Comments on: I Finally Saw Expelled

By: Brian Dunning

Brian Dunning — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 12:08:29 +0000

Well said. I insult charlatans all the time, and many often erroneously charge me with making an ad hominem attack. Nope. Often an insult is just an insult. :)

By: Wrong

Wrong — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 08:58:37 +0000

Ad hominem: You are X (Where X is unrelated and usually an insult) Hence, you are wrong.

I can call you anything I like, it’s not ad hominem until I say that makes you wrong. If I say that the maker of Expelled is an anti-intellectual-pseudoscientific-douchebag-of-a-caricature-of-a-man, then I am insulting him. If I say he’s wrong because he’s an anti-intellectual-pseudoscientific-douchebag-of-a-caricature-of-a-man, then I’ve made ad hominem.

It’s an easy mistake to make. But a personal attack is simply a personal attack, and not a logical fallacy unless it is the basis of an arguement.

By: Wrong

Wrong — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 08:55:10 +0000

Look up several things: The Null Hypothesis. Non-falsifable claims.
If I can’t prove something, then I have no good reason to believe it.
Hence, all religion is not something you rationally believe in, it’s not a fact, it’s faith.
You can’t prove it’s real, and you can’t prove it isn’t. The argument you make is similar to the arguement from ignorance: We don’t know if god does exist, but that doesn’t mean that we can use our lack of knowledge to justify a God.

Science is by definition in my mind, atheistic: it doesn’t utilise supernatural explanations. Religion is beyond science, and when religion is used in the place of science, or used to discredit science, then Skeptics have an issue. (See Creationism, Abiogenisis, Geology, Radioisotope dating, Moral Philosophy).

If you believe, that’s fine. But that’s not a rational view to take unless you can provide proof. And your belief does not make you more scientific, it makes you gullible.
Until we get proof, the only scientific approach to religion is not to know, an Agnostic approach. Since this means we believe in no particular god, the scientific approach is also an Atheist one.

One day, I hope you actually become a skeptic, read up on the scientific method, some logical fallacies, and unscientific arguments. Learn about arguing from ignorance. Atheism is a lack of belief, not a belief itself, it’s not really a claim. If you claim a god exists, then you must prove it. Extraordinary claims et al.

By: Skeptic of Skeptics with a captial S

Skeptic of Skeptics with a captial S — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 23:44:18 +0000

You should have seen the movie a long time ago so you could really stick a stake in its heart. Let’s face it.

By: Steven Novella

Steven Novella — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 20:45:59 +0000

Skeptic – my prior criticism of the movie dealt with those aspects that I could verify without seeing it. I did not critique it’s style or anything that would require a first- hand experience.

I criticized the manner in which it was made, based upon the accounts by those scientists who were interviewed for the film.

I further criticized some of the points made in the movie – as recounted by those who made the movie themselves. Therefore, the fact that those were their claims was not in dispute – they were repeating them in writing or in interviews.

I see no problem with discussing facts in the public domain.

I also do this all the time. I may discuss a book based upon the author’s own summary of their book. I will address the points that they say are made in the book.

I did not make any observations that would require seeing the movie myself – until I actually saw the movie.

By: Skeptic of Skeptics with a captial S

Skeptic of Skeptics with a captial S — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 19:58:04 +0000

Even good-thinking, rational religious people want to heave because of this movie, but I cannot say that I’m deeply troubled, Dr. Novella by your continued criticism of this movie over the last couple of years without ever having actually seen it till now. While your smell test of it initially made you know what it was made of, you continually went off of the descriptions of it from your fellow rogues and skeptical elitists until now, and that is a sad thing to hear. If you truly wanted to be a true critic of it, you should have seen what you were criticizing to truly know what you were criticizing all this time. That doesn’t make it any less hideous than it is, but I’m troubled that you never actually watched it until now.

By: Skeptic of Skeptics with a captial S

Skeptic of Skeptics with a captial S — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 19:52:26 +0000

Science doesn’t lead to atheism. Pseudo-scientific use of science to promote atheism when science cannot falsify the existence of God does, which is why the Skeptical movement is flawed, by promoting the pseudo-scientific promotion of atheism.

By: Jason Dean

Jason Dean — Fri, 25 Dec 2009 16:30:42 +0000

@jojo,

Are you trying to articulate something? It seems like you are trying to formulate an insult of Dr. Novella and the Skeptics’ Society. Is that what you were trying to do? Your writing skills are lacking, and you have failed to put together a coherent paragraph. I cannot tell what you are trying to say. Please try again.

By: Vie

Vie — Fri, 25 Dec 2009 03:25:32 +0000

I always thought that movie was a comedy or a parody…my bad.

By: Potco

Potco — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:00:00 +0000

I was taken to this by my Christian girlfriend when it first came out and was horrified by this. I had no knowledge there people like this existed and had just assumed that everyone knew that evolution was true like I had been able to figure out when I was 7. It was appalling, I felt like I was watching a Nazi propaganda film from History class. Then people where clapping at it, I wish I had slapped each and every one of them. Though, this movie and the eventual breakup is what led me to become skeptic and an atheist, so I guess the movie had at least one good effect.