Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."
Hello! I am social psychologist and author, Bo Bennett. In this podcast, I take a critical thinking-, reason-, and science-based approach to issues that matter. As of January 2020, this podcast is a collection of topics related to all of my books. Subscribe today and enjoy!
|
First there is a common scientific misunderstanding; the disentanglement of substance and quantity. Everything is poisonous or toxic given the right quantities. That which is deadly in high amounts can be life-saving in reasonable amounts. People are swayed more by the emotion of something being "toxic" that they can't grasp the quantity element of the equation. It is important to note that we are dealing with an inductive line of reasoning, not a deductive argument where the conclusion is guaranteed by the truth of the premises (assuming the argument is valid). Formaldehyde is known to cause Leukemia, and other cancers. Sure. But at what amounts? Nicotine is known to cause lung cancer, but a 13-year-old taking one puff of a cigarette will almost certainly not result in cancer. Formaldehyde is an ingredient in vaccines. This is ambiguous. Is it in all vaccines? Some? Therefore, vaccines are causing Leukemia in children. We skipped the premise where we need to state that children are getting vaccines. Nit-picking, but worth noting on this forum. We have a basic non sequitur . As mentioned, we have several problems: 1) there is no mention of dosage or quantity that is known to cause cancer The second conclusion is unwarranted without the statistical information needed (see point #3). To demonstrate the problems, we can use an analogous argument: Calories are known to cause obesity in children.
|
|||
answered on Saturday, Sep 12, 2020 09:13:20 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD | ||||
Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories |
||||
Comments |
||||
|