Filtrar por gênero

Fresh AiR

Fresh AiR

Answers in Reason - Joe Johnstone, Dave Rowlands, Martijn, Kristyn Pike & Guests
Sociedade e Cultura

‘Fresh AiR’ is a podcast, hosted by Joe, Martijn and Dave. It is part of Answers in Reason but hopes to bring a fresh perspective on a number of topics. Philosophy, Science, and the intersection with social and secular issues is our main focus; we aim to ascend the tribe and do more than simply claim to be sceptics by actually taking the time to understand what scepticism is. Season 1 first launched in 2019 and other authors became a part of the crew. Over time we grew and also undertook our live stream, the "SciPhi" show on YouTube

106 - Homeopathic Vets and Anti-Vax Owners
0:00 / 0:00
1x
  • 106 - Homeopathic Vets and Anti-Vax Owners

    What can we find in this episode about homeopathic vets?

    In the first episode of the season we interview a vet, Dr. Lord 32, and discuss:

    What it took to become a Vet What it takes to remain a Vet His issues with Homeopathy & Homeopathic Vets The NHS having struck of Homeopathy His issues with Anti-Vaccination Owners His issues with internet researchers and a lack of evidenced based medicine

    Some articles that relate to this topic are:

    The Only Thing Cured By Homeopathy Is Prosperity Common Anti-Vaccination Arguments (Anti-Vaxxer) More Anti-Vaccination Arguments (Anti-Vaxxers) Why Anti-Vaxxers are Right! Confirmation Bias: Fanboys, Fundamentalists, Conspiracy Theorists and our Tribal Nature The Science Of Belief Can science be trusted?

    I’d love to talk your ear off some more, but I don’t want to spoil the show for you all.

    If you have any questions please post them in the comments section below. We will try and get Dr. Lord back for another show.

    Hopefully in future shows we will be able to get more of our authors involved too. We are spread around the world so it can be hard to find slots where we are all available. I got excited and jumped the gun recording episode 1 without the team.

    The Music Behind Episode 1 – Homeopathic Vets

    The music you can hear in the background is a couple of mixes you can download for free from http://www.nexusradio.co.uk

    Sundazed Chillstep Dreams Show Stacker Mix

    Thank you

    Thank you for listening – we hope you enjoyed the show. We are going to look to get at least one out every month or so if we can collaborate on them and would love any input from you too.

    Thu, 04 May 2017 - 1h 00min
  • 105 - Common Theistic Fallacies

    ‘Common Theistic Fallacies’ was not only one of Kriss Pyke’s first articles on Answers In Reason but one of the very founding articles.

    I’ve been eager to get back in to podcasting and radio and felt ‘Common Theistic Fallacies’ a great article to start on.

    Answers in Reason will be offering a number of podcasts from article readings to interactive shows.

    These will be available; both on the site and all popular podcasting syndicates.

    A fallacy is essentially a poorly worded argument. It doesn’t necessarily mean the position is wrong, just that the formation is erroneous and should probably be ignored until the argument can be formulated in such a way that it is of sound reasoning.

    We have all heard the naive argument from ignorance fallcy: “It’s just a theory” but there are so many more that we tire of hearing on a regular basis.

    Fallacies are not limited to theists. They can be found in every area be it about vaccinations, or said by conspiracy theorists. We have even done an article on fallacious arguments used by atheists!

    The podcast and article provide a number of different fallacies; their definitions and examples. These are the most common you will hear bit not their limit.

    PodcastingWhat is a Fallacy?Fallacy: a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound arguments.
    Fallacy: a failure in reasoning which renders an argument invalid.Which Fallacies are Included?

    Argument From Incredulity Appeal to Ignorance Begging The Question Straw Man Ad Hominem Equivocation Correlation Equals Causation Fine Tuning Watch Maker Association Fallacy Argument From Authority Ad Populum Circular Reasoning Argument From Ignorance False Dilemma False Premise God Of The Gaps Slippery Slope Cherry Picking No True Scotsman Shifting The Burden Of Proof Anecdotal Evidence
    Tue, 22 Nov 2016 - 09min
  • 104 - Discussions and The Burden of Proof – Podcast Version

    Discussions and The Burden of Proof Posted on6th November 2022  ByDavidian

    One of the problems with contemporary social media discourse is jumping around and ahead in the conversation, misusing terms, axioms, and similar and not taking the time to actually have a discussion and understand what the other person is saying.

    We are too quick to judge people based on the group we think they belong to and forget to appreciate the nuance between positions. A Christian is judged by how we judge all Christians based on previous experiences with Christians. The same can be said for atheists, Muslims or any other group.

    This form of tribalism and cognitive bias makes use too quick to assume positions, all entailed beliefs and rationality, and you find people just name fallacies (often incorrectly) instead of having a dialogue and reaching some accord.

    Recap: We often fail to hold conversations and throw out erroneous statements based on poor assumptions.

    There is a difference between a belief and a claim.

    A belief is something you accept as true. (Think most likely, conclude is the case etc)
    A claim is something to say IS true.

    So, sure, there is a claim that you believe something, but as we don’t have access to anyone’s mental states this isn’t anything we can prove, and really, why would someone say they believe something that they don’t? (Except for outlier cases and cons which again don’t really apply to social media conversations.)

    When you do or don’t believe something, the only real duty you have is to yourself, and even then this duty only applies if you care about rationality.

    Recap: Your primary duty to any belief position is to yourself.

    Rationality deals with the way we reason, using the rules of logic and probability theory. This entails having no strong evidence against your position, no contradiction in your beliefs, not using fallacious reasoning but also realising that bit everything is a fallacy e.g. there are some authorities you can trust without it being a fallay, and this ties into good theories of testimony and all sorts.

    So, if we care about rationality, our burden is to justify our position, at least to ourselves, so that we can ensure that we are holding a rational position.

    Recap: rationality deals with the way you reason, everyone has a burden to justify their position to themselves if they care about rationality.

    You can be wrong (without knowing it) and still be rational, and you can be correct and irrational.

    However, rationality is definitely something that would usually lead one to truth if all all information was available to you and analysed mitigating all bias – which is hard to do, as bias is built into our wiring.

    So, one’s rationality is somewhat relative to the information available. Someone in an epistemic bubble could be rational for believing something that outside of that bubble would be wildly irrational.

    It can be said one can only be as rational as one can be. We should judge a child as a child, they do not have fully developed brains nor learned adequate reasoning skills, and therefore their behaviour is by default less rational on an adult scale.


    This too relates to the information available. Forming an option based on 3 bits of information that point to a single conclusion and not being able to find anything else would be rational, even if that conclusion was wrong.

    If you later found additional information that then leads elsewhere and the original conclusion was wrong, it would be irrational to maintain that original conclusion as true.

    Recap: rationality should be judged in a more relative way, and based on reasoning, not conclusions.

    Full Article at: Discussions and The Burden of Proof » Answers In Reason (answers-in-reason.com)


    Sun, 06 Nov 2022 - 15min
  • 103 - “Religious People are Dumb” – SciPhi Shortz: BAM!

    Are Religious People More Stupid Than Atheists? We atheists have a number of things in our toolbelts, and one of those is memes. Many of these memes are oversimplifications or just flat out wrong, so I thought I would create a series to address some of our worst memes and explain why they are so bad.... Read More ““Religious People are Dumb” – SciPhi Shortz: BAM!” » The post “Religious People are Dumb” – SciPhi Shortz: BAM! appeared first on Answers In Reason.

    Thu, 30 Sep 2021 - 07min
  • 102 - “Santa vs God” – SciPhi Shortz: BAM!

    Who’d win the Fight, Santa or God? One of the worst comparisons I see us atheists make is comparing God to Santa (or any other mythological character). I understand the reason comparisons like this start. Many of us atheists regard both Santa and god as myths, which is fine, but what is not fine is that is where... Read More ““Santa vs God” – SciPhi Shortz: BAM!” » The post “Santa vs God” – SciPhi Shortz: BAM! appeared first on Answers In Reason.

    Fri, 10 Sep 2021 - 07min
Mostrar mais episódios

Podcasts semelhantes a Fresh AiR