posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 10:33 PM
The thing that absolutely slayed me about this episode was someone (not sure who - only female voice) thinking that it was some big thing to say
"prove to me that ITS NOT a fossil" regarding the discussion of the "fossils" on Mars. The fact that the co-hosts thought this was some big
contribution is really sad, actually - especially since at least one of you immediately identified what this was (its pareidolia, thats all).
What the hosts are doing in an attempt to give the veneer of credibility to alternative explanations (instead of going with the scientific answer) is
essentially engaging in the appeal to ignorance fallacy. Trying to give an alternative slant to and refuting the obvious explanation for this stuff
with "how do you KNOW that X is not true" shows a complete abandoning of logic.
The burden of proof for questions like "are there fossils on mars" is on the person making the claim. As logical, non-insane people, we should
approach such threads saying:
(1) What could be the common explanation for this? Answer: Pareidolia.
(2) Is there any evidence that this phenomena is not due to the common explanation? No.
(3) Is there any evidence to support an alternative explanation? No.
Running around and going "AH HA! YOU SKEPTICS! Im going to turn the tables on you by telling me to prove ITS NOT a fossil" is literally insane. I want
the female host to prove to me RIGHT NOW that green unicorns are not flying out of your rear end. If you can't provide evidence that green unicorns
are not flying out of your rear end, this must mean that your failure to do so is evidence of the the flying butt unicorns! RIGHT?! (WRONG - see
appeal to ignorance fallacy, again!) How hard is it to see that this logic is insane? Why do the hosts keep embracing the fallacy?
23-2-2013 by thelongjourney because: (no reason given)