The new episode of the great podcast Skepticality is up. It features James Randi talking about the next "The Amaz!ng Meeting" (ican’twaitican’twaitican’twait!), the fabubabe Rebecca have you ordered your calendar yet? The holidays are fast approaching!), and then this long rambling session with some idiot astronomer who talks about being naked, his dog, and other silly stuff.
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
The original BA site (with the Moon Hoax debunking, movie reviews, and all that) can be found here.
 | ||
 | Bad Astronomy was chosen as one of Time.com's Best Blogs of 2009. |
 |
DISCOVERmagazine.com: Latest Articles on Space DISCOVER Blogs: The Loom
Copyright © 2012, Kalmbach Publishing Co.
Privacy - Terms - Reader Services - Subscribe Today - Advertise - About Us
November 28th, 2006 at 10:14 pm
Have we ever seen a photo of the Bad dog?
November 28th, 2006 at 11:19 pm
Yup.
November 28th, 2006 at 11:29 pm
So how do we know the Bad dog exists?
“You don’t need to see the Bad dog to know it’s there because Dr. Phil Plait says it’s there.” -Argument from authority
“I don’t see how there could possibly NOT be a Bad dog. It’s absense just doesn’t make sense.” -Argument from personal incredulity
“Only morons disbelieve that there’s a Bad dog.” -Ad hominum
“France exists, and I haven’t been there, so the Bad dog must exist.” -non sequitur
“If you don’t believe that there’s a Bad dog, I’m going to torture you then kill you, then torture and kill your family and your pets and everyone you ever cared for!” -argument from militant fundamentalism
“We don’t know there’s not a Bad dog, so there probably is.” -argument from ignorance
“If the Bad dog didn’t exist then BA would be lonely and his slippers would never get chewed.” -argument from final consequences
I was going to try for the 20 main logical fallacies, but couldn’t get the Bad dog argument to fit with all of them.
November 28th, 2006 at 11:33 pm
That photo was taken by a camera with low resolution. Those pixels could be anything. Pareidolia explains why we see a dog in those photos. The person who took the photo might have even ‘enhanced’ it to bring out the doglike aspects. The blog was even saying that we should look for a cute dog in the photo, but it could be natural formations!
Dr. Plait, you aren’t fooling anyone!
(Can’t wait to listen to the show. I always enjoy your segments on Are We Alone, and your interviews with the Skeptic’s Guide and Skepticality gang!)
November 29th, 2006 at 12:56 am
Nice dog.
Shawn: Are you pointing out the ‘Dog Delusion’?
November 29th, 2006 at 2:21 am
Chopra has some stuff to say about the Bad dog. He says the Bad dog is just a collapsed wave function and that if you think about the Bad dog you know there is no Bad dog in your brain, or dog fur actually in your grey matter and that proves that reality isn’t measurable and therefore there is a Bad dog but that the Bad dog is really just the fact that the Universe is consciousness.
Or something like that. I think that’s the argument from LSD, but I didn’t see that fallacy listed on the Top 20 from the Skeptics Guide to the Universe website.
November 29th, 2006 at 2:49 am
It was funny to hear the BA’s experiences with the Mythbusters. Stoic Hyneman and over-enthusiastic Savage.
So much of the Mythbusters appeal comes from their clashing personalities. It’s nice to hear that they’re just like that off-camera.
November 29th, 2006 at 9:14 am
Yeah, the Mythbusters are all pretty much in person who they are on the show. They’re not playing roles, just being themselves. Grant told us at Dragon*Con he asked the producers when he was hired if they had any recommendations, and they were suggesting he be more hip, change his wardrobe, etc. Then Jamie said, “You hired this guy, you get him as he is.”
Shawn S, that’s clearly a dog in that picture (actually 2). But we only have Phil’s claim that the dog is his dog. He could have gotten those pictures anywhere. Taken them at a neighbor’s or the park. Swiped them online. So that’s not really evidence that there really is a Bad Dog.
Great post on the logical fallacies!
November 29th, 2006 at 9:53 am
If there really was a Bad Dog, I’d have to acknowledge its existence. I don’t want to, so I choose not to beleive in the Bad Dog, therefore, it does not exist.
What fallacy is that, Shawn?
November 29th, 2006 at 10:19 am
Any chance you could have an Amazing meeting over here in the UK.
Speaking as someone from the faith world, I value the skeptics because they keep us straight.
November 29th, 2006 at 10:33 am
I think that’s a strawman, ioresult, because it misrepresents the opponent’s position.
November 29th, 2006 at 11:20 am
Good thing the Bad Dog isn’t in Thailand. He’s just be on a barbeque stick,,,
OHHH, Bad, BAAAAD, GAry 7!!!
Gary 7
November 29th, 2006 at 11:54 am
I’d incline more towards the wishful thinking fallacy, Tukla. I’m not misrepresenting an argument from BA, I’m just wishing for a conclusion because the alternative scares me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishful_thinking
November 29th, 2006 at 12:17 pm
Bad Dogs are charactaristically occompanied by a rolled up news paper. No rolled up newspaper makes me think that Phil is IN FACT in possession of a Good Dog and this bad dog talk is just a cover up for his agenda.
November 29th, 2006 at 1:36 pm
Mmmmm, randy skepchicks…
What? Sorry, don’t know what came over me, there.
I think I need a lie-down.
November 29th, 2006 at 3:08 pm
Good one, ioresult.
“BA is well documented in claiming the Bad dog exists, but he also claimed that the Bad dog can fly, so the Bad dog obviously is fake.”
Strawman?