Carah, thank you for calling out the fact that commenting on appearance, positive or not, is not cool. People need to stop pointing out what others look like, as if their approval matters. You are a queen, and my favorite part of the podcast :-)
Forget her looks that girl’s “cutesy” , fast talking, middle school comments are distracting and lessen the credibility of a wonderful channel - prior to her arrival It’s obvious she was added to attract a younger audience…
I’ve seen over a dozen of the videos when Carah is involved in interviewing the guests, and each time I see her taking the reins she comes out swinging.
Exmormon atheist here. Feeling humbled because I’ve used almost all of these fallacies a good amount. Especially when criticizing religion. It’s important to talk about these it helps keeps us in check. Great episode.
Mormonism and Logical Fallacies go together just like Peanut Butter and Jelly. It’s like they were meant to be. A celestial bond of Fallacies and Mormon Doctrine.
If these devices were taught in school, many of us could have avoided a lot of pain and wasted time. Thank you John, John, and Carah for another great discussion!
'the fallacy detective' is a kids workbook you can get on amazon. i bought it after i heard john larsen talk about logical fallacies a couple years ago. educating ourselves and the next generation on logical, critical thinking is how i think we save humanity, the planet, and achieve world peace. 😉 thanks john, john and carah!!!!!! 🕊
When it comes to the testimony thing..."but I had this incredible personal witness experience that tells me it's true, an experience that I couldn't deny and that couldn't POSSIBLY have been anything but God/Holy Spirit telling me the church was true"...it's great the way you show how that can be shown to be fallacious because the Mormon won't accept the same 'proof' if it's someone else claiming the exact same experience, only with a different church or religion. Thereby negating Mormons' own use of it as any kind of 'proof'. I always think the testimony thing can simply be compared to falling in love. As we all know, falling in love is one of the most powerful experiences we ever have. You 'know' that THIS is the person for you, this person is somehow your heart or life's 'truth', someone you can utterly, head over heals devote yourself to. Their flaws vanish. Their virtues become stratospheric. And well, you may be lucky and that turns out to actually be the case and the feeling is mutual. Sometimes, sadly not. Main thing is, even if that person IS your heart's true companion, and it's lifelong, and you have the equivalent of a 'testimony' of that, that hardly makes them 'true' for everyone else's heart as well. If it did, jeez, that would soon cause some obvious problems. In fact, the way many Mormons react to non or ex-Mormons criticising the church or saying it's obviously not true is a lot like how people will react to friends telling them they really can't understand what on earth they see in whoever they're in love with. The lover simply can't comprehend anyone not thinking their beloved is as divine and awesome as they think they are. That their friends must all be idiots or even malicious in not thinking so.
Carah talking about how John Larsen brings a different energy to the podcast at the beginning cracked me up because these are the only ones I really watch these days. So evidently that's my kind of energy, ha ha
I'm listening to this a year or so after the fact but I had to say...this is where J Larsen differs from the church. When he says something that is wrong or angry but not actually relevant to the argument, he apologizes and the church never will. Also, I listened to the first episode of Mormon Expression last night and John is so calm and mild mannered on that show. It kind of blew my mind. =)
Though I am certainly no apologist as to speak for the church in any way, I quite value the genuine concepts found in scripture... which I've come to understand in a unique way that can truly hold water and stand up to the logic of John Larsen's points. Should you ever wish to explore how religious concepts can jive with science, and inform as well as be informed by it... well, that's what I do: marry opposites together by finding the truth that makes them one. (It's all about At-one-ment, after all! LOL) It would be interesting to explore these themes with you. 🙂 John Larsen and John Dehlin both, I really appreciate the earnestness with which you search out truth from the evidence presented, share your findings generously, and welcome any challenge that might edify. I thank you very much for your efforts!!🙂
I know you were all frustrated with the tech issues at the beginning but I was laughing so hard listening to the banter … was driving home and it was so human & refreshing to just listen to someone else deal with tech issues! Thanks!!
I absolutely love this discussion of logical fallacies. I love hearing examples of fallacies that are used by all perspectives regarding Mormonism. I actually think it would be really cool to have John Larsen, or whoever else could fill this role well, kind of coach or critique the podcast hosts regarding how they themselves handle and use logical fallacies and how they might correct themselves. I don't say this to accuse the hosts of anything in particular, I just think it would be extremely educational and helpful for everybody involved and listening. I don't think anybody can be 100% innocent of using logical fallacies. As John Larsen said at the opening: it's human nature as we try to process the world around us, and it takes a dedicated and ongoing effort to change that nature. An episode focused on coaching the hosts, who I'm sure most listeners respect as good people, could possibly go a long way to helping the listeners reflect and recognize their own tendencies and weaknesses in this matter. (Particularly myself, for sure.) (Edit to add a side note: I truly think the best way for good progress to be made between humankind, both on a large- and personal-scale, is for all parties to become better educated on logical fallacies and how to have honest, good faith discussions. I don't say that to mean "well if everybody could only think logically they'd surely agree with me!" No, I genuinely want to understand things. I don't care if I'm proven wrong if that means that now I understand things a bit better.)
One of the fallacies describes here is what Brad Wilcox used in his Highland, UT speech (see Mormon Stories RUclips video on Brad Wilcox speech). He said the lady was loud, when she asked "Why don't women have the priesthood?" Then he said something along the lines of since she was loud; that seemed to be his focus, that she was loud. To me, It was a way to deflect and degrade her question. So it shouldn't be taken seriously.
John Larsen's opening line that "we evolved and our brains evolved along with us" is SO important as a starting premise. This is a big part of why cosmology can be so confusing to both laypeople and the leading figures in the field. The universe has no obligation to conform to your intuitions about it ... and it doesn't. Remembering that we are primates that have anatomical equipment (including our brains) that was useful in our current environment (with abundant liquid water, an atmosphere of 80% nitrogen/20% oxygen, gravity of 9.8 m/s^2, day/night cycles of roughly 24 hours, tropical/temperate/arctic climate zones, a moon that gives tides, etc.). We are adapted to all of these conditions and so nature has permitted only the intuitions that are useful in this frame of reference to persist in our kind, and there is no reason to think that those intuitions would equip us to easily understand things beyond this framework. If we want to understand we are going to have to work at it. We all necessarily have the biases of earthbound humans, and we will do better if we can be humble enough to keep this inherent limitation in mind so that we can try to account for it. We need to remember our known knowns and all that. ... ok now I will watch the rest. 😀
Chimpanzees are quite successful in life with their less-evolved brain. Why did human brains evolve so much more when a chimp sized brain would have been enough?
@@harlanlang6556 nothing is "more evolved" than anything else. Things that are different are that way because they evolved differently, that is all. Not because they evolved "more". To have evolved "more" would imply that the process of evolution has a goal, which it does not. Organisms change over time. Those that can survive do. Those that can't don't. There is no goal. Even survival itself is not a goal (it might be a goal for the individual organisms, but not for the processes that constitute evolution). The earth could be bereft of all life and "evolution" would not care. That you use a "more evolved vs. less evolved" framing in your response suggests that you don't understand what evolution is or how it happens. And since you don't understand what it is, it's a safe bet that you don't think it's real. And I can't blame you for that. Our intuitions are informed by the time scales of our lives and that makes evolution counterintuitive even in the absence of dogma (which, sadly, never seems to be in short supply I'm afraid).
@@harlanlang6556 no evidence for that is needed since that is not part of the hypothesis. No claim=No burden of proof I was simply observing that your framing seemed to infer that YOU thought evolution has a goal, and I was informing you that this is not what is claimed about evolution by its advocates. If you agree that evolution has no goal, then I apologize for misunderstanding you. If you disagree, then it would be YOUR JOB to construct a falsifiable hypothesis that evolution is NOT goal directed, and then to show evidence that successfully FALSIFIES that hypothesis. Good luck ... though I would not blame you if you didn't want to bother.
@@JP-JustSayin “Even survival itself is not a goal” was super thought provoking. I’m really intrigued by what you wrote. Do you have any other blog posts or ways I can explore this more as a philosophical mental exercise. I want to ruminate on this some more. I went from reading the news about the war in Ukraine & then immediately reading your comments here. It’s a very interesting juxtaposition of thoughts. I am fascinated by us humans. We have a lot still to learn, if we don’t extinct ourselves.
I enjoyed this. There's not anything to stand on except pat answers. I'm just grateful for a non member family that loved me unconditionally through my 15 year LDS experience. I'd been married in the temple. I cried on my wedding day because my sacrificing deemed "unworthy" mother couldn't be in the temple with me. Eventually I spent time studying with the Jehovah's Witnesses. Then back to Christianity. Then I got critical. Jonah's Ark? Really I restored a 40 foot vessel. It was lots of work! No family created a boat that housed all the species and their food for 40 days! Really? Jonah and the Whale? A man survived inside the belly of a Whale? On and on. So I am now with a very moral sincere man who I married. He understands me without the pat answers!
Praise the Lord of all and whatever and ever amen we finally have a new John Larsen episode!!! I could laugh tears of joy! It’s been too long (but understandable)! There is no greater commentator on Mormon everything than JL! Mormon Voldermort is pretty solid too but gosh damn we all need more John Larsen. When JD announced that JL was gonna start doing some episodes if we chipped in some bucks I didn’t think twice before adding in my regular contribution each month. MS and ME have given me so much. Thank you thank you to all of you at MS and thank you to all of those who contributed to ME for all those years. Both archives are a treasure trove that can never be matched or outdone. Praise be to Y’all!
@John Larsen GTFO John Larsen said 4 words to me!? I’m done and ready to pass begin the veil. I have the secret words that make the hidden door open! O.k. Okay I’m just goofing. All silly willy words and Tum Foolery aside John I am super grateful and inspired by you to be a stronger person standing firm in real truth among my friends and family that ALL remain attached to an iron rod of dreams recounted by the ghosts of recounted imagination. I am patient. I am hopeful. And I am bolstered in my resolve by your thoughts and the words you share. Of course I think for myself and cross out whatever may not ring in my “soul” but I am forever grateful for the additives you have offered over all these years. My brain and heart are bigger because of the room I have made for your insightful pieces. Carry on good sir. To thine own self be true always because we all sorely need it.
Logic should be a required class for all college graduates. It's incredibly useful and important, not just in the liberal arts, but in the hard sciences as well. The logic class I took as an elective during my undergrad was the most interesting and useful class I have ever taken and it had no real "relevance" to my degree. It should be introduced at the high school level as well. Much more useful than a lot of stuff taught in English classes.
Congratulations on the new house! Love the Oregon coast!🦀🌊🐠 Thanks so much for your advice and life stories. You’re getting me through faith crisis after being a member of church for 60 years.
Hi Patricia, Stranger on the internet here wishing you well withe the journey out of the church after 60 years. That’s pretty awesome and brave as well. xxxx
1:38:59 RFM may have described the catalyst theory best when he pointed out that it is "indistinguishable from an intentional fraud" ... John Larsen's face-palm is perfect... LOL 😆
A Straw Man argument is when you replace your opponent's argument with a weaker argument that's easier to debunk in order to make your own position look stronger.
@@amygreen758 That, “Editorial Beauty”, is a tremendous (& true) definition of that kid (a kid comparatively speaking). Her mind runs approximately 3 to 4 times faster than mine ever will! It is cool when you find an old soul who still has enthusiasm.
I love John's episodes! I am out and generally agree/support all of John L's takes. But I did have to agree with John D calling out John L. I think the problem with this issue regarding church truth claims, or any other religion's claims, is that John tends to say he can "disprove" the truth claims. We can't really definitively prove that JS never saw Maroni, we can merely prove that there is no reliable/tangible evidence to support that claim. Proving lack of evidence is not the same as proving a claim as false. It is the same principle that John L. brought up at the beginning, he doesn't claim there is no god, he merely believes that there is no physical evidence to prove the existence of god. Again, freaking love John L...just think that some of the rhetoric we post-mormons use is consistent with the logic patterns we used as members. It isn't that the church is definitively proved as a false church, it is more that there is no good evidence to justify believing the LDS truth claims.
I completely agree. I thought that was treading on shaky ground. In fact, I'll go so far as to say I was rather disappointed in John L. in this podcast. I love the transparency of John D. stating that John L. was getting $1000 to do the episode, but I can't help but question whether MS got their money's worth. Not only did John D. have to correct John L. on what a straw man argument is (I think that was the one, I watched this a few days ago), but when bringing up the no true Scotsman fallacy Larsen couldn't come up with one off hand. Really??? What about the work and preparation required he would mention later? And then for another fallacy he used a ghost hunter show he'd seen as his example. Isn't this about Mormon apologetics? I would think that doing this podcast would be all about detailed preparation and using examples from Mormon apologetics. It's not like they're hard to find. I don't know. This says it's part 1. Maybe all that will come up in part 2.
I've enjoyed the information that John Larsen has to share. We need to take the knowledge that we gain and apply it in every aspect of our lives. We especially need to be very careful of falling into the same illogical ruts outside of religion! We've already been there! Don't, then, take a path down a different illogical road! Pay attention! 🙂👍
Just finished this episode and it was well worth the watch! I love the logic - this is the thing that is missing when having a conversation on religion with a believer. Absolutely loved John Larsen and Carah :)
Hey, love your content but i usually listen to it at work with bad speakers and background noise. You could try to mix it differently to make the sound a little bit louder
The episode quality would significantly increase with the addition of an opening title or jingle. Part of the dopamine hit from tuning into your favorite show is the immediate familiarity of the opening audio. It's like the opening hymn of our meeting. Setting the tone for what's to come. I never know how long I will be staring at John as he waits 1-10 seconds before he begins talking. It's funny because you can sometimes see his eyes darting to the corner like he's waiting for the go sign from one of his producers.
Back in the day Pepsi had a jingle: "Pepsi Cola hits the spot, twelve ounce bottle, that's a lot, Twice as much for a nickle too! Pepsi Cola is the drink for you." Someone thought this could be adapted to Christianity: "Christianity hits the spot, Twelve Apostles, that's a lot, Jesus Christ and a Virgin too! Christianity's the one for you."
1:06:11 "There is no exit to the house of mirrors. You have to smash the glass." ... correct ... and when you do you get cut, and you bleed, and that's why it hurts ... and that's why folks get pissed at whoever put them in there. Just sayin'
I came here from apple podcasts to tell Carah that she’s gorgeous in whatever she wants to wear, I just like listening to audio only since it doesn’t drain my phone battery as quickly and I can multitask better
I always enjoy Brother Larsen's interviews! Who could be against logic, reason and clear thinking? I certainly agree with him that we use science in our search for truth, but what about these famous words from Thomas Jefferson, certainly one of the brightest minds of his time: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness (Declaration of Independence).” July 4, 1776. How would we use science to weigh the truth of this statement? If you agree with Thomas Jefferson concerning these truths, then does this imply that there are truths which exist in some other realm than the physical world? Maybe "truth" itself is not in the material world but an understanding within our minds based upon "facts" which can be demonstrated in the fields of science. Maybe we should say that scientific investigation produces facts, not truths. The theory of evolution is not a fact but is based upon all the facts uncovered by geology, biology, chemistry and physics. It's really the only theory of life that makes sense of all the facts. Thinking about thinking is something most of us rarely do, but Brother Larsen stimulates this process for everybody, whatever their beliefs or backgrounds. Religious leaders often underestimate the potential of ordinary people to do this. They want to feed their flock milk because they're unable to digest meat.
@John Larsen I agree with you except for your point that all forms of life are extremely rare. We don't scientifically know that yet, but my inclination is that life isn't rare. I don't know why the extreme diversity of life on earth would not be the rule rather than the exception. The good news is that the new Webb telescope will be providing much more data concerning possible extraterrestrial life. I don't know that Jefferson ever explained what he meant by all men being created equal, but I never understood it to mean having equal physical or mental endowments. Maybe he was addressing the English class system which definitely kept people in their unequal positions. Maybe he just wanted to sound progressive and enlightened. My intent in using his quote was the way he used the word "truth", whether it was a truth or not. This is not a scientific truth but a moral or ethical truth, like the human race is one family, which may be both scientific and ethical.
@@harlanlang6556 i dont think Jefferson meant equal in the sense of talents etc. He meant it we are equal in essence. Since he believed in a creator he probably said to mean that we are all creatures created by God thus of equal worth to Him. Clearly he believed that rights were given to us by God and not by man. Mans job was to ensure mans ability to exercise those rights..that these rights weren't betowed upon us by man and csn be taken away by man. Of course over the course of human history man has worked really hard to restrict God given rights. I just dont see hiw we get to the inherent worth of man without a belief on God. People can believe in the inherent worth of man if they choose to and not believe in God and another man can say he doesnt believe in the equality of the essence of man. Since there is no 'outside' judge both opinions are equally valid as they are just opinions
@@melk6049 I think you're right. Why would we assume the inherent worth of man if man is but a blob of protoplasm which will decompose before long? There's nothing worthy about a piece of meat. I think that possessing rights assumes that we're more than biological.
Hi, The sales slogan for Colt firearms in the late 19th century was "God didn't make men equal ... Samuel Colt did!" Whatever hand God might have dealt one in life, a Colt firearm was a prominent equalizer! Water at sea level and 1atm boils at 100 degrees C, 212 degrees Fahrenheit 1 atm. Both are valid yet established on different criteria. The first established as the freezing and boiling points.of water 0 and 100 and even increments between them, and the second I was informed had to do with the temperature of the cold ocean in northern England, and an annal probe with a thermometer in a cow, also in Europe! Both are valid based upon their set parameters. Varring the elevation the water is boiled at on Earth, varies the pressure and thus varries the temperature! Truth itself is relative to the observer and can be repeatedly measured and reproduced using consistent parameters! Scientific truth! Religious truth can be "a horse of a different color!" In Numbers 31, Moses commands the children of Israel to take out the Lord's vengeance on the Midianites... aka Genocide against the Midianites! Can Genocide be both a bad thing against the Jews while a Good thing against the Midianites? When is a watch not a watch! It is the Victors who write history, religious history etc. And how we comprehend ours lives and the people with whom we share the world is shaped by this perception of our reality! If one desires.to comprehend what exists outside the box of the reality one is born within, one must outgrow the confines of said box, and realize that all reality as observed and recorded, taught is subjective! Until then, people will be shackled and controlled by their own self implemented limitations... the beliefs they hold dear like a child holds its blanket, unwilling to open ones mind and heart and choosing to hold on tight to ones security instead! As a man thinketh... so is he! And we live in a world of different cultures filled with people who think and believe differently! Each of us has the power to choose our future! It's all relative!
Hey John (Larsen). Just wondering if in part 2 you plan to talk about the role of fallacies in rhetoric. The Greeks taught grammar, logic, and rhetoric together as the basis of good public speaking and argumentation, but when you throw logic to the wind and just focus on rhetoric, the biggest fallacies become the most effective tools of manipulation. A lot of the statements you're criticizing in this episode are examples of this in action.
That's fair. I find that a little bit of context is necessary when talking about informal fallacies, because so many people learn about them and want to treat them as magic bullets of some kind. You hit the nail on the head when you said that they're only problematic during arguments among peers, but they're also rhetorical techniques (if dirty ones) and many are basic rules of induction. If I were adamantly opposed to ad hominem and appeals to authority, I might end up giving all my money to a Nigerian prince, or more seriously, I might end up rejecting a global scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change.
@John Larsen Oh, and this is also yet another piece of your Franken-professor, since when I studied Philosophy at BYU during the 00s, every Philosophy professor was painfully aware of many places where the church teachings stumble in basic logic and reasoning and would bring them up in class every now and then as examples of classic errors. If you got them drunk, they could absolutely eviscerate the most recent iteration of general conference as well.
Yeah but John, what if I want to talk to the ghost of George Carlin? Do you have an In with George’s ghost? Can you say something nice about me to George’s ghost? I’m available anytime if George’s ghost wants to talk.
As you are discussing the redefining of words in the LDS Church, please consider the redefining of the word “grace.” The church now can say it “accepts and believes in the doctrine of grace.” Unfortunately the term as used by Mormons (sorry!) now is meaningless and deceptive.
Also the use of the word “miracle”. It used to be a immense event that required the magic intervention of deity. Now it’s overused as simply something nice that has happened. Another is “I know”. The vast majority of the time this term used in testimonies, it doesn’t even come close to actual demonstrable knowledge.
The demand for civility often triggers me. Yes they are people, human beings, but are they truly “deserving of kindness & compassion”? Not until they do something to earn it or signal they desire it-even something basic like an apology. Because they DO know what they’re doing. I am convinced they know what they’re doing. There’s TONS of evidence, but just the suicide rates & lack of meaningful actions to address them are proof positive.
We had a bishopric member that was having a yearlong affair (he confessed to the whole ward). And his wife blamed it on his pornography "addiction". They blamed the whole affair (with his FRIEND) on pornography.
I actually listen this episode to help me fall asleep, not because it's boring though - I think it has a kind of comforting nostalgia for me to listen the lies of mormon church 😜
1:43:00 ... a small point of difference. Comparing science and religion in this way is a little bit unfair because religion and science have different goals as a result of when they arose over the course of human events/history. Religion in general arose as a primitive cognative response to the uncomfortable fear and anxiety that naturally results from contact with the unknown or unfamiliar, or existence it's self (and also death anxiety)... therefore if a religion adequately deals with the fear and anxiety (and therefore provides some level of relief from the accompanying mental discomfort) of the people involved with that religion, then it has met its fundamental objective. Whether any given religion describes reality accurately is secondary. Describing reality is not the point, managing emotions and providing comfort is the point (or it was originally, power relations get mixed in to it pretty quickly but that is a secondary after effect) Science on the other hand came later, arising within the framework of minds that were already using religion to keep calm, and has a different goal. Science is not concerned with emotional management and instead it wants to accurately describe reality. It does this by advancing hypotheses that are falsifiable and then seeking to falsify them. Only those hypotheses that "could be false" but are found not to be are permitted to remain standing over time. Things that are unfalsafiable are immediately out of bounds for science, and much of religion falls into this category. Religion and religious people get into trouble when they try to claim that their religion crosses over into accurately describing reality. (Invariably religions can't do thus because they are the wrong tool fir that job). "Faith", in particular, exists specifically as a mental mechanism for validating and accepting unfalsifiable claims. Since the descriptions of reality that survive scientific scrutiny are not particularly useful in meeting religion's goal of managing uncomfortable fear and anxiety, it is therefore understandable that people who are not psychological masochists (and who are already using a religion to regulate their naturally occuring death anxiety and fear of the unknown) will hesitate to move out of their religion. I'm a psychological masochist. I'm no longer interested in comfort. I take my reality straight up these days... no chaser. I'd rather try to understand reality even if it's painful (and it is). Ironically this preference for understanding material truth over comfort grew out of the religious indoctrination of my childhood. Less amusingly this preference has degraded large parts of my life that are beyond the cognitive.
Fundamental science is a search for signs. Early man became expert at seeing the signs of nature, like footprints of game animals, or the kind of vegetation which was edible. Religion provides more than relieve fear and anxiety, though it does that well. Religion also provides the glue which binds people together as one, even if they're not closely related. It also provides a common code of ethics and morality which allows for social development. It's interesting to see how religion has evolved from something like Judaism which united certain tribes together, to Christianity which united people from a broader demography, to Islam which created the idea of a nation of diverse people. It has always been an advantage to feel united in order to work for the common good of the group. The ultimate stage of this process is a planetary form of religion which promotes the reality of one human family.
@@harlanlang6556 a quibble ... science is not a search for signs. Science starts with a falsifiable hypothesis, and then devises experiments that have the potential to falsify the hypothesis, and then makes observations and gathers data to see if the hypothesis is actually falsified or not. Gradually, after many, many failed attempts at falsification, the hypothesis begins to be trusted more and more. A hypothesis is never pronounced to be "true", it just persists in a non-falsified state and therefore becomes useful. No where is there any seeking for signs in this process. There is a competing process that starts with the data first (taken from experiences rather than specifically constructed experimentation) and with data in hand seeks to construct explanations for what has been observed. It would be wrong to call these explanations hypotheses, but they are as close as this method gets to having a hypothesis. This data-first/hypothesis-second approach is called zeteticism ... and it's methods differ significantly from those of science. Perhaps this describes the seeking for signs that you are talking about... but its not science.
Fascinating response here. Thanks for writing it. Any recommendations for podcasts, books, blog posts, RUclips vids that expand on your above post or helped you formulate your thoughts on the difference between religion & science. You’ve started something in my brain here & I want to dig deeper. Thanks for being a catalyst for a new thought train. I appreciate it. Peace.
A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction. The description given here in this podcast is very poor, and somewhat misleading. Here's a good example: A: We should relax the laws on beer. B: No, any society with unrestricted access to intoxicants loses its work ethic and goes only for immediate gratification
Appreciate Carah's thoughts concerning comments made about her looks, and then she immediately tells John he looks great. Then, John Larsen mentions how we shouldn't listen to the same white men as he talks about bias. Just a couple of examples why this world can be difficult to navigate.
That is the worst explanation of a straw man I have ever heard. Cherry picking is not the same thing, cherry picking is where you only cite data you think helps your case and ignore the rest. Using vague general statements is a hasty generalization. A straw man is an argument that only has a superficial resemblance to your opponent’s position. For example- person 1 : children should not eat ice cream at every meal. Person 2 : so you would prefer they starve.
@John Larsen Perhaps, but "Love is Fallacy" was the title of a book assigned to be read by my 8th grade class. The book explained different types of fallacies, just as you have done, but it used a humorous story involving a raccoon coat. I enjoyed the book.
Theres a problem here where John has outlined how pointing out hypocrisy doesn't invalidate someone's argument, and he then goes on to use that same fallacy against Richard bushman. To be more precise, he should've said that the arguments of people like Richard bushman are not internally consistent, which is a different can of worms entirely.
About lack of internal consistency... this some times takes the form of "kettle logic". The story goes like this. A man came before the village elders seeking damages claiming that he lent a kettle to his neighbor and it was broken when he returned it. In his defense the neighbor said the kettle was intact when he returned it, and that it was already broken when he borrowed it and also he denied that he ever borrowed the kettle in the first place. This is kettle logic. It's technically allowed in court, since if any of those 3 responses could be supported it would defeat the claim for damages ... but in practice it's seldom used because juries don't like it. 😀 Much of apologetics, especially mormon apologetics, falls prey to this fallacy, and the apologists have to cognitively hop from one foot to the other constantly and hope no one sees them doing it.
:-) I enjoy listening to these kinds of arguments. Very thought provoking. But I don't understand them at all. How does someone say, "show me or I won't believe." How can you look and not see?? What is it you expect? A phone call?? An email?? A knock at your door?? Do you think He owes you the proof you demand?? What if life is a great and complicated final exam and our world is just a complex classroom?
“No one has defined what God is” was something JL just said as I’m listening. We have personal ideas, but it’s variable from person to person even with a common religion. Anyway, I get stuck on the use of “He” to describe a “God.” This immediately stops me because we are assigning gender & a human quality to something that is beyond humanity. It’s just not ever going to ring true for me. It would be more accurate to say “It.” I think we do a disservice to ourselves when we make our arguments fit into him/her language. Using human qualities to describe a supernatural force just isn’t how I can talk about the All of All. There you go…JL’s point proved - there is no definitive definition of god. Who has ever agreed as to what or whom god is? We argue in circles, which is why I’d rather focus on just doing good in the world & not worry at all about whether or not god exists. I can’t care. My life is better when I don’t focus there & focus on just being a good person (to my own definition). Peace.
@SAMUEL JEPPSEN: The way you wrote your comment indicates that you're stating or arguing for something, and someone else is requesting evidence for your argument. So the burden of proof is on you. Also, "...Do you think He owes you the proof you demand??" seems to be begging the question, or assuming your conclusion, in that you're implying 'God' already exists.
John said "Fox News creates straw men incessantly"... using your own definition... who on FN, what on FN and how often...I think your own bias against perhaps some of the personalities has you say this but can't you say this about EVERY news channel? That aside, I think you have a very good way of explaining the way people frame their arguments.
So like I was in a car truck accident on my mission.. got a head injury. Had prior medical training. Not allowed to see a doctor. Homeless after mission Can't do computer. Asked someone to contact me on this channel. No one did. It's o.k. mormon or ex mo no care.
OMG!!! I coach a 18’s girls Vball club team. You are a great example on being a strong and flexible woman!! Not to kiss up to you but you are freakishly awesome!!! Love your truth!!!
There was a reason a "PHD" was a "Doctor of Philosophy" because they're supposed to know, practice and live these things. Unfortunately it very difficult.
Straw man to me has always meant, “Well yeah, but what about this?” as a reply to an argument. For example, “Russia is awful for invading Ukraine.” Reply: “But what about all the imperialism the US has engaged in?!” The argument isn’t about the US. The argument is about Russia. So bringing up US history in that case is a straw man. This has been my understanding of a straw man. Correct me if that’s wrong though.
That sounds more like a whataboutism fallacy. A strawman is creating a misrepresentation of someone's beliefs, and then arguing against that misrepresentation.
How I understand it (could be wrong too): It’s more like responding to ‘Russia is awful for invading Ukraine’ with, ‘oh so you expect Russia to be a perfect country with no flaws?! Not even America is a perfect country…’ Like no that’s not the point I was making, you’re deliberately misunderstanding in order to avoid acknowledging the uncomfortable truth.
7:21 All comments on looks are banned Ten seconds later "John, you look fabulous!" Imagine making a 2 minute talk about how terrible it is to comment on looks (even compliments), banning all comments, then doing literally the very thing you just said was deeply hurtful and needs to be banned 🤔 Maybe don't take offense at a compliment?
It's almost like they have a different relationship where mild compliments are appropriate, while Carah has no such relationship with random people on the internet.
It’s funny cause he’s right with his critical approach but his bias politically definitely comes through. I bet it’s normal to become liberal if you leave the church in Utah. I’m in Oregon so I see the same circular logic supporting the liberal agenda. People will admit they have a bias but they’ll be damned if they own up to the actual bias.
Carah, thank you for calling out the fact that commenting on appearance, positive or not, is not cool. People need to stop pointing out what others look like, as if their approval matters. You are a queen, and my favorite part of the podcast :-)
Forget her looks that girl’s “cutesy” , fast talking, middle school comments are distracting and lessen the credibility of a wonderful channel - prior to her arrival It’s obvious she was added to attract a younger audience…
I’ve seen over a dozen of the videos when Carah is involved in interviewing the guests, and each time I see her taking the reins she comes out swinging.
@@jcrook5904 She brags about doing drugs? No offense, but if you’re talking about marijuana, that comment seems a bit ridiculous.
but then how will the haters feel better about themselves? it stinks that carah had to announce it...
@@Dink1963 *wow* you may have left the patriarchal construct, but it sure has it's hooks in you still.
Exmormon atheist here. Feeling humbled because I’ve used almost all of these fallacies a good amount. Especially when criticizing religion. It’s important to talk about these it helps keeps us in check. Great episode.
Mormonism and Logical Fallacies go together just like Peanut Butter and Jelly. It’s like they were meant to be. A celestial bond of Fallacies and Mormon Doctrine.
Just Mormonism or ALL Supernatural beliefs?
@@hectorwong7775
I'd say all supernatural beliefs...good catch. The Mormon church is just a bit nuttier version of mainline Christianity.
@Huffdaddy: Ah, the crunchy version! :)
If these devices were taught in school, many of us could have avoided a lot of pain and wasted time. Thank you John, John, and Carah for another great discussion!
They are taught in school! But you have to take debate or political science. They should be required and non electives.
'the fallacy detective' is a kids workbook you can get on amazon. i bought it after i heard john larsen talk about logical fallacies a couple years ago. educating ourselves and the next generation on logical, critical thinking is how i think we save humanity, the planet, and achieve world peace. 😉 thanks john, john and carah!!!!!! 🕊
J Larson is just the best !! I love his critical thinking
When it comes to the testimony thing..."but I had this incredible personal witness experience that tells me it's true, an experience that I couldn't deny and that couldn't POSSIBLY have been anything but God/Holy Spirit telling me the church was true"...it's great the way you show how that can be shown to be fallacious because the Mormon won't accept the same 'proof' if it's someone else claiming the exact same experience, only with a different church or religion. Thereby negating Mormons' own use of it as any kind of 'proof'.
I always think the testimony thing can simply be compared to falling in love. As we all know, falling in love is one of the most powerful experiences we ever have. You 'know' that THIS is the person for you, this person is somehow your heart or life's 'truth', someone you can utterly, head over heals devote yourself to. Their flaws vanish. Their virtues become stratospheric. And well, you may be lucky and that turns out to actually be the case and the feeling is mutual. Sometimes, sadly not.
Main thing is, even if that person IS your heart's true companion, and it's lifelong, and you have the equivalent of a 'testimony' of that, that hardly makes them 'true' for everyone else's heart as well. If it did, jeez, that would soon cause some obvious problems.
In fact, the way many Mormons react to non or ex-Mormons criticising the church or saying it's obviously not true is a lot like how people will react to friends telling them they really can't understand what on earth they see in whoever they're in love with. The lover simply can't comprehend anyone not thinking their beloved is as divine and awesome as they think they are. That their friends must all be idiots or even malicious in not thinking so.
Carah talking about how John Larsen brings a different energy to the podcast at the beginning cracked me up because these are the only ones I really watch these days. So evidently that's my kind of energy, ha ha
I'm listening to this a year or so after the fact but I had to say...this is where J Larsen differs from the church. When he says something that is wrong or angry but not actually relevant to the argument, he apologizes and the church never will.
Also, I listened to the first episode of Mormon Expression last night and John is so calm and mild mannered on that show. It kind of blew my mind. =)
Though I am certainly no apologist as to speak for the church in any way, I quite value the genuine concepts found in scripture... which I've come to understand in a unique way that can truly hold water and stand up to the logic of John Larsen's points. Should you ever wish to explore how religious concepts can jive with science, and inform as well as be informed by it... well, that's what I do: marry opposites together by finding the truth that makes them one. (It's all about At-one-ment, after all! LOL) It would be interesting to explore these themes with you. 🙂
John Larsen and John Dehlin both, I really appreciate the earnestness with which you search out truth from the evidence presented, share your findings generously, and welcome any challenge that might edify. I thank you very much for your efforts!!🙂
I absolutely live for Cara's sassy comebacks to the rude comments! 😂
I know you were all frustrated with the tech issues at the beginning but I was laughing so hard listening to the banter … was driving home and it was so human & refreshing to just listen to someone else deal with tech issues! Thanks!!
I always love when John Larsen is on an episode.
When Stan Lee was questioned, at Comicon, about who would win in a fight between Spider-Man and the Hulk, he said “ It depends on who is writing it”.
I absolutely love this discussion of logical fallacies. I love hearing examples of fallacies that are used by all perspectives regarding Mormonism. I actually think it would be really cool to have John Larsen, or whoever else could fill this role well, kind of coach or critique the podcast hosts regarding how they themselves handle and use logical fallacies and how they might correct themselves.
I don't say this to accuse the hosts of anything in particular, I just think it would be extremely educational and helpful for everybody involved and listening. I don't think anybody can be 100% innocent of using logical fallacies. As John Larsen said at the opening: it's human nature as we try to process the world around us, and it takes a dedicated and ongoing effort to change that nature. An episode focused on coaching the hosts, who I'm sure most listeners respect as good people, could possibly go a long way to helping the listeners reflect and recognize their own tendencies and weaknesses in this matter. (Particularly myself, for sure.)
(Edit to add a side note: I truly think the best way for good progress to be made between humankind, both on a large- and personal-scale, is for all parties to become better educated on logical fallacies and how to have honest, good faith discussions. I don't say that to mean "well if everybody could only think logically they'd surely agree with me!" No, I genuinely want to understand things. I don't care if I'm proven wrong if that means that now I understand things a bit better.)
One of the fallacies describes here is what Brad Wilcox used in his Highland, UT speech (see Mormon Stories RUclips video on Brad Wilcox speech). He said the lady was loud, when she asked "Why don't women have the priesthood?" Then he said something along the lines of since she was loud; that seemed to be his focus, that she was loud. To me, It was a way to deflect and degrade her question. So it shouldn't be taken seriously.
John Larsen's opening line that "we evolved and our brains evolved along with us" is SO important as a starting premise. This is a big part of why cosmology can be so confusing to both laypeople and the leading figures in the field. The universe has no obligation to conform to your intuitions about it ... and it doesn't.
Remembering that we are primates that have anatomical equipment (including our brains) that was useful in our current environment (with abundant liquid water, an atmosphere of 80% nitrogen/20% oxygen, gravity of 9.8 m/s^2, day/night cycles of roughly 24 hours, tropical/temperate/arctic climate zones, a moon that gives tides, etc.). We are adapted to all of these conditions and so nature has permitted only the intuitions that are useful in this frame of reference to persist in our kind, and there is no reason to think that those intuitions would equip us to easily understand things beyond this framework. If we want to understand we are going to have to work at it.
We all necessarily have the biases of earthbound humans, and we will do better if we can be humble enough to keep this inherent limitation in mind so that we can try to account for it. We need to remember our known knowns and all that.
... ok now I will watch the rest.
😀
Chimpanzees are quite successful in life with their less-evolved brain. Why did human brains evolve so much more when a chimp sized brain would have been enough?
@@harlanlang6556 nothing is "more evolved" than anything else. Things that are different are that way because they evolved differently, that is all. Not because they evolved "more".
To have evolved "more" would imply that the process of evolution has a goal, which it does not. Organisms change over time. Those that can survive do. Those that can't don't. There is no goal. Even survival itself is not a goal (it might be a goal for the individual organisms, but not for the processes that constitute evolution). The earth could be bereft of all life and "evolution" would not care.
That you use a "more evolved vs. less evolved" framing in your response suggests that you don't understand what evolution is or how it happens. And since you don't understand what it is, it's a safe bet that you don't think it's real. And I can't blame you for that.
Our intuitions are informed by the time scales of our lives and that makes evolution counterintuitive even in the absence of dogma (which, sadly, never seems to be in short supply I'm afraid).
@@JP-JustSayin What is your evidence that evolution has no goal?
@@harlanlang6556 no evidence for that is needed since that is not part of the hypothesis.
No claim=No burden of proof
I was simply observing that your framing seemed to infer that YOU thought evolution has a goal, and I was informing you that this is not what is claimed about evolution by its advocates.
If you agree that evolution has no goal, then I apologize for misunderstanding you. If you disagree, then it would be YOUR JOB to construct a falsifiable hypothesis that evolution is NOT goal directed, and then to show evidence that successfully FALSIFIES that hypothesis.
Good luck ... though I would not blame you if you didn't want to bother.
@@JP-JustSayin “Even survival itself is not a goal” was super thought provoking. I’m really intrigued by what you wrote. Do you have any other blog posts or ways I can explore this more as a philosophical mental exercise. I want to ruminate on this some more. I went from reading the news about the war in Ukraine & then immediately reading your comments here. It’s a very interesting juxtaposition of thoughts. I am fascinated by us humans. We have a lot still to learn, if we don’t extinct ourselves.
I enjoyed this. There's not anything to stand on except pat answers. I'm just grateful for a non member family that loved me unconditionally through my 15 year LDS experience. I'd been married in the temple. I cried on my wedding day because my sacrificing deemed "unworthy" mother couldn't be in the temple with me. Eventually I spent time studying with the Jehovah's Witnesses. Then back to Christianity. Then I got critical. Jonah's Ark? Really I restored a 40 foot vessel. It was lots of work! No family created a boat that housed all the species and their food for 40 days! Really? Jonah and the Whale? A man survived inside the belly of a Whale? On and on. So I am now with a very moral sincere man who I married. He understands me without the pat answers!
GREAT topic to cover and I find it fascinating! Thanks for another great episode everyone.
Praise the Lord of all and whatever and ever amen we finally have a new John Larsen episode!!! I could laugh tears of joy! It’s been too long (but understandable)! There is no greater commentator on Mormon everything than JL! Mormon Voldermort is pretty solid too but gosh damn we all need more John Larsen. When JD announced that JL was gonna start doing some episodes if we chipped in some bucks I didn’t think twice before adding in my regular contribution each month. MS and ME have given me so much. Thank you thank you to all of you at MS and thank you to all of those who contributed to ME for all those years. Both archives are a treasure trove that can never be matched or outdone. Praise be to Y’all!
@John Larsen GTFO John Larsen said 4 words to me!? I’m done and ready to pass begin the veil. I have the secret words that make the hidden door open!
O.k. Okay I’m just goofing. All silly willy words and Tum Foolery aside John I am super grateful and inspired by you to be a stronger person standing firm in real truth among my friends and family that ALL remain attached to an iron rod of dreams recounted by the ghosts of recounted imagination. I am patient. I am hopeful. And I am bolstered in my resolve by your thoughts and the words you share. Of course I think for myself and cross out whatever may not ring in my “soul” but I am forever grateful for the additives you have offered over all these years. My brain and heart are bigger because of the room I have made for your insightful pieces. Carry on good sir. To thine own self be true always because we all sorely need it.
Best people and channel ! Thank you !❤
Logic should be a required class for all college graduates. It's incredibly useful and important, not just in the liberal arts, but in the hard sciences as well. The logic class I took as an elective during my undergrad was the most interesting and useful class I have ever taken and it had no real "relevance" to my degree. It should be introduced at the high school level as well. Much more useful than a lot of stuff taught in English classes.
Carah, you are such a freaking queen. I love you!
Great job! All of you. Logical fallacies are possibly the biggest obstacle to societal progress. And we're ALL guilty of them.
Except me of course 😉
Congratulations on the new house! Love the Oregon coast!🦀🌊🐠 Thanks so much for your advice and life stories. You’re getting me through faith crisis after being a member of church for 60 years.
Hi Patricia, Stranger on the internet here wishing you well withe the journey out of the church after 60 years. That’s pretty awesome and brave as well. xxxx
1:38:59 RFM may have described the catalyst theory best when he pointed out that it is "indistinguishable from an intentional fraud" ... John Larsen's face-palm is perfect... LOL 😆
A Straw Man argument is when you replace your opponent's argument with a weaker argument that's easier to debunk in order to make your own position look stronger.
Yay!! I love John Larsen!! Missed him
I love this guy-logic is a tonic to my skeptic soul 😀 Also, Carah’s nose is just fine!
I love her face too. She's an editorial beauty.
@@amygreen758 That, “Editorial Beauty”, is a tremendous (& true) definition of that kid (a kid comparatively speaking). Her mind runs approximately 3 to 4 times faster than mine ever will! It is cool when you find an old soul who still has enthusiasm.
I love John's episodes! I am out and generally agree/support all of John L's takes. But I did have to agree with John D calling out John L. I think the problem with this issue regarding church truth claims, or any other religion's claims, is that John tends to say he can "disprove" the truth claims. We can't really definitively prove that JS never saw Maroni, we can merely prove that there is no reliable/tangible evidence to support that claim. Proving lack of evidence is not the same as proving a claim as false. It is the same principle that John L. brought up at the beginning, he doesn't claim there is no god, he merely believes that there is no physical evidence to prove the existence of god.
Again, freaking love John L...just think that some of the rhetoric we post-mormons use is consistent with the logic patterns we used as members. It isn't that the church is definitively proved as a false church, it is more that there is no good evidence to justify believing the LDS truth claims.
Good point.
I completely agree. I thought that was treading on shaky ground. In fact, I'll go so far as to say I was rather disappointed in John L. in this podcast. I love the transparency of John D. stating that John L. was getting $1000 to do the episode, but I can't help but question whether MS got their money's worth. Not only did John D. have to correct John L. on what a straw man argument is (I think that was the one, I watched this a few days ago), but when bringing up the no true Scotsman fallacy Larsen couldn't come up with one off hand. Really??? What about the work and preparation required he would mention later? And then for another fallacy he used a ghost hunter show he'd seen as his example. Isn't this about Mormon apologetics? I would think that doing this podcast would be all about detailed preparation and using examples from Mormon apologetics. It's not like they're hard to find. I don't know. This says it's part 1. Maybe all that will come up in part 2.
Can BYU loose it’s R1 status already?!
Glad to have you back john
Thanks for consistently refreshing perspectives… from a Downunder fan!
This is some of the best information I have heard on M.S.! Truth is spoken in science! Peer reviewed journals.
I've enjoyed the information that John Larsen has to share.
We need to take the knowledge that we gain and apply it in every aspect of our lives. We especially need to be very careful of falling into the same illogical ruts outside of religion! We've already been there! Don't, then, take a path down a different illogical road! Pay attention!
🙂👍
Love it when John Larsen speaks profanity.
1:23:00 "Be at peace, and go with Bob". Yea, verily :)
Just finished this episode and it was well worth the watch! I love the logic - this is the thing that is missing when having a conversation on religion with a believer. Absolutely loved John Larsen and Carah :)
Hey, love your content but i usually listen to it at work with bad speakers and background noise. You could try to mix it differently to make the sound a little bit louder
Love John & Carah! Great content!
The episode quality would significantly increase with the addition of an opening title or jingle.
Part of the dopamine hit from tuning into your favorite show is the immediate familiarity of the opening audio. It's like the opening hymn of our meeting. Setting the tone for what's to come.
I never know how long I will be staring at John as he waits 1-10 seconds before he begins talking. It's funny because you can sometimes see his eyes darting to the corner like he's waiting for the go sign from one of his producers.
Back in the day Pepsi had a jingle: "Pepsi Cola hits the spot, twelve ounce bottle, that's a lot, Twice as much for a nickle too! Pepsi Cola is the drink for you." Someone thought this could be adapted to Christianity: "Christianity hits the spot, Twelve Apostles, that's a lot, Jesus Christ and a Virgin too! Christianity's the one for you."
@@harlanlang6556 Yes! Maybe with a digitized hymn medley sped up as the backdrop
I think that could be a personal preference. I dislike opening jingles.
These are such good, thought provoking, episodes. Bravo.
1:06:11 "There is no exit to the house of mirrors. You have to smash the glass." ... correct ... and when you do you get cut, and you bleed, and that's why it hurts ... and that's why folks get pissed at whoever put them in there.
Just sayin'
I came here from apple podcasts to tell Carah that she’s gorgeous in whatever she wants to wear, I just like listening to audio only since it doesn’t drain my phone battery as quickly and I can multitask better
Wow... cool guys. Loved hearing these ideas so much and love John Larsen's 'pure' language! Thanks you!
You should rename this episode: Mormon Logic: A Circle Jerk of Thought
I always enjoy Brother Larsen's interviews! Who could be against logic, reason and clear thinking? I certainly agree with him that we use science in our search for truth, but what about these famous words from Thomas Jefferson, certainly one of the brightest minds of his time: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness (Declaration of Independence).” July 4, 1776. How would we use science to weigh the truth of this statement? If you agree with Thomas Jefferson concerning these truths, then does this imply that there are truths which exist in some other realm than the physical world? Maybe "truth" itself is not in the material world but an understanding within our minds based upon "facts" which can be demonstrated in the fields of science. Maybe we should say that scientific investigation produces facts, not truths. The theory of evolution is not a fact but is based upon all the facts uncovered by geology, biology, chemistry and physics. It's really the only theory of life that makes sense of all the facts.
Thinking about thinking is something most of us rarely do, but Brother Larsen stimulates this process for everybody, whatever their beliefs or backgrounds. Religious leaders often underestimate the potential of ordinary people to do this. They want to feed their flock milk because they're unable to digest meat.
@John Larsen Do you believe they are true?
@John Larsen I agree with you except for your point that all forms of life are extremely rare. We don't scientifically know that yet, but my inclination is that life isn't rare. I don't know why the extreme diversity of life on earth would not be the rule rather than the exception. The good news is that the new Webb telescope will be providing much more data concerning possible extraterrestrial life.
I don't know that Jefferson ever explained what he meant by all men being created equal, but I never understood it to mean having equal physical or mental endowments. Maybe he was addressing the English class system which definitely kept people in their unequal positions. Maybe he just wanted to sound progressive and enlightened. My intent in using his quote was the way he used the word "truth", whether it was a truth or not. This is not a scientific truth but a moral or ethical truth, like the human race is one family, which may be both scientific and ethical.
@@harlanlang6556 i dont think Jefferson meant equal in the sense of talents etc. He meant it we are equal in essence. Since he believed in a creator he probably said to mean that we are all creatures created by God thus of equal worth to Him. Clearly he believed that rights were given to us by God and not by man. Mans job was to ensure mans ability to exercise those rights..that these rights weren't betowed upon us by man and csn be taken away by man. Of course over the course of human history man has worked really hard to restrict God given rights. I just dont see hiw we get to the inherent worth of man without a belief on God. People can believe in the inherent worth of man if they choose to and not believe in God and another man can say he doesnt believe in the equality of the essence of man. Since there is no 'outside' judge both opinions are equally valid as they are just opinions
@@melk6049 I think you're right. Why would we assume the inherent worth of man if man is but a blob of protoplasm which will decompose before long? There's nothing worthy about a piece of meat. I think that possessing rights assumes that we're more than biological.
Hi,
The sales slogan for Colt firearms in the late 19th century was "God didn't make men equal ... Samuel Colt did!"
Whatever hand God might have dealt one in life, a Colt firearm was a prominent equalizer!
Water at sea level and 1atm boils at 100 degrees C, 212 degrees Fahrenheit 1 atm. Both are valid yet established on different criteria. The first established as the freezing and boiling points.of water 0 and 100 and even increments between them, and the second I was informed had to do with the temperature of the cold ocean in northern England, and an annal probe with a thermometer in a cow, also in Europe! Both are valid based upon their set parameters. Varring the elevation the water is boiled at on Earth, varies the pressure and thus varries the temperature!
Truth itself is relative to the observer and can be repeatedly measured and reproduced using consistent parameters! Scientific truth!
Religious truth can be "a horse of a different color!"
In Numbers 31, Moses commands the children of Israel to take out the Lord's vengeance on the Midianites... aka Genocide against the Midianites! Can Genocide be both a bad thing against the Jews while a Good thing against the Midianites? When is a watch not a watch! It is the Victors who write history, religious history etc. And how we comprehend ours lives and the people with whom we share the world is shaped by this perception of our reality! If one desires.to comprehend what exists outside the box of the reality one is born within, one must outgrow the confines of said box, and realize that all reality as observed and recorded, taught is subjective! Until then, people will be shackled and controlled by their own self implemented limitations... the beliefs they hold dear like a child holds its blanket, unwilling to open ones mind and heart and choosing to hold on tight to ones security instead! As a man thinketh... so is he! And we live in a world of different cultures filled with people who think and believe differently! Each of us has the power to choose our future! It's all relative!
Hey John (Larsen). Just wondering if in part 2 you plan to talk about the role of fallacies in rhetoric. The Greeks taught grammar, logic, and rhetoric together as the basis of good public speaking and argumentation, but when you throw logic to the wind and just focus on rhetoric, the biggest fallacies become the most effective tools of manipulation. A lot of the statements you're criticizing in this episode are examples of this in action.
That's fair. I find that a little bit of context is necessary when talking about informal fallacies, because so many people learn about them and want to treat them as magic bullets of some kind. You hit the nail on the head when you said that they're only problematic during arguments among peers, but they're also rhetorical techniques (if dirty ones) and many are basic rules of induction. If I were adamantly opposed to ad hominem and appeals to authority, I might end up giving all my money to a Nigerian prince, or more seriously, I might end up rejecting a global scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change.
@John Larsen Oh, and this is also yet another piece of your Franken-professor, since when I studied Philosophy at BYU during the 00s, every Philosophy professor was painfully aware of many places where the church teachings stumble in basic logic and reasoning and would bring them up in class every now and then as examples of classic errors. If you got them drunk, they could absolutely eviscerate the most recent iteration of general conference as well.
Best best best!!!!
1:24:27 establishing special in-group definitions of ordinary words (like the examples "virtue" and "apostate") is also a common trait of cults.
Thumbs up right off the bat for Carah's rectum comment! 👍🤣
Love it John Larsen.
Yeah but John, what if I want to talk to the ghost of George Carlin? Do you have an In with George’s ghost? Can you say something nice about me to George’s ghost? I’m available anytime if George’s ghost wants to talk.
Me too, would love to talk to departed Carlin!
Love this thank you.
As you are discussing the redefining of words in the LDS Church, please consider the redefining of the word “grace.” The church now can say it “accepts and believes in the doctrine of grace.” Unfortunately the term as used by Mormons (sorry!) now is meaningless and deceptive.
Also the use of the word “miracle”. It used to be a immense event that required the magic intervention of deity. Now it’s overused as simply something nice that has happened. Another is “I know”. The vast majority of the time this term used in testimonies, it doesn’t even come close to actual demonstrable knowledge.
Yes! Thank you for that perceptive coment!
Was Carah joking when she talked about Brother Dehlin’s appearance right after she said nobody can talk about hers?
It’s called BELIEF. Round and round ya go. It’s the Lowest form of awareness
The demand for civility often triggers me. Yes they are people, human beings, but are they truly “deserving of kindness & compassion”? Not until they do something to earn it or signal they desire it-even something basic like an apology. Because they DO know what they’re doing. I am convinced they know what they’re doing. There’s TONS of evidence, but just the suicide rates & lack of meaningful actions to address them are proof positive.
We had a bishopric member that was having a yearlong affair (he confessed to the whole ward). And his wife blamed it on his pornography "addiction". They blamed the whole affair (with his FRIEND) on pornography.
Best episode yet
Love this.
God’s existence is reduced to a ever shrinking gap of scientific knowledge. That’s the basis of the God of the Gaps argument IMO.
A Carah and Maven episode.
Holy majoly. This was fantastic.
Any new positions on the Vax at this juncture?
I actually listen this episode to help me fall asleep, not because it's boring though - I think it has a kind of comforting nostalgia for me to listen the lies of mormon church 😜
Carah is my favorite Taco Bell loving podcaster!!
1:43:00 ... a small point of difference.
Comparing science and religion in this way is a little bit unfair because religion and science have different goals as a result of when they arose over the course of human events/history.
Religion in general arose as a primitive cognative response to the uncomfortable fear and anxiety that naturally results from contact with the unknown or unfamiliar, or existence it's self (and also death anxiety)... therefore if a religion adequately deals with the fear and anxiety (and therefore provides some level of relief from the accompanying mental discomfort) of the people involved with that religion, then it has met its fundamental objective. Whether any given religion describes reality accurately is secondary. Describing reality is not the point, managing emotions and providing comfort is the point (or it was originally, power relations get mixed in to it pretty quickly but that is a secondary after effect)
Science on the other hand came later, arising within the framework of minds that were already using religion to keep calm, and has a different goal. Science is not concerned with emotional management and instead it wants to accurately describe reality. It does this by advancing hypotheses that are falsifiable and then seeking to falsify them. Only those hypotheses that "could be false" but are found not to be are permitted to remain standing over time.
Things that are unfalsafiable are immediately out of bounds for science, and much of religion falls into this category. Religion and religious people get into trouble when they try to claim that their religion crosses over into accurately describing reality. (Invariably religions can't do thus because they are the wrong tool fir that job).
"Faith", in particular, exists specifically as a mental mechanism for validating and accepting unfalsifiable claims. Since the descriptions of reality that survive scientific scrutiny are not particularly useful in meeting religion's goal of managing uncomfortable fear and anxiety, it is therefore understandable that people who are not psychological masochists (and who are already using a religion to regulate their naturally occuring death anxiety and fear of the unknown) will hesitate to move out of their religion.
I'm a psychological masochist. I'm no longer interested in comfort. I take my reality straight up these days... no chaser.
I'd rather try to understand reality even if it's painful (and it is). Ironically this preference for understanding material truth over comfort grew out of the religious indoctrination of my childhood. Less amusingly this preference has degraded large parts of my life that are beyond the cognitive.
Fundamental science is a search for signs. Early man became expert at seeing the signs of nature, like footprints of game animals, or the kind of vegetation which was edible.
Religion provides more than relieve fear and anxiety, though it does that well. Religion also provides the glue which binds people together as one, even if they're not closely related. It also provides a common code of ethics and morality which allows for social development. It's interesting to see how religion has evolved from something like Judaism which united certain tribes together, to Christianity which united people from a broader demography, to Islam which created the idea of a nation of diverse people. It has always been an advantage to feel united in order to work for the common good of the group. The ultimate stage of this process is a planetary form of religion which promotes the reality of one human family.
@@harlanlang6556 a quibble ... science is not a search for signs.
Science starts with a falsifiable hypothesis, and then devises experiments that have the potential to falsify the hypothesis, and then makes observations and gathers data to see if the hypothesis is actually falsified or not. Gradually, after many, many failed attempts at falsification, the hypothesis begins to be trusted more and more. A hypothesis is never pronounced to be "true", it just persists in a non-falsified state and therefore becomes useful. No where is there any seeking for signs in this process.
There is a competing process that starts with the data first (taken from experiences rather than specifically constructed experimentation) and with data in hand seeks to construct explanations for what has been observed. It would be wrong to call these explanations hypotheses, but they are as close as this method gets to having a hypothesis. This data-first/hypothesis-second approach is called zeteticism ... and it's methods differ significantly from those of science. Perhaps this describes the seeking for signs that you are talking about... but its not science.
Fascinating response here. Thanks for writing it. Any recommendations for podcasts, books, blog posts, RUclips vids that expand on your above post or helped you formulate your thoughts on the difference between religion & science. You’ve started something in my brain here & I want to dig deeper. Thanks for being a catalyst for a new thought train. I appreciate it. Peace.
A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.
The description given here in this podcast is very poor, and somewhat misleading. Here's a good example:
A: We should relax the laws on beer.
B: No, any society with unrestricted access to intoxicants loses its work ethic and goes only for immediate gratification
Critical thinking! Turns out it is not that common.😏
FYI I'm pretty sure it's both comic and MCU canon that the Hulk can smash Thor.
Duh.
@Steven G. Clinard: and let's not forget the implications of the 'brah!' shoulder-punch in Avengers (2012) :)
Just imagine if sustaining general authorities of TSCC was carried out via secret ballot...
Appreciate Carah's thoughts concerning comments made about her looks, and then she immediately tells John he looks great. Then, John Larsen mentions how we shouldn't listen to the same white men as he talks about bias. Just a couple of examples why this world can be difficult to navigate.
I thought she might have been complimenting John tongue-in-cheek?
don't believe everything you think
Am I the only one who can't find part 2?
That is the worst explanation of a straw man I have ever heard. Cherry picking is not the same thing, cherry picking is where you only cite data you think helps your case and ignore the rest. Using vague general statements is a hasty generalization. A straw man is an argument that only has a superficial resemblance to your opponent’s position.
For example- person 1 : children should not eat ice cream at every meal.
Person 2 : so you would prefer they starve.
Love is a fallacy
@John Larsen Perhaps, but "Love is Fallacy" was the title of a book assigned to be read by my 8th grade class. The book explained different types of fallacies, just as you have done, but it used a humorous story involving a raccoon coat. I enjoyed the book.
Their egos buy them off. Apologists.
These people are into bricks! Like the red brick store. Love it all guys and gal.
Ok, but you don’t want to mess with hobbits.
I love your cloths cara!
Theres a problem here where John has outlined how pointing out hypocrisy doesn't invalidate someone's argument, and he then goes on to use that same fallacy against Richard bushman.
To be more precise, he should've said that the arguments of people like Richard bushman are not internally consistent, which is a different can of worms entirely.
About lack of internal consistency... this some times takes the form of "kettle logic". The story goes like this.
A man came before the village elders seeking damages claiming that he lent a kettle to his neighbor and it was broken when he returned it.
In his defense the neighbor said the kettle was intact when he returned it, and that it was already broken when he borrowed it and also he denied that he ever borrowed the kettle in the first place.
This is kettle logic. It's technically allowed in court, since if any of those 3 responses could be supported it would defeat the claim for damages ... but in practice it's seldom used because juries don't like it. 😀
Much of apologetics, especially mormon apologetics, falls prey to this fallacy, and the apologists have to cognitively hop from one foot to the other constantly and hope no one sees them doing it.
:-) I enjoy listening to these kinds of arguments. Very thought provoking. But I don't understand them at all. How does someone say, "show me or I won't believe." How can you look and not see?? What is it you expect? A phone call?? An email?? A knock at your door?? Do you think He owes you the proof you demand?? What if life is a great and complicated final exam and our world is just a complex classroom?
“No one has defined what God is” was something JL just said as I’m listening. We have personal ideas, but it’s variable from person to person even with a common religion. Anyway, I get stuck on the use of “He” to describe a “God.” This immediately stops me because we are assigning gender & a human quality to something that is beyond humanity. It’s just not ever going to ring true for me. It would be more accurate to say “It.” I think we do a disservice to ourselves when we make our arguments fit into him/her language. Using human qualities to describe a supernatural force just isn’t how I can talk about the All of All. There you go…JL’s point proved - there is no definitive definition of god. Who has ever agreed as to what or whom god is? We argue in circles, which is why I’d rather focus on just doing good in the world & not worry at all about whether or not god exists. I can’t care. My life is better when I don’t focus there & focus on just being a good person (to my own definition). Peace.
@SAMUEL JEPPSEN: The way you wrote your comment indicates that you're stating or arguing for something, and someone else is requesting evidence for your argument. So the burden of proof is on you. Also, "...Do you think He owes you the proof you demand??" seems to be begging the question, or assuming your conclusion, in that you're implying 'God' already exists.
Shaking after fasting? Haha! That’s not the Holy Ghost! That’s low blood sugar!
John said "Fox News creates straw men incessantly"... using your own definition... who on FN, what on FN and how often...I think your own bias against perhaps some of the personalities has you say this but can't you say this about EVERY news channel? That aside, I think you have a very good way of explaining the way people frame their arguments.
I'm still saying, when you run out of current issues you have too cover Amassa Lyman. GAME OVER.
So like I was in a car truck accident on my mission.. got a head injury. Had prior medical training. Not allowed to see a doctor. Homeless after mission
Can't do computer. Asked someone to contact me on this channel. No one did. It's o.k. mormon or ex mo no care.
@John Larsen I just want community. I have a hard time using my phone. Call me direct. Thanks
OMG!!!
I coach a 18’s girls Vball club team. You are a great example on being a strong and flexible woman!! Not to kiss up to you but you are freakishly awesome!!! Love your truth!!!
In the Book of Mormon, dark skinned people became righteous and became light-skinned. Like Michael Jackson. I'm being silly.
Lol It's very difficult to avoid using logical fallacies 🤤
There was a reason a "PHD" was a "Doctor of Philosophy" because they're supposed to know, practice and live these things. Unfortunately it very difficult.
Canon Beach rocks!!!!
Sounds like politicians and used car sales men. Double talk!
I was the 666th like😂
Good job John and John. Nuancehoe is a wreck. She confuses the matter.
5:50 you have nice hair
Straw man to me has always meant, “Well yeah, but what about this?” as a reply to an argument. For example, “Russia is awful for invading Ukraine.” Reply: “But what about all the imperialism the US has engaged in?!”
The argument isn’t about the US. The argument is about Russia. So bringing up US history in that case is a straw man.
This has been my understanding of a straw man. Correct me if that’s wrong though.
That sounds more like a whataboutism fallacy. A strawman is creating a misrepresentation of someone's beliefs, and then arguing against that misrepresentation.
How I understand it (could be wrong too): It’s more like responding to ‘Russia is awful for invading Ukraine’ with, ‘oh so you expect Russia to be a perfect country with no flaws?! Not even America is a perfect country…’ Like no that’s not the point I was making, you’re deliberately misunderstanding in order to avoid acknowledging the uncomfortable truth.
@@dougbarlow1409 Thank you!
@@loreenasings and people do that ALL the time. It gets so frustrating!
@John Larsen Thank you, John! This podcast was very helpful, too!
So happy to have left the fake God and found the true God! Glory to God!
Who the hell is commenting on appearances? Get a life and just listen to the podcast.
7:21
All comments on looks are banned
Ten seconds later "John, you look fabulous!"
Imagine making a 2 minute talk about how terrible it is to comment on looks (even compliments), banning all comments, then doing literally the very thing you just said was deeply hurtful and needs to be banned 🤔
Maybe don't take offense at a compliment?
It's almost like they have a different relationship where mild compliments are appropriate, while Carah has no such relationship with random people on the internet.
@@mathewfinch or a double standard
It’s funny cause he’s right with his critical approach but his bias politically definitely comes through. I bet it’s normal to become liberal if you leave the church in Utah. I’m in Oregon so I see the same circular logic supporting the liberal agenda.
People will admit they have a bias but they’ll be damned if they own up to the actual bias.