Ep 90 – Glass Houses

What skeptics and critical thinkers (us included!) get wrong. Why you can easily prove a negative and why it doesn’t matter, the naturalistic fallacy and why it isn’t what you think it is, the fallacy fallacy and why not to dismiss arguments, and the differences between atheism and agnosticism.

Ep 90 – Glass Houses

-or-

Subscribe on iTunes

Questions to ask? About anything at all? E-mail us: feedback@whyyourewrongpodcast.com

—–

If you think we’re doing a great job and can help support the show, please consider subscribing or making a one time donation with the buttons to your right. Your donations help cover equipment and other incidentals that we pay for to create the podcast, like this poor mic stand. Won’t someone think of the mic stands?

FacebookTwitterRedditGoogle+Share

3 thoughts on “Ep 90 – Glass Houses”

  1. This was a pretty good episode. Although there was an uncomfortable bit at the beginning where you guys were pussyfooting around the skeptic label. But I’m used to that from certain skeptics, and I do that too, even though I realize it’s annoying.

    Anyways, the rest of the podcast was nice and meaty, at least for me, because I like the logic talk. And I know it can be hard to come up with good examples of logic and logical fallacies, so I just want to say well done with those.

    1. Yeah, we wanted to avoid being a “skeptic” podcast from the get-go but we obviously are. We just want to avoid preaching to the choir.

      For Sally Clark, the name and story definitely ring a bell. I can’t remember if we talked about the case or not, but I think I had read about it when we talked about the prosecutor’s fallacy. It would be a good example for a “What’s the Harm?” episode.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *