Skip to content

Papal Logical Fallacy

You may have read recent headlines quoting Pope Benedict giving his professional opinion on the current state of the worlds economies. 
 
Just thought I’d really quickly run down the logical fallacy his Holiness has committed.
 
First, his quote.
”We are now seeing, in the collapse of major banks, that money vanishes, it is nothing. All these things that appear to be real are in fact secondary. Only God’s words are a solid reality”.
His entire premise, as I understand it, is built on a false dichotomy. That is to say, what has been going on isn’t working, therefore my solution is the only viable alternative.  This is similar to the “alternative” healer who, instead of defending his medical modality, points out the less-than 100% success rate of traditional medicine. 
Its possible the worlds economy is built on sand, and perhaps it cannot last, but this in itself does not speak one breath of support for “God’s words”.
Furthermore, religions are a luxury of a civilization with leisure time to spend on them and funds to donate to their support. Benedict’s religion is kept afloat by donations. Donations syphoned from the pool of funds he is chastising as being built on sand.
From a strictly factual stance, he continues to be incorrect. He quotes ”We are now seeing, in the collapse of major banks, that money vanishes, it is nothing.” Which shows a lack of any real knowledge of the financial system, or the current crisis.      

Ironically enough, he is the nephew of Georg Ratzinger, a politician and economist of some note who shared his opinions. Wikipedia quotes:

“[Ratzinger] maintains the ethical principles of Christianity as the only sure basis of political economy and opposes the materialistic system of what is called the “classical political economy” of Adam Smith.”
I am continually astounded at the willingness of religious leaders to step in to arenas outside of their scope and use serious situations for, what amounts to, political purposes.


Posted 09 October 2008 § Skepticism ‡ Comments ° Tagged: , , ,

Jenny McCarthy, Still Ignorant

An LA Times blog by Elizabeth Snead has an interesting quote from the self-appointed expert on childhood vaccinations. To set it up, she is responding to (fellow) vaccination expert Amanda Peet’s comment calling parents who choose not to vaccinate their children (perhaps accurately) “parasites”:

“She has a lot of [nerve] to come forward and be on that side, because there is an angry mob on my side, and I like the fact that I can say she’s completely wrong,”

Interesting statement. Peet has a lot of nerve to vocally oppose your….vocal opposition to vaccination, because, you have an “angry mob” on your side. 

I think its ironic that McCarthy chose that phrasing. I would add “torch-wielding”, but otherwise I think its a perfect fit for the anti-vaccinationists.



Posted 02 October 2008 § Skepticism ‡ Comments ° Tagged: , ,

Does Airborne Work? A Brief Analysis of Their Claim

 

Does Airborne Work?

Does Airborne Work?

A recent Ask Metafilter question succinctly (and accurately) answered by Gina has stirred me to write a quick entry regarding the product marketed by Airborne Health as a “cold cure”.

 

Well, I suppose I should clarify that. They are no longer legally allowed to claim the product cures anything.
I think a little bit of knowledge regarding the regulation and legality of marketing campaigns for so-called “alternative” health modalities is something that the public is in dire need of. When you have some information as to what sort of claims can be made without supporting evidence, you will notice a shocking correlation between these regulations and the claims of the products.
For instance you will notice that now, following the law suit, Airborne’s website has been stripped of anything resembling a direct claim of efficacy. You will instead see that all such claims have been replaced by pseudo-scientific generalities such as its ability to “support your immune system”. A direct quote from their “What’s in Airborne?” page:

Airborne is a dietary supplement that was created by a school teacher. Airborne is a proprietary combination of 17 vitamins, minerals and herbs. The key ingredients in Airborne have been shown to help support a healthy immune system as shown in scientific studies and medical journals.

Lets take this sentence by sentence.

Airborne is a dietary supplement that was created by a school teacher.

I have heard their claims before, so I know where they’re going with this. This is a vague reference to the back-story they’ve propagated over the years telling of schoolteacher Victoria Knight-McDowell. She, being a school teacher, was exposed to more germs and bacterial infections than a Thai masseuse. McDowell, seeing this, designed and developed this *proprietary* mix of vitamins minerals and herbs to combat these conditions.  

Now correct me if I’m wrong, but being a school teacher, even a really sick one, in no way qualifies you to develop pharmaceuticals.

Airborne is a proprietary combination of 17 vitamins, minerals and herbs.

I can’t even begin to explain how disturbing this vague statement is. You would never take a drug from a pharmacist that didn’t indicate its chemical composition. Herbs are drugs, folks. They contain chemicals that interact with the body in exactly the same way a synthesized (read: Big Pharma) version does. The only difference is they aren’t regulated by the FDA (reread this, they ARE NOT REGULATED by the FDA), so you have absolutely no idea what the chemical make up of the dosage you’re taking is.
So, just to recap, you’re taking a mix of 17 unknown substances, which are each themselves in no way regulated for dosage.
“But Andrew! It’s all natural!”
So is arsenic.

The key ingredients in Airborne have been shown to help support a healthy immune system as shown in scientific studies and medical journals

This statement is very interestingly worded. First, they aren’t saying Airborne helps support a healthy immune system. They’re saying the key ingredients have been show to help support a healthy immune system as shown in scientific studies and medical journals.So, at some dosage, the ingredients in Airborne may help support your immune system. But, that isn’t to say that you aren’t already getting those ingredients at healthy doses in your regular diet. You need Vitamin C to survive, but you don’t need a Vitamin C supplement to survive. 

Also, the statement repeats the term “shown” twice. It would be much easier to just say “the key ingredients in Airborne have been shown to help support a healthy immune system”, wouldn’t it? Don’t you find it suspicious that they chose to add that extra “shown” in there?
Do you see it yet?
They aren’t actually saying anything. They’re saying that healthy immune systems have been shown in scientific studies and medical journals.
Reread the sentence, take a minute to really comprehend whats being said.
Starting looking at the marketing literature for these so-called “alternative” health modalities, really look at the claims. What are they saying? Are they actually making any concrete claims, or are they using pseudo-esoteric wording and confusing phrasing to make you assume a causation where there is none?


Posted 28 September 2008 § Marketing § Skepticism ‡ Comments °