8 Logical Fallacies That Fuel Anti-Science Sentiments

“We need science more than ever, yet many people find it hard to get accurate information about the scientific method and its achievements. Making things more difficult, their misconceptions about science are often driven by logical fallacies, or errors in deductive reasoning. Here are eight of the most common anti-science fallacies.”

via io9.com – 8 Logical Fallacies That Fuel Anti-Science Sentiments.

Where do we go from here?

The Eiffel Tower after its lights were shut off in memory of the victims of the attack on Charlie Hebdo; January 8, 2015. CREDIT PHOTOGRAPH BY DURSUN AYDEMIR / ANADOLU / GETTY

How we react as a society to the recent attacks in Paris may well define us for a long time to come. I hope this will be a tipping point toward a more rational and peaceful future. Sadly, calls for violent retribution often drown out pleas for solidarity.

From The New Yorker – “Western societies are not, even now, the paradise of skepticism and rationalism that they believe themselves to be. The West is a variegated space, in which both freedom of thought and tightly regulated speech exist, and in which disavowals of deadly violence happen at the same time as clandestine torture.”

Continue Reading – Unmournable Bodies – The New Yorker.

Can we please stop killing each other, already?

Just in case anyone is unsure – Being offended because someone insulted your imaginary man in the sky doesn’t give you the right to kill people. I don’t care how racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-semitic, blasphemous or in poor taste a publication is. To initiate violence upon someone you disagree with shows how insecure and weak your position is.

While the NYTimes leans a little far to the left for my taste, this one sums up the Charlie Hebdo situation pretty well.

“If a large enough group of someones is willing to kill you for saying something, then it’s something that almost certainly needs to be said, because otherwise the violent have veto power over liberal civilization”

Read more –  The Blasphemy We Need – NYTimes.com.

Phones are more private than houses – so they shouldn’t be easier to search

In R v Fearon, a majority of the Supreme Court of Canada decided that police can search the contents of your cellphone as long as the search is ‘truly incidental’ to a lawful arrest and is tailored to the reason for the arrest.
(Sean Kilpatrick/THE CANADIAN PRESS)

What exactly does “truly incidental” mean? Canadian law is plagued by this type of ambiguous language. I’m skeptical whether the Supreme Court Judges possess the technical vocabulary to understand the implications of their decision. What is the problem with requiring investigators to obtain a warrant?

From The Globe and Mail – “Last month, the Supreme Court of Canada decided that police do not need a warrant to search the contents of your cellphone. In R v Fearon, a majority of the court decided that police can search the contents of your cellphone as long as the search is “truly incidental” to a lawful arrest and is tailored to the reason for the arrest.”

Read the full article – The Globe and Mail – Phones are more private than houses – so they shouldn’t be easier to search