Skepticism

Recently I've found myself often using a certain tactic during discussions with believers that seems to evoke interesting and sometimes amusing reactions. In my head, I've termed it the "pseudoswap" method, though I by no means claim stake to inventing it. It's really just a simple way to come up with effective analogies that can help you point out fallacious reasoning during discussions or debates.

The idea is to subtly probe the believer to find other pseudosciences to which they do not subscribe, and then draw comparisons between the arguments they are giving in support of their pseudoscience, to the arguments commonly made in support of the other pseudoscience.

For example, I stumbled upon this by accident when I was talking to my mom about some of her beliefs in various alternative medicine pseudosciences (such as energy healing and acupuncture). She made the comment that these ancient practices have been around for thousands of years in use by the Chinese, and if they didn't work, they wouldn't still be around today--implying that this proved their efficacy, so they didn't need to be tested in double-blind clinical trials. I asked her if she believed that the Holy Bible was the true word of God, to which she replied that she didn't. "Well," I said, "the Bible has been around for over a thousand years... If it wasn't the true word of God, why would people still be saying that it is today?"

She couldn't really answer that one, other than to say that the Bible had some good messages in it. I conceded this particular point, since I hadn't actually read the Bible at that time. I have since, and would say now that even that is quite debatable.

In later discussions with other non-religious true-believers, I have found pesudoswapping to be quite effective at either stumping them, or at least triggering highly amusing emotional responses and ad hominem attacks--either way, essentially winning the debate.

Another personal example is from a true-believer paranormal forum--the point was being put forward that most UFOs are "obviously intelligently controlled," implying that their movements, as described by witnesses, clearly cannot be explained by natural phenomena. I equated this to the arguments put forth by creationists to support the theory of intelligent design--simple appeals to ignorance, attributing something to an intelligence because of personal incredulity. This suggestion was met with hostility. Here's some excerpts:

Me: To say something was intelligently controlled is similar to the whole intelligent design/creationism versus evolution debate. Something that complex couldn't possibly have happened by chance, therefore God did it. Something that weird couldn't possibly happen naturally, therefore aliens did it. It's all very unscientific, unimaginative, and ultimately does not actually answer any questions.

Responder: It is not the same at all. You know that. You only made the analogy because the two concepts share a word. The similarity ends there. It can be shown that evolution happens naturally. It has not been shown that the more well-documented UFOs were natural. Furthermore, intelligent design appeals to some higher power to explain everything -- a power beyond the rules. Simply observing an object and determining if it is under control is not the same at all. Your argument is specious at best.

Me: I stand by my analogy. They are both appeals to ignorance--explaining something that you can't personally comprehend by attributing it to an intelligence.

Responder: What? This is not an appeal to ignorance. If I see a car driving on the street below me, it is an event in which I can safely assume the object is being controlled intelligently. If I see an airplane flying by, I can make the same assumption. But if I see a eliptical craft going at high speed, doing the same thing, then I am making and appeal to ignorance? And where do you get off saying I can't comprehend a UFO? For the record, I did see a UFO and it definitely behaved as it was under control. Man, you really are something.

Me: A Jehovah's Witness once used a similar argument to convince me of intelligent design. He said something along the lines of "If you were walking along the beach, and you saw a watch in the sand, it would be obvious that it was created, and thus had a creator. Now, look at living organisms. They are much more complex than a simple watch... clearly they must also have had a creator."

You just used the same argument for intelligent control of flying objects in the sky. You can't possibly imagine how what you saw, or how what some eye witness told you he saw, could possibly not be intelligently controlled. The Jehovah's Witness can't possibly imagine how something complex as a living organism could come about without being intelligently designed. It's the exact same fallacious argument.

Responder: That is not the same argument at all. You analogies always become insulting and of dubious value. I would rather not even discuss this with you anymore.

Me: Well, if you change your mind, I am still willing to hear arguments for why it's a bad analogy. You simply stating that it's not the same argument doesn't convince me... I personally can't see a difference. I do not believe it is possible to prove an intelligent force behind something in either case in the analogy.

And that was the end of the discussion with that particular person. As you can see, he was offended and insulted that I would equate his arguments with those of a creationist, since he obviously sees how creationist arguments are fallacious. Was my analogy a valid one? I think it was. Did I convince this believer? Probably not. Was it fun anyway? Sure!

The beauty of pseudoswapping is that believers in the paranormal are generally not religious, so drawing parallels between the pseudoscience and religion is almost a surefire way to illustrate the absurdity of a believer's arguments. All you need to do is identify which fallacy the believer is using, and then present the same fallacy in another (in this case, religious) context. The ultimate goal, of course, is not to piss him off, but rather to help him see the error in his thinking.

I suppose in a worst-case scenario, you might end up converting the believer to whatever religion you were drawing comparisons to... so pick a good one (assuming such a thing even exists).

It's that eye-rolling time of year again when would-be comedians around the web invoke dry chuckles from their viewers by posting fake announcements on their websites. Here's the best that I've found on various science, skeptical, and atheist websites:

Deep-Sea News covers the story about deep-sea squid invading the Mississippi river due to hurricanes causing an increase in water salinity.

In episode 88 of The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe, Dr. Novella pranked his team of skeptical rogues during the Science or Fiction segment by claiming that Chinese scientists have devised a way to process Panda feces into edible wafers to help curb their country's hunger problems.

Dr. Joan Bushwell's Chimpanzee Refuge gives us the real truth about semi-conductors.

Respectful Insolence shares a mailing list gag about chiropractic treatments fighting global warming

Parallel Divergence has a great post recounting an April Fool's story from the past involving lotto tickets and an extremely pissed off mom.

NoBeliefs.com has changed its name to Christianity Now, leaving us with this little gem:

Announcement: I know a lot of you freethinkers have been loyal to NoBeliefs.com but we're in for a big change. NoBeliefs.com has been bought out by Christianity NOW. Starting today, the articles and news items will be replaced by Chrisitan oriented subjects. The author of NoBeliefs.com has also converted to Christianity and has given his life to Jesus. He will help to transfer this site into God's good plan and to prepare for the Final Days. Hallelujah!

The Discover Institute revealed that the much-maligned Dr. Egnor was actually an invented personality created to take "gullible Darwinists" for a ride. There is speculation that this is simply their way of safely distancing themselves from the increasingly bizarre Egnor. Will we ever know the truth? Who cares?

[Update: It turns out that this April Fool's announcement was itself an April Fool's prank perpetrated by The Panda's Thumb. Nice one!]

Tetrapod Zoology gives us a couple of posts about rhinogradentians... small rodent-like mammals that walk around on their noses.

That's about all I can handle. For more (not necessarily science/skepticism/religion related) April Fools goodness, check out The Museum of Hoaxes Top 100 April Fool's Day Hoaxes page. Also, as per usual, SlashDot has been pretty much rendered un-readable for the entire day, if you're into this kind of thing.