Are you a closed-minded naysayer? Probably not - but there’s a reasonable chance you might be accused of being one if you identify yourself as a skeptic. “Prove” you’re open-minded by coming up with a list major changes of position you have made in the past. That way when someone says you’re closed-minded - you’ll be able to respond with specific examples of things you’ve changed your mind about. That’ll learn ‘em one.
In this podcast we (Jef, my old mate Ben, and me) discuss things we’ve changed our minds about and why. We also discuss some of thinking strategies behind these decisions - specifically Occam’s razor, Hume’s razor and Playing the devil’s advocate.
Download:
Or listen:
If we don’t take a stand against people using the Slippery Slope - the world will implode under the weight of inanity. Also, check out my interview on The Skeptic Zone, and here’s my article about inductive reasoning.
The Argument by Slogan, or “sloganeering”, or “staying on message”, dominates contemporary political discourse. Various clips used, including some of the audio from the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) show Q&A - Episode “Beyond Spin”.
In our most self-indulgent podcast since Special Pleading we discuss Argument by Artifice and Bad Faith. Examples from Liar Liar, and posts linked to from the links above. Oh, and here's Jef's article on Bad Faith.
Begging the question is a type of circular argument that all should be familiar with, because then everyone would know about using the premise of an argument as the conclusion.
All enlightened critical thinkers agree, this is the best podcast on fallacies going around. And this episode on Special Pleading is one of the best we’ve produced to date. If you disagree, it’s because you don’t have the kind of cognition and sensibility required to recognise quality. It could also be because of the environment in which you are listening to it, the type of music player you are using and/or your headphones. If you had decent equipment and were in a place that allowed you to concentrate properly, you’d no doubt agree with me…
Be warned, I had issues mixing with Audacity - there are some “off air” sections that I should have edited out, and some other “crapping on” that normally I would have trimmed for the sake of brevity. By the time I realised this (on “proof listening”) it would have meant almost starting from scratch, which I couldn’t be arsed to do.
Download:
1. The notion that we’re all the same – “Straw man” and “factoid propagation” – who says this?
2. Drug company making money – impugning motives (as opposed to the vitamin company...)
3. Having it both ways, carp, rise in asthma, obesity etc., outright falsehoods, non-sequiturs and red herrings.
4. Back in the day, when children got Measles, mumps etc. “she’s not advocating that” she says, yet later on does exactly that. Internally inconsistent (note - this is one obvious case of this, there are others...)
5. If as a human being, you decide, etc. In a democracy you should have the right to say no. This is where you can use the technique of Substitution.
6. We have evidence – no we don’t – demonstrably false. Factoid propagation of Wakefield's infamous and now utterly discredited MMR autism
7. Not part of the herd. Sanctimony and weasel words
8. Information being withheld. etc. Paranoid conspiracy mongering. Other things withheld... Rotashield as an example of how evidence is not withheld - it's dealt with openly.
9. The whole thing is Browbeating
or listen 
or listen to off the web.
