Category Archives: Nature of Science

8 lessons that MythBusters taught us about science and skepticism

Posted on March 1, 2016 by Fallacy Man

This is a sad week for me, because this week I must bid farewell to one of my all time favorite TV shows: MythBusters. In a world where educational television has degraded to the point that it consists largely of … Continue reading →

Posted in Nature of Science | Tagged | 11 Comments

5 reasons why anecdotes are totally worthless

Posted on February 10, 2016 by Fallacy Man

Personal anecdotes are often the primary ammunition of those who deny science. If you ask anyone in the alternative medicine or anti-vaccine movements for their evidence, you will almost certainly get flooded with anecdotes. A quick internet search will reveal … Continue reading →

Posted in GMO, Nature of Science, Rules of Logic, Vaccines/Alternative Medicine | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 14 Comments

Research, you’re doing it wrong: A look at Tenpenny’s “Vaccine Research Library”

Posted on January 25, 2016 by Fallacy Man

“I’ve done my research.” If you’ve ever debated someone who disagrees with a scientific  consensus, then you’ve probably encountered that sentence, especially if they were an anti-vaccer. It is the mantra of the anti-science movement, but it’s nearly always misused. … Continue reading →

Posted in Nature of Science, Vaccines/Alternative Medicine | Tagged , , , , | 14 Comments

The hierarchy of evidence: Is the study’s design robust?

Posted on January 12, 2016 by Fallacy Man

People are extraordinarily prone to confirmation biases. We have a strong tendency to latch onto anything that supports our position and blindly ignore anything that doesn’t. This is especially true when it comes to scientific topics. People love to think … Continue reading →

Posted in Nature of Science | Tagged , , | 6 Comments

Basic statistics part 4: understanding P values

Posted on December 28, 2015 by Fallacy Man

If you’ve ever read a scientific paper, you’ve probably seen a statement like, “There was a significant difference between the groups (P = 0.002)” or “there was not a significant correlation between the variables (P = 0.1138),” but you may … Continue reading →

Posted in Nature of Science | Tagged , | 3 Comments