![]() We learned through experience and anecdote. But that’s how we know, for example, that milk thistle is good for the liver and hawthorn is good for the heart. “ ”We learned that certain herbs had beneficial effects by trying them and passing on the information of what resulted: pure anecdotal evidence. For instance, according to one homeopath: Those arguing in favor of alternative medicine often cite examples of traditional medicines (such as willow bark) or derivatives thereof that were incorporated into mainstream medicine, and urge that people should keep an open mind about whatever remedy the practitioner happens to be promoting. The crazification factor is often an example in popular usage: you will find endless examples of people online going ad hominem when 20-30% of people do something the speaker doesn't like, or are even polled as holding an opinion they don't like. This is a clear example of this particular fallacy. Their ideas rely on finding data and constructing a hypothesis around that data, with no further testing of these ideas after this construction. ![]() This is most clearly demonstrated in fundamentalist Christians' discussions of how the flood created geologic structures. Much of young earth creationism relies on this form of post hoc reasoning. While this may seem logical at first glance, deliberately waiting for such a "critical mass" actually means stopping research at a point when the results appear favourable to the hypotheses rather than continuing through a pre-set number of experiments before checking for overall findings. He has also stated that, before concluding and publishing his research, "I purposely waited until I thought there was a critical mass that wasn't a statistical fluke". However, Bem has acknowledged forming some of his conclusions after the tests, rather than testing fixed hypotheses as any rigorous application of the scientific method should. In Bem's experiments, a small but statistically significant number of test subjects' responses appeared to be influenced by conditions which appeared later in the tests. In late 2010, " Feeling the Future: Experimental Evidence for Anomalous Retroactive Influences on Cognition and Affect", a psychology paper by Daryl Bem, ostensibly provided evidence of precognition. This argument is extremely faulty in that it doesn't acknowledge that physical processes are not random, but are guided by the laws of physics, chemistry, and eventually, biology: evolution via variation and natural selection. Somebody had to have lucked out.Ĭreationist and intelligent design arguments claim that the chances of a protein molecule forming " randomly", or a cell forming "randomly" via abiogenesis, or the Universe forming "randomly" into what we see today are incredibly low, and thus it must have been designed. However, the chances of there being a winner is 100% guaranteed. Of course, the chances of anyone else winning was also a million to one, and this person could've accused the winner of cheating no matter who they were. Afterwards, someone points out that the odds of Joe winning are a million to one, and thus, he couldn't have won randomly and must have cheated.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |