UK-Skeptics articles and commentary
UK-Skeptics articles and commentary

Confirmation: an error of reasoning.

February 01st, 2009

John Jackson © UK-Skeptics


C onfirmation bias is where we look for reasons, or supporting evidence, that matches our belief or thesis whilst disregarding or placing less weight on disconfirming reasons or evidence against it.

As a hypothetical example, let’s look at someone’s belief that hypnotherapy helps people to stop smoking. People do go to hypnotherapists and subsequently give up smoking and there are many people who will anecdotally state that hypnotherapy worked for them. It seems convincing, but is this proof that hypnotherapy really helps people to give up smoking? (more…)


Filed under: Fallacies in reasoning | Tags: ,
February 01st, 2009 10:06:36

Entitled to an opinion.

January 19th, 2009

John Jackson © UK-Skeptics


“I’m entitled to my opinion”, “you’re entitled to your opinion”. Both of these expressions come up frequently in debates but what do people mean by them and are they of any relevance in a debate?

(more…)


Filed under: Fallacies in reasoning | Tags: , ,
January 19th, 2009 17:42:57

Are you skeptical of skepticism?

December 30th, 2008

An examination of the question: can skeptics be skeptical of skepticism?

John Jackson © 2008


“There’s no such thing as truth.”

What is wrong with this statement? Well, it’s a statement that is presented as being factual (true) and yet it’s claiming that there is no such thing as truth. The statement refutes itself. Claims or statements like this one create what is known as a self-refuting paradox: the claim could only be true if it were false!

The frequently asked question “are you skeptical of skepticism?” also attempts to create or illustrate the same sort of paradox. If a person is not skeptical of skepticism then they are not being skeptical; thus any claim to being a skeptic must be false. i.e. they are being as dogmatic in their acceptance of skepticism as any ‘believer’ who accepts their particular belief without question. And if they are skeptical of skepticism, then what good reason do they have for advocating something they are skeptical of? If they’re skeptical of the paranormal and skeptical of skepticism, what’s the difference? (more…)


Filed under: Fallacies in reasoning, Skepticism | Tags: , , , , , , , ,
December 30th, 2008 17:20:29

Appeal to the open mind

December 15th, 2008

Open Mind: A mind open to new ideas, lacking in prejudice, not dogmatic.

John Jackson © 2004.


It is very common for people who are putting forward a claim to say something like, “you must consider this with an open mind“, or if their claim is rejected they will say something like, “well of course you don’t believe it, you’re closed-minded“.

There are many ways that this ‘appeal to open mindedness’ manifests itself, so let’s have a look at why it is not usually a valid argument: (more…)


Filed under: Fallacies in reasoning | Tags: , , , ,
December 15th, 2008 04:26:50

Argumentum ad Derren Browniam

October 24th, 2008

Errors in skeptical debates: Argumentum ad Derren Browniam.

John Jackson © 2008


OK, this is not a serious attempt to introduce a newly named logical fallacy! However, I would like to address the usage of the argument whereby people, and often skeptics, try to convince others that what psychics do isn’t real because Derren Brown can do the same things. I jokingly refer to this as the ‘Argumentum ad Derren Browniam’. (more…)


Filed under: Fallacies in reasoning | Tags: , , ,
October 24th, 2008 15:12:28