<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>mythstifieD</title>
	<atom:link href="http://mythstified.com/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://mythstified.com</link>
	<description>reasoning in an unreasonable world</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2010 03:22:22 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<meta xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex,follow" />
		<item>
		<title>Can we wait on Climate Change?</title>
		<link>http://mythstified.com/2010/02/can-we-wait-on-climate-change/</link>
		<comments>http://mythstified.com/2010/02/can-we-wait-on-climate-change/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2010 03:22:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Shawne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Thoughts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AGW]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cap]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[carbon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[change]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[climate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[craven]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[homeopathy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trade]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mythstified.com/?p=252</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The pro-AGW crowd sounds almost like the homeopaths who state that science hasn't yet 'found' all the mechanisms required to explain how their magic water works.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://mythstified.com/2010/02/can-we-wait-on-climate-change/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Happy Sunny Skeplandia!</title>
		<link>http://mythstified.com/2009/12/happy-sunny-skeplandia/</link>
		<comments>http://mythstified.com/2009/12/happy-sunny-skeplandia/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Dec 2009 02:01:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Shawne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Thoughts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[debate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[logic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[skeptic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unreasonable]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mythstified.com/?p=240</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[How do you reason with someone who is reasonable, but chooses to fight unreasonably?]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://mythstified.com/2009/12/happy-sunny-skeplandia/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>48</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Infinite Regress</title>
		<link>http://mythstified.com/2009/11/the-infinite-regress/</link>
		<comments>http://mythstified.com/2009/11/the-infinite-regress/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Nov 2009 06:43:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Shawne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Fallacy of the Weak]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[aquinus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[aristotle]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cosmological]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fallacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[god]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[infinity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reality show]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[regress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[thought]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mythstified.com/?p=198</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Infinity exists, at least analytically. In reality, however, infinity is only an assumption. Assumptions are dangerous, they are leaps of logic, and thus potentially quite fallacious.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://mythstified.com/2009/11/the-infinite-regress/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>9</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Correlation is not Causation</title>
		<link>http://mythstified.com/2009/11/correlation-is-not-causation/</link>
		<comments>http://mythstified.com/2009/11/correlation-is-not-causation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2009 06:19:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Shawne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Fallacy of the Weak]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[autism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cause]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[coke]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[correlation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[diet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[effect]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fallacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[h1n1]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pearl jam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[psychic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[swine flu]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[twins]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[vaccine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[weight loss]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mythstified.com/?p=170</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In science and statistics it is a common and dire warning that "correlation does not imply causation".  Everyone understands the concept of cause and effect: hit the billiard balls and watch them roll away in the opposite direction you hit them.  However, sometimes the correlation is not so obvious... sometimes a correlation doesn't really exist but is only perceived to.  Seeing should not always be believing, studying is important.  Before jumping to a conclusion, make sure you have accumulated and considered as much data as possible.  When it seems that a link exists, it is certainly worth looking into.  Unfortunately, many are eager to make a discovery so they might discover a link that is only loosely connected, or not even connected at all (some other force is causing the effect that is not being considered).  Coincidences exist, and just because it would be convenient for two events to be connected, that does not necessitate it to be so.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://mythstified.com/2009/11/correlation-is-not-causation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>37</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Slippery Slope</title>
		<link>http://mythstified.com/2009/10/fotw5-the-slippery-slope/</link>
		<comments>http://mythstified.com/2009/10/fotw5-the-slippery-slope/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Oct 2009 23:55:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Shawne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Fallacy of the Weak]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[communism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fallacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[logical]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prediction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[projection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[slippery]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[slope]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mythstified.com/?p=149</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The problem with a Slippery Slope is that it is naive.  It does not account for the vastness of possibilities that are permitted in the universe.  To tell your friends not to wander off the path because you will end up on a windy cliff is not a likely consequent, even though it is a possibility.  Just because it happened to you is merely anecdotal and is only one morsel of data, hardly enough to base a conclusion off of.  Sure, if thousands of people per year needed to be rescued from that cliff then a Slippery Slope Ahead sign would be warranted (but that would be a proper argument.)  Slippery slopes confuse what is possible with what is probable, and speculate a number of improbable steps that will generate the improbable outcome.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://mythstified.com/2009/10/fotw5-the-slippery-slope/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>43</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Affirming the Consequent</title>
		<link>http://mythstified.com/2009/09/fotw4-affirming-the-consequent/</link>
		<comments>http://mythstified.com/2009/09/fotw4-affirming-the-consequent/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Sep 2009 02:38:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Shawne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Fallacy of the Weak]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[affirming]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[europa]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fallacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[spain]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mythstified.com/?p=131</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[We were all kids once, so we all reasoned like this as well.  Until we learn that it can rain anywhere in the world, this argument makes sense to the ignorant.  Affirming the Consequent assumes that reality is simple and can be relied upon forwards and backwards.  It's typically fallacious to reason this way as most definitions have multiple meanings and can apply to a myriad of situations.  It is rare to come across a sound argument that affirms the consequent.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://mythstified.com/2009/09/fotw4-affirming-the-consequent/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>115</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Begging the Question</title>
		<link>http://mythstified.com/2009/09/fotw3-begging-the-question/</link>
		<comments>http://mythstified.com/2009/09/fotw3-begging-the-question/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Sep 2009 00:04:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Shawne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Fallacy of the Weak]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[beg]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[begging]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fallacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[human]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[question]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[scriptures]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mythstified.com/?p=105</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Introducing one of the most oft cited and least understood fallacies of logic: begging the question.  I would rank it as one of the more confusing 'fallacies', mostly because it's not precisely a fallacy.  The problem is, the argument may be sound--it just does a dismal job at making its case because it assumes way too much information. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://mythstified.com/2009/09/fotw3-begging-the-question/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>34</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Arguing from Ignorance</title>
		<link>http://mythstified.com/2009/09/fotw2-arguing-from-ignorance/</link>
		<comments>http://mythstified.com/2009/09/fotw2-arguing-from-ignorance/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Sep 2009 06:00:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Shawne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Fallacy of the Weak]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[911]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fallacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ghost]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ignorance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wtc7]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mythstified.com/?p=44</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This may be one of the most ironic fallacies, as the claimant spends half the time pleading ignorance, then spends the rest explaining (with an air of authority) something they have just shown to be unknown.  There is nothing wrong with this as long as it can be tested properly.  The problem is that, until such tests take place, what the claimant bares is merely opinion.  Of course, it wouldn't be ignorance if we had data about the situation.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://mythstified.com/2009/09/fotw2-arguing-from-ignorance/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>20</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Appeal to Popularity</title>
		<link>http://mythstified.com/2009/09/fotw1-appeal-to-popularity/</link>
		<comments>http://mythstified.com/2009/09/fotw1-appeal-to-popularity/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Sep 2009 06:50:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Shawne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Fallacy of the Weak]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fallacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[popularity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[science]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mythstified.com/?p=30</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[We see it everywhere.  In almost every advertisement we learn how all our friends and neighbors have used this new gadget or lotion, and so should you! Just because a lot of people belief something, does not make it true.  The Appeal to Popularity is usually a self-fulfilling prophecy.  It usually starts off as a perception with a low sample size, and grows larger not because it is efficient at what it claims, but is effective at marketing itself since it is essentially a feedback loop of ever increasing loudness.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://mythstified.com/2009/09/fotw1-appeal-to-popularity/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>33</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
