniers (with the majority holocaust deniers). Any variant of the word "deny" searched within google's "wonder wheel" provides a link to a holocaust denial related search. Fairly impartial evidence of the association. (I haven't bothered to search using Bing, but what's the point...?)

 

Splitting hairs? Maybe? But holocaust denial is pretty offensive and often motivated by xenophobia, bigotry and hate. I can't say the same about those on the other side of the majority scientific view about global warming. The use of the word "denial" is a Weasel Word that Poisons the Well. Whether you use it for this effect deliberately or not doesn’t really matter. Associating a view you don't agree with, with the holocaust, is also a tactic used by creationists - something  I wouldn't like to be associated with. (An admittedly explicit association - see the Ben Stein "Expelled" clip as an example - and as such more fallacious. But at least they're relatively upfront about it.) 

Moreover, labelling someone a denier is a conversation ender and it seems to me to be pretty disingenuous to say otherwise. (In the case of some people this might be a good reason to use the word denier – Mahmoud Ahmadinejad springs to mind.) I would also suggest that to claim: "It never occurred to me that using 'denier' in this way is an attempted guilt by association," would also be quite disingenuous - but I can't read your mind (if you rubbed your eye in the last 5 minutes you are one of the people whose mind I control however).

I wholeheartedly agree with the attempt to disassociate "skeptic" from those who doubt the claims of the majority consensus on climate change / global warming. These “skeptics” tend to be - at least in my experience - politically motivated ideologues, not genuine “seekers after truth”. For whatever reason, they are “contrarians”. That is, they hold the “contrary” view. By holding the contrary view it is true that they "deny" anthropogenic global warming. But to "deny" the weaselly guilt by association caused by using the term denier is humbug.

I know I'm fighting a losing battle - wikipedia says so. But I also note that Clive James would probably agree with me... (Also (apart from this apology), sorry for all the asides and off topic tangents in parentheses.)