Conspiracy Theories, Skepticism, and Critical Thinking

Let's begin with stating some answers/questions. The first is whether or not there is life in the universe aside from Earth life? We would have to honestly answer: probably. I can recall some finds on meteorites that seemed to have fossilized single cell organisms on them, but I do not remember if those finds were confirmed or validated. However, it seems unlikely given the scope of the Cosmos, with a materialistic outlook, that this planet is the only place with life in or on it. The next question should be obvious: is there intelligent life in the universe other than on this planet. Again, probably. The answer is the same for the same reasoning. Without adopting both a unique and privileged place in the universe it would be impossible to rule out the possibility that there are other intelligent life forms somewhere in the great sky of the universe. The last question: has intelligent life visited this planet? This answer is more distinct: extremely doubtful. There are a number...

Goal post shifting is not a fallacy that is used in arguing for conspiracy theories. Rather it is used in defense of them. Perhaps the biggest problem in dealing with conspiracism is that facts do not matter. The person arguing a conspiracy theory has their little quasi facts, but more importantly they are arguing from a position of belief first evidence later. This is once the conspiracy theory takes hold. I know that I am generalizing the position here but typically a person has a feeling that something isn't right, then they move toward digging around for evidence that they were right, then they begin a series of only looking for the evidence that supports that belief. Make no mistake, conspiracism is every bit a faith based argument as religious belief. Try arguing with the Ken Hams of the world that the story of Noah's ark is literally impossible to have happened (never mind the putting the animals on the boat, think about the plants and oddly, the fish). They won't bu...

We've been on the Ad Hominem for a few posts by now and it will end soon, but first we must consider the use of the Ad Hominem and how can create an effect. The important thing to remember is that a fallacious ad hominem argument doesn't need to be false, the truth value of the attack is irrelevant to the argument. What matters, and this is important, is that relevance. The Birther Argument is the argument that the former president of the United States, was not a naturalized citizen, and thus unfit to serve the office. This presents a good litmus test for Ad Hominem because, like it or hate it, it is relevant. The Constitution is very specific on this point, that only a naturalized (that is to say, a person born within the legal definition of the United States--this includes embassies and military bases) citizen can serve the office. In the 18th century, this was a law that made a great deal of sense. The framers of the Constitution did not want someone with ties to a foreign...