Re: A religious fallacy on youtube

[AlP]

This is an example of fallacious thinking related to religion that arrived via one of my RSS feeds today. I believe in this case the fallacy is "post hoc, ergo propter hoc", a Latin phrase meaning "after that, therefore because of that". The fallacy is where one thinks that because one event preceded another, that the first event caused the other.

[youtube:258kjyrk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPTKnN4-RMo[/youtube:258kjyrk]

[Squid]

Not to be an ass or a downer, but I bet she dies of cancer in the next 2-5 years.  Of course the chemo had nothing to do with it...sure...of course not, it's a miracle that esophageal cancer in stage IIA, it sounds like (which has a 40% survival rate over 5 years - but it's hard to tell since it supposedly spread elsewhere but the usual fatal blow is when it spreads to the lymph nodes, if that hadn't happened the survival rate can stay fairly high especially with aggressive treatment) went away after treatment, hmmm...I hate FoxNews.  Who do I pray to to "cure" my debt?

[Will]

"post hoc, ergo propter hoc", a Latin phrase meaning "after that, therefore because of that".

I miss the West Wing. The first time I ever heard post hoc, ergo properter hoc was from President Bartlet as he was easily pointing out the same fallacy in some old episode. Don't hear much Latin on TV these days...

You're right, of course. The video is massively disrespectful to the selfless men and women that do their best to save cancer victims every day with state of the art technology. It disrespects everyone from doctors to researchers. They should be ashamed, but they're too ignorant to even realize what they've done.

[AlP]

I miss the West Wing. The first time I ever heard post hoc, ergo properter hoc was from President Bartlet as he was easily pointing out the same fallacy in some old episode. Don't hear much Latin on TV these days...

I saw what you did there =). But I just did the same thing.

You're right, of course. The video is massively disrespectful to the selfless men and women that do their best to save cancer victims every day with state of the art technology. It disrespects everyone from doctors to researchers. They should be ashamed, but they're too ignorant to even realize what they've done.

I saw what you did there =). But in this instance I didn't do the same thing. By beginning a paragraph with "You're right, of course" and following it with your own opinion, you're implying that it is my opinion. Since this post is related to critical thinking, I wanted to point out your rhetorical device (which I think was effective). As it happens I agree with you and I won't argue.

[Tanker]

Isn't "religious fallacy" a bit redundant? That's almost like saying fallacious fallacy to me. .

[Tanker]

"post hoc, ergo propter hoc", a Latin phrase meaning "after that, therefore because of that".

I miss the West Wing. The first time I ever heard post hoc, ergo properter hoc was from President Bartlet as he was easily pointing out the same fallacy in some old episode. Don't hear much Latin on TV these days...

You're right, of course. The video is massively disrespectful to the selfless men and women that do their best to save cancer victims every day with state of the art technology. It disrespects everyone from doctors to researchers. They should be ashamed, but they're too ignorant to even realize what they've done.

Was this the scene?
[youtube:pw44shi8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPUNooNrwLw[/youtube:pw44shi8]

[JillSwift]

Was this the scene?

I've seen that clip a hundred times or more - and it just never gets old.

[Heretical Rants]

If you were to throw cats at enough sick people, eventually one of them would get better, too.

[Ihateyoumike]

If you were to throw cats at enough sick people, eventually one of them would get better, too.

Who? The cats, or the sick people?

[Heretical Rants]

My appologies--cats were the subject throughout the sentance.

Both would get better.

All you sacrifice is a few cats... and a few eyes.

[AlP]

I've been trying to think what the failure to think critically here is.

[youtube:3rysq94o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiyTogk9kp4[/youtube:3rysq94o]

I think it's the fallacy cum hoc, ergo procter hoc, meaning "with that, therefore because of that". An example would be a person who believes that eating cheese cures colds because every time they eat cheese their cold goes away. In fact, there cold will go away whether or not they eat cheese. The correlation does not confirm eating cheese as the cause.

In this case, the milk going away does not mean the statue is drinking milk. Also the explanation is unnecessarily complex. Any thoughts as to the cause? I bet the milk is running down the side of the statue. But why would it do that?