The argument from banana

I can't remember how I came across this, but it's a hilarious example of Stacking the Deck, a False Analogy, and just outright stupidity.


[If the video is working try this link.]

If you can't wait to watch the video, and for those still on dial-up, I'll give a quick run down (caricature) of Kiwi reborn Christian Ray Comfort's "Atheists' Nightmare Banana":

Bananas are just like cans of soda. They fit in your hand, are packaged for your convenience, have a "tab" at the top to release the contents and are shaped perfectly to fit in your mouth. But they're even better than soda cans because god, in his infinite wisdom, made the skin biodegradable...

Now, it might seem a little over the top to bother analysing such an inane "argument"; it might seem I'm picking on an easy target. Well, yes, that's why I'm doing it.

An obvious point here, which has been made by countless others, why choose just bananas as evidence of god's benevolence? Oh yeah, you need to Stack the Deck. Hard to see how the analogy would work with coconuts or pineapples? And that's just fruit. If god is nice enough to design bananas for us, why not make a hot dog tree? It seems to me that we have to go to a lot of effort to make hot dogs. That is, grow wheat, mill it to get flour, process and bake it to get the bun, slaughter a variety of animals, harvest their lips and ..... other bits, grind the lips and other bits and stuff inside intestines, cook it, then put it in a bun with various condiments (which again, aren't just squeezed straight out of a plant).

I might be inclined to believe the argument from hot dog tree, but not banana. You'd have to prove such a tree exists though.

[If the video isn't working try this link.]

Well, if that proves god exists, it also certainly proves he is far from benevolent. Fancy growing hot dogs without ketchup.

Of course, the analogy with the Coke isn't entirely false. Modern bananas were designed by an intelligence - they were selectively bred by humans. Also, given Ray's a Christian, why isn't he disturbed by the fact god gave bananas to Muslims before Christians? Following his reasoning, doesn't that mean Muslims are favoured by god, compared to Christians?

Miranda Devine rolls her eyes at climate change…

…and suggestions it gets her "all hot and bothered". From her SMH column - Geeks in white coats shall inherit the earth:

Every time I write an article pointing out there is no scientific consensus on the extent of man-made - as opposed to natural - climate change, or that attacks on genetically modified food are flawed, I am accused, quite seriously, of being on the payroll of Monsanto or Western Mining.

This is simply untrue - see this article in Science for evidence of a scientific consensus:

Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.

Any field of scientific inquiry moves forward through hypothesis and counter-hypothesis. Devine states that the jury is out on anthropocentric climate change. She is guilty of using the rhetorical tactic of Exaggerated Conflict. Her implied argument is that uncertainly within the field of climate change means the whole field can be safely doubted.

(Also, have you ever noticed that, yes, there are climate change "skeptics", but none of them actually ever seem to be those who study climate change? There are also "evolution skeptics" (read: creationists) but we don't take them seriously either, because none of them are evolutionary biologists. This is not to say either of these "non-experts" couldn't be right, but I know which group I'd put my money on - if I was so inclined to gamble, which I'm not.)

She then moves on with a favoured False Analogy of the climate change "skeptics":

Environmentalism is the powerful new secular religion and politically correct scientists are its high priests, rescuing the planet from the apocalypse of climate change, as the Doomsday clock ticks down. Kyoto is the Promised Land and Bush/Howard/capitalism/industry/farmers are Satan.

If you need the explanation as to why this is a False Analogy then see a previous post - McCrann's false analogy. Now it's time to bring in a heavy weight - a scientist (obviously the one scientist that is not biased) - to back up her point:

Perth exploration geologist Louis Hissink suspects "politicised science has replaced religion as the arbiter of human affairs ... priesthoods of both organisations are concerned with what happens in the future and that current behaviour is thought to affect that future, hence it needs to be proscribed and prescribed".

And so we have an Appeal to Authority. This one guy is an authority (an exploration geologist - on climate change - he couldn't possibly work for the mining industry... surely not?), but let's ignore the 928 papers surveyed by Science Magazine in which none of them disagreed with the scientific consensus. (Note that by talking to only one person for her column, someone who tells her what she wants us to hear, she is Stacking the Deck - here's Hissink's blog.)

A bit of advice - try not to use opinion columns as a primary source for anything - especially science. They'll let any fool write for a newspaper these days, no matter how pointless everything they say is.

Update: Expert scientist guy Louis Hissink doesn't think the much of the Big Bang either, and rates it about the same as biblical creationism:

The Big Bang is as fictitious as Creation, the two being the one and same event, but separated intellectually by an enormous expanse of chronological time. It is the religious belief of a competing, more liberal minded, religious sect… the ‘Big Bang" fact is scientifically absurd.

Just what science does he believe in? Doubting everything is the same as believing everything - both require limited cognitive function.

Update 2: Some of the most prestigious science academies in the world issued this statement on climate change - Joint science academies’ statement: Global response to climate change (note – pdf).

9-11 Conspiracy theorist - Part 2

I've already posted on 911 in Plane Site, but it's pure gold for a "fallacy finder" such as myself. In response to a review of the show by Gordon Farrer of The Age, the conspiracy theorist and delusional paranoid (note my continued Personal Abuse) Dave "The Dirty One" von Kleist, motivated, only by an insatiable need to become a famous country singer (note that I am Impugning his Motives) serves up a few more:

On our radio program, we have interviewed a two-star General, an Air Force Colonel (with 30 yrs. identifying aircraft ant aircraft parts), an Army Major, Air Force Major, a 33 yr. veteran of the DoD in missile defense systems, numerous Airline pilots including an instructor, and the United Airlines pilot who flew Flight 175 up to two months before 9/11 when he retired. They agree that a 757 could not have caused the damage at the Pentagon and that the planes that hit the towers could not have been commercial aircraft. That is their opinion not mine.

Now, how many of these "experts" have seen a 757 fly into a building before or after 9-11? None I'll wager. Yet somehow, by merely looking at photos, they can tell that it's impossible that a plane caused the damage? "Attributing Authority" to these people is fallacious for two reasons. False Attribution - as the sources The Dirty One cites aren't "experts" in the correct field, they are made up of people who are irrelevant (at best marginally relevant), unqualified, and unidentified (and for all we know - non-existent). (The correct "experts" I assume, would be from the fields of engineering, ballistics and demolition.) And two, Appeal to Authority - Dave does not explain why they hold this view, but merely presupposes their "eminence" will suffice as an argument.

The Dirty One continues:

What "experts" can you bring forth to support or justify your condemnation of the hard photographic evidence presented in the film? I would be most interested as to what your explanation would be in regard to the "pod" and the "flash" is. How do you explain the Pentagon photos and footage taken before the collapse of the "E" ring? I noticed (and so did many of your readers) that you didn't address any of these issues. In fact, you didn't address one issue, not one. I would challenge you to do so however, coward "journalists" usually throw their rocks, shoot their arrows and then run and hide. Prove me wrong.

Ah, the Burden of Proof fallacy. One of my "favs". Dave has no actual evidence for his case (like footage of a missile or eyewitness accounts), he merely makes spurious claims with selective use of videos and photos. So instead of making his own case with actual evidence, he says: "If you can't prove me wrong, then I must be right." Well, lots of people have "proved you wrong".

The above link serves to demonstrate The Dirty One's Deck Stacking. All his claims are bogus. One example of a bogus claim is when Dave argues: "If it was a plane that hit the Pentagon, where's the wreckage?" To which he shows photos where wreckage can't be seen (and implies he has looked at all the photos there are). Well, here's one Dave! Oh, I see, you have seen it. Of course! The wreckage was planted… and the photo only came about months later? Question! Why would "they" wait to release a photo of "planted" evidence Dave?

I know a little physics, and I vaguely recall some terms - work and energy. Reminded of this I thought to myself, in order for a plane travelling at a high velocity (large Kinetic Energy) to come to a halt, something would have to do work on it (apply a force over a distance). If the force was relatively small (like the resistance from brakes and air), the distance would be quite large (say, at least the distance of a runway). With a bigger force (perhaps resistance from a building), the distance would be smaller (say, the distance to travel completely inside the aforementioned building). Given the plane travels inside the building, it's hardly a surprise that the wreckage of the plane is also in the building (for where else could it be?) which then, due to loss of structural integrity, collapses on top of the wreckage.

Dodgy Dave, in his "documentary", also likes to use eyewitness accounts. He only uses a couple to help his cause, but fails to quote the hundreds of other eyewitnesses. Yet more Stacking the Deck.

If you need any more evidence that Dave "The Dirty One" von Kleist is a liar - re-examine the photo of him. It was taken after a questioner asked Dave if he was taking any of these. Dave initially responded "No", but when he realised his "tell" (Pinocchio Syndrome) had given him away, he got all grumpy.

Update: Popular Mechanics - 9/11: Debunking The Myths

Examples of Stacking the Deck

The advocate is aware of counter-arguments to his or her position, but conceals them in order to defeat the opponent.

• The argument from banana
• Antarctica is still cold
• Andrew Bolt stacks a deck of cars
• No conflict here, just scientists doing their jobs - you know - science
• 9-11 Conspiracy theorist - Part 2
• Carlton weasels away
• Asinine Adams at it again

For a comprehensive and considered written commentary on Stacking the Deck (and other fallacies) - see The skeptic's field guide to spotting fallacies in thinking - Humbug!

Internal Tag: Stacking the Deck