00:00.30 kinkella Hello and welcome to the pseudo archeology podcast episode 124 and tonight logical fallacies in pseudo archeology when are they not. 00:20.53 kinkella So as we sit here, you're like Kinkela yeah, tell us about logical fallacies. What those are how to avoid them how to use them for your own nefarious needs I will. But first. Before I get into that a couple announcements. Um I realized I said something wrong on the last pseudo archeology podcast is small but it's incorrect so I will fess up to it I think I said that I had we were talking about my wired interview and I said I had like 8000 comments or something like that. I had had 8000 likes the actual number of comments was slightly less than a thousand so there wasn't 8000 comments. It was only only one thousand comments I only had to go through one thousand cup so but you know in the ah. Opportunity here to be a little fair. That's that's true I I said that incorrectly um and also for the purveyors of the youtubes I am now turning my camera on as I do this and honestly I have I'm of 2 minds on this I mean I do run my own. Youtube channel and I make my Youtube videos and stuff for my students and for the general public but I kind of like the idea of this podcast being audio only you know what? I mean so I mean I have my camera on because the apm is starting at Youtube. 01:53.78 kinkella A more a heavier Youtube aspect to the channel which I think is great I think it's a really good idea that we do that. But yeah now if you're only listening to this on Apple or Spotify or something that's okay man that's okay, good for you because I want this to go straight into your brain through the ears. And you don't have to watch me. You know do my little dance for the camera you you don't want to see that it's depressing so in terms of our our theme today logical fallacies. Ah this is very typical if you've heard how I pick. Themes now I was just sort of thinking about this in general because speaking of the wired podcast and the other comments I've gotten in the past when I talk about Graham Hancock or something I was looking for a way to organize or to make sense of all the angry. Ah, missips. You know that I get and I'm like okay how can I how can I talk about these in a more sort of scientific manner and I'm like hey logical fallacies and as I was looking at it looking looking up like kind of the precise aspects of logical fallacies. Um. On Facebook there's this group called the fraudulent archeology wall of shame and one of their major contributors is this guy John Hoops and John Hoops put up a logical fallacies list right? He's I was thinking about so obviously that. 03:27.75 kinkella Wasn't just a accident. No that wasn't just because people like he and I think about the same types of things a lot and would come up with similar answers or similar questions. No no, no, no, no. This was a sign of course this was a sign from the universe Andrew Kinkello you must talk about logical fallacies. It was it was like that a voice from god talked about logical fallacies. Yes. I shall so you know I mean what's it just an accident that 2 people would think the same thing who look up the same types of stuff all the time. No no, no, no no was a voice from the beyond my friends and you better listen. So what are logical fallacies. Like they're they're actually really easy the definition that a logical fallacy is just a dodge. That's all it is if you have a really crappy argument what you want to do is talk about something else politicians do this all the time and of course in the pseudo archeology world. This comes up. All the time because underneath it. The arguments are terrible. The arguments are laughable. They're atrocious. So. The worst thing you can do if you're a pseudo archeologist is actually argue your point you can't do that because your point is like stupid and thin and terrible and wrong. So instead you make a. 05:04.42 kinkella Dodge right? You attack the person or you talk about something different or you talk about like this other idea that's kind of related but it's not or you make a logically wrong jump to something else and then you talk about that right? It's all about taking the. Spotlight away from you. So it's just a tool that choose that has nothing to do with supporting your argument. It's making the other guy look bad or making the audience take their focus away from this glaring hole in your argument and you just talk about something else and. While I joke about this kind of stuff man these things can be really really effective right? We've seen this again. We've seen this in famous political interactions and this kind of thing where it's just it's a ploy to get the audience on your side. So well. Let's spend this time making fun of these because the examples are hilarious in that same moment we want to think about like wow what are all the times that these have been used on me where I ended up looking like an idiot even though I was right and also of course, let's be honest. How many times have you done this kind of stuff on other people because you knew that your argument sucked. So I actually wrote down some stuff. Ah as you guys know I just sort of talk off top my head but I did. 06:35.85 kinkella Take some time and write down like specific logical fallacies and they have kind of names and there's like 20 of them I have like 20 on here maybe 25 what we'll see. We'll just go through them. Some of them are very similar and I'll try and make connections. You know a lot of them are kind of variations on a theme. Um some of them are very standalone but we'll see common themes and as we go through this. Oh my god you will recognize basically every famous pseudor archeology example uses one of these. Logical fallacy arguments in order to bolster their false claim. So oh I'll also ah note when some of these are more common or big ones used all the time. So let's start with the straw man argument that is like. If. We want number one with a bullet this is probably if not the most common logical fallacious argument one. That's right up there this and part of the reason I think it's so common is it's easy to do and effective. All you do is you listen to the first person make their argument. You take it in and then you say it again, but you totally misrepresent what they just said to make it easy to argue against right? So um, if i. 08:00.51 kinkella Make a really great argument about how there's no such thing as a super civilization at the end of the ice age and that's ludicrous and I go through all of it because it's true. There's no evidence at all that there's a super civilization before the end of the last ice age. It's more on it. But I sit there. All. Academic and I'm like well yes you know, according to all data. There was no super civilization at the end of the ice age. It's silly all the other person has to do is say something like well. So what you're saying is go beckley te a. Was not complex at all. See you feel that's done. No, that's not what I'm saying at all right? you are. You're taking this little piece but you're angling around and attacking me with something I never said in the first place but it's vaguely related right? Go back Lee Tepe a site that is um. Very early in terms of a bit more complex than you would think for the time but it's real but go Backley Tepe also gives no credence to the super civilization idea but you see how that argument makes it seem like it as a straw man right? I've just. Made up a false argument kind of on the theme of what you were saying making you look the fool but it's based in nothing. It's something else right? Straw st strawmans are great. You will start to see these all the time and a lot of times that the other person will say oh so what? you're saying is see because you're not. 09:32.70 kinkella And you're like no, this's not what I'm saying at all shut up you see I'm already like angry you're going to see a lot of anger pain as I go through this I mean you guys you know as we go through this again thinking your own life I'm sure you've had this, you're like oh damn it. Oh I remember when they said that ah right straw mens are great. Okay. In no particular order the next one false cause come up a lot to the to presume that there's a relationship between 2 things when there's not you know or the idea that the relationship between the first thing caused the other thing you know and you can just. This is one that it's really easy to slide into conversation and move on. It's also called like the coralization causa causation fallacy right? The the idea that there's this line. Um in terms of pseudo archeology. The idea that a comment hit and. Caused huge climate change. No not necessarily I mean a comet could hit and be really really terrible for a localized population I don't want to be hit by a comet but in terms of it having a worldwide. Um, ah. 10:45.58 kinkella That that there's a worldwide like um, ah correlation with that like just because a common hit that the whole world has now gone into an ice age or something now that that's a false cause you get that just because a common hit. It could mean nothing just depends. So. It's it's a way to also cover that you haven't done any real research. You just go. Oh yeah, well, you know when the comma hit I mean everything changed and not a shit. No, it didn't see and with so many of these the actual response is really just I see what you're doing there. No, it didn't. The truth is that has nothing to do with anything you know, um, but the audience might still be on their side. Um, another one. Oh you will see this all the time appeal to emotion right? where I've sat there in my tweed suit you're right? My tweet jacket just being like. And you see and that's why there was no civilization at the end of the ice age and then the all the other person does is go. You know have an archaeologist made so many mistakes in the past. Ah, some of the racist stuff that they did one hundred and fifty years ago that was really awful which is it makes me sad. You see what I mean so all of a sudden yet, you just made this great argument about something but so what they've appealed to the emotion of the audience you know and you can even look cold if you're like. 12:13.67 kinkella Look that doesn't matter right now. What matters is the argument at hand I can believe you would say that doesn't matter ah terrible archeologist right? It's always about facts not feelings, but the audience may ah disagree. You can win the argument like logically but have everyone hate you. 12:33.41 kinkella Um, as I go through this I want to mention this one early There's also one called the fallacy fallacy and I love this one and we want to hold this 1 tight. This is the idea that just because someone makes a horrible argument. It doesn't mean it's wrong. Right? So in in our world in the world like my world of pseudo archeology trying trying to like take down some of these arguments. We can't be so nerdy and so far down the rabbit hole that we just go like with that we're waiting. For the like logical fallacy and then we go logical fellac see you lose now right? We have to be like take sort of a step back because then it's just annoying. You don't want just to be some annoying loser who's constantly just going like oh but you see there's logical fails in like men and and and and and now. Right? You want to look at the bigger picture take in what they're saying listen a lot of times you can be to up your own ass because you're not listening to what the other person says even though they're full of it right? You want to sort of take it in and see a process and then and then hit back. So. Just because something's you know Ah so just because you're hearing a terrible argument. It could be true like somebody could make a terrible argument for um, the age of the earth like oh well, the earth is ah four point six billion years old and that's because. 14:01.15 kinkella Well, the aliens were really active. Four point six billion years ago see that's a terrible argument doesn't not do with reality but the earth is four point six billion years old so when we come back more of the fun and the pain. Of logical fallacies. 14:29.19 kinkella I'm now taking a drink of water. 14:35.34 kinkella Um, a secret behind the scenes look of the Pseudo Archeology Podcast Sad I know just this sadddle man in a sad room by himself talking about his sad pseudoareology. Its a little messives. Trying to make himself feel good I don't want to listen to Him. He isn't believe in aliens. 15:07.85 kinkella He doesn't believe in ghosts he doesn't believe in goblins none of them. Yeah bad person see appeal to emotion. Um. 15:25.40 kinkella All right. 15:50.90 kinkella Hello and welcome back to the pseudo archeology podcast episode 124 I am still your host Dr Andrew King Kea and we are talking about logical fallacies which are fun and funny and um o I got a lot more of them. Let's just go onward with the slippery slope. That's right, you know if we allow this to happen. It's not long before the other thing's gonna happen see that's another logical fo you just because you allow this. Oh. It's gonna fall all we'renna devolve into chaos did this is where it's like look look. If you allow archaeologists to say that the olmec heads have nothing to do with Africa well how long is it before they can just say whatever they want and the media goes along with them exact we have to stop these archeologists now see what I mean. So it's it's effective. We can just we can laugh at these but we must respect them know what I'm saying um they work there they work. So um, next here's another one. This is probably top 2 or 3 along like straw man's way up there ad hommonym a terrible name I hate it when they use like you know latin or whatever it sounds just bringing this up. You sound like a complete dick. You know what? I mean Um, well I see that you've just done an ad hom and an argument. 17:23.82 kinkella And really, you need a little more e pluribus unum to make it make more sense like as soon as you say that you're like oh I sound like the biggest tool but horrible name aside that is just a character attack. That's all it is this is used all the time. You know you end up with your great argument about how the pe res map does not show Antarctica and then they go you don't know you socalled professor. What do you know? I've gotten that with so many times you probably heard me say that one before I've gotten the um. Ah, oh oh, they? It's even a sort of a backwards character attack where they go I respect you but and then they just talk about what? Ah what? a horrible person you are um and you know archaeologists are so cruel they're so cruel this is Graham Hancock uses this one. He uses like a he uses this funky like. Ah, like almost like a reverse character attack before the entire show all the time talked about how terrible archeologists are how the horrible people they're just out to attack him right? It's like the setup. It's like the it's like the pre argument um character attack. Ah oh I got one recently that started with I swear to god you guys. Quote first off, you're a jerk. Okay yeah I'm goingnna I'm going to stick with that one. So this one's real obvious real easy I would say the only downside of an of a character attack is just so obvious sometimes it can backfire. Um, you know you can look like a like just a. 18:58.86 kinkella A total asshole if you start this I think we've all seen examples of that. So This one is playing with fire but it can work you know archeologists they just it's bad thing that they don't know what do they know, but they know what you think your degree matters Your what do you know. Yeah, No thanks, you get that all the time. Um, oh speaking in in the ah bad name World. There's another one that's called like to Coque terrible name. What? what? that means is you answer a criticism with another criticism and to instead of taking it in and answering the attack. This one happens all the time I would say this is a really close cousin to the red herring. You know where you just give a completely different story this nothing to do with anything so red Herrings This we hear this all the time. Um I had an example of this happen with ah one of my neighbors like like ah. That lived the ways down one of their kids was like messing with our drive. They were just like messing up the like front of our house like a driveway and our grass and stuff and I this is not the old man get off my grass. This is like this kid's literally like tearing stuff out and you know so. Um I had to talk to the parents and the the grandfather was there and I talked I'm like hey look your you know your grandson's doing this look I'm not here to say this is a big deal. But yeah, if you can just have him. Um, yeah, just tell him not to pull out all our flowers from our front lawn that would be cool. 20:33.60 kinkella You know I was very cool about but and then he goes. He's like yeah yeah I will but let's talk about how you drive too fast down this street a classic criticism with criticism right? And what's funny in all of this too is I don't drive too fast. He. Thought I was somebody else I guess I'm actually a very grandmaish driver. Ah but a perfect example, you know? Oh but what about these? always we'll start with that. You know where the straw man argument starts with well what you're saying is no I'm not this one starts with but what about. Oh but what about right to get you away from the fact that I just made a really great argument about your baseless claim works well especially for really loud. You know you just come in and attack the person so answer a criticism with an attack. Um. Oh here's here's one that's sneaky and weird and you guys might have experienced this one before personal incredulity. What this is is since you're telling me something and since I don't understand it. It can't be true and all I do is I just keep going that doesn't make any sense. I don't get it. I don't get it. It's very narcissistic in the way it's done right? I'm telling you well you see it happens like this here's step 1 I just don't get it I just don't like the fact that you don't get it means that it just is not true. How nar self centered right. 22:05.98 kinkella I totally has had this experience when um, there's this local newspaper and you have the village idiot who was writing in about how evolution wasn't true and he wrote several articles about how evolution wasn't true and I finally I responded in the local paper and I wrote a very nice, very brief. You've heard me talk about this before you guys about just being cool talking about people like this I'm like hey look evolution actually works like this I wrote a little paragraph. It was very like straightforward I'm like for human beings. Well there were earlier forms like atralopitheines they changed over time over the last million years longer legs bigger brains right? and I just gave it. It was very short. Very brief, perfect. Any fool could understand. But of course he was like well that doesn't make any sense so that is a common one. You just don't make sense like well I can't help you um I'll go on to the rest of the world. Who gets what I'm talking about because it's totally obvious you see I'm already getting angry. Um, here's another big one There's so many big ones so many these one that's called special pleading. This is you can also just call this moves the goal post this is where you move the goal post or you make up a like a special ah exception. You know if you prove or were wrong I could think it too off the top. My head. Um when the ah shrouded turin was dated you some carbon 14 and it showed like 100% that the shrouded turin was a fraud made like 1000 years too late. 23:41.71 kinkella After they had given the piece of the shroud to be dated and after it was shown to be a fraud they backtrack and said oh the piece we gave you was a later piece for the shroud that been sewn in a thousand years later what a crack a b as right special the goal post moved. Oh we're we're so sure that this shrodrin is go to date to the time of Jesus that we're just gonna give you a piece. That's how sure we are the scientists come back. They're like dude you're wrong, they're like oh we gave you the wrong piece and then of course if the scientists are like well can we have another piece. No no, this is a holy relic can't be doing that anymore, right? just that. Stupid Dodge. Um, the other one unfortunately is the sirruy mastodon site. You've heard me before say that I feel bad because he's a real archeologist. They're just going way too far saying that this mastodon's like or saying that human beings were in California one hundred and twenty Thousand years ago they got like no evidence evidence is terrible. When it was pointed out that that what they were saying were tools that were there to butcher the mastodon where these tools were like really basic and didn't even make sense. Let's like say it was one hundred and twenty Thousand years old and human beings actually were there. Um. Those human beings would have had way better tools than the ones that were there because these were just basic stones they they weren't tools. They were just broken rocks. But you know they were saying there were tools instead of taking that argument and saying yeah you have a good point human beings have one hundred and twenty Thousand years ago would have had really good stone tools. 25:14.93 kinkella Instead they moved the goalposts and said this is obvious proof that the humans that did this one hundred and twenty Thousand years ago were a totally different species of human that we have yet to find ah what a horrible. Dupe but argue I'm sorry I I wish them well but good Christ. Ah, ah. 25:43.91 kinkella Oh um, I hope to moving on. Um, here's here's one that's like a little sometimes this is just a little pick me up a little intro question. You'll have the loaded question where's a question that's full of poison where it's like not really a question It's just an attack. You know, like like for me I get stuff like well how do you as a mayanist know anything about peopleing of the new world. You see how it's you'll say that at first you'll like you'll you'll set up the question with this like you're stupid. So anyway, here's my question to you even though you don't know right. You do that another one I've gotten you know? well you work at a community college right? Oh so anyway, um, what do you think about? ah people in the new world right? So you you see your you're you're eroding the person's believability ride up front. Do that kind of stuff. Um, ah god loaded question loaded question kind of jerky and actually a lot of times people will see that one but the the next one this is another one that comes all the time in pseudoareology burden of proof. The logical fallacy here is that I say something completely baseless and silly. But then I say well it's up to you. You need to prove me wrong. You just need to prove me look. We need to have open minds. You just need to prove me wrong happens all the time where people will say oh well, it needs further study now it does it. 27:14.49 kinkella Baseless silliness that some of the dumbest stuff like stones of Atlantis those are natural the end. Ah well, you need to prove. They're not natural. Well, it's already been done 50 times. But also I don't because look at them. they're ah It's like they're natural it's been proven. It's geological. We're done. Oh no, but that needs further study. No the burden of proof is not on me the burden of proof is on you to show some sort of human interaction with those not just the stones are square. You know it's up to you. You brought it up see it's ah it's a flip you know of? Well it's up to you now aren't you the archeologist. Yeah, but you're the pseudo archeologist just babbling and wasting my time. Oh so many of these I have you guys some might see I said it's this is a it's like a therapy session for me I'm just I'm just ranting and then you take in my pain. So um, ah the ambiguity one where um, you put an argument forward and then the other side they weasel out of it with saying that like using a different meaning for the word you said and everyone knows you didn't mean that but they use that to. To like weasel out. The best example I've seen with this is the word theory and when people say well it's only a theory evolution is only a theory this that perfect ambiguity example because the word theory every day for you and me can just mean like a guess. 28:50.27 kinkella You know on the street like we're talking about oh well? Well I have a theory that this this this this it's it's like light. It's just a guess but theory in science like theory of evolution is an explanation so a theory in science is heavy and tough and been there a long time and people have attacked it and it's stood the test of time right? so It's not the idea of something being just a theory that is it that is using the ambiguity logical fallacy you're using the wrong definition of the word theory you know and it just it makes you look like a tool that one you know. But evolution's only a theory. No, it's a scientific theory that's been around for one hundred fifty years and explains it's the cornerstone of biology. But yeah, barring that call me when you have trouble with that. Um, another one that comes up is called the gamblers fallacy this is. When you see runs that aren't there. You know it's like oh my god the um and yet it can go both ways. Ah, the roulette wheel has hit black 5 times. It's a run I'm gonna put my money on black. It's gotta be 6 sweet number 6 on the flip side. You'll go the roulette wills hit black 5 times. It's. Got to be read the next time this is insane. No both those statements are wrong each time. It's the fifty fifty you know what I mean each time. So ah, this is something that we as humans I think kind of naturally do sometimes and we want to try not to do this I think. 30:19.60 kinkella We'll we'll give pseudo archeology a rest here for a moment and just say in regular archeology. Sometimes you'll see this like well we've opened 5 units the first four had nothing so the fifth one has got to have something. No, it don't got to each one is independent. You know it's it's you're rolling the dice every time there's you're not like getting some sort of universal mojo on your side as time goes on. It's a new setup each time so that's something we. You know fall for all the time just in our everyday everyday lives. Um and another one here I'm sure you guys have seen this one do this happens all the time this is related to um, pulling at the emotional strengths the band wagon logical fallacy where dude everyone's doing it so you're you're not appealing to. Emotion as much as you're appealing to popularity. Well everyone says you know 50% of people believe in an atlantis so I guess you better get on that you know 80% of people believe in ghosts so I don't know what you're doing saying there aren't any. You see you see what that I mean it doesn't matter what people believe it's what can you prove? Scientifically what is your argument say right? So what? if a hundred people believe in Atlantis there's no atlantis and with that bit of happiness I'll see you guys on the flip side in a moment. 32:05.15 kinkella Note to Chris this is my crappy coffee. Okay Chris this is my man coffee all right I can taste the impurities. The bad water don't even care right. $1400 coffee machine. Ah, yeah, it does what it needs to. 32:37.58 kinkella Oh man. 32:44.70 kinkella Um, where am I at dude I Still got a decent amount of these These are fun. Ah, ah. 33:04.82 kinkella Sorry. 33:10.73 kinkella Hello and welcome back to the pseudo archeology podcast episode 124 can you believe it I think this is like 30 or so episodes for me man I work for you people I work and I toil. And we are talking about logical fallacies and I've just been going down the list that I made and I kind of you know, made a little edits to it and I tried to think of pseudo archeology examples for just about all of them. Ah, we are down to the last several there's ah, there's a couple stars of the show still to come. Um. Including this one right here. Oh god logical fallacy of appeal to authority and there's a flip side to this one too. That's been used more and more recently in Pseudo Archeology this idea that authorities are automatically right, right? Well you know, um one geologist. Said that the earth is only 6000 years old yeah and he's a geologist. Well he's full of it that you know you can always find some fringe person to kind of say something but and they will use that 1 example be like oh well, this authority says it and of course you know oil companies can use that to you know. Drill in places where they shouldn't well the one biologist said that those birds are not endangered. You know so this false appeal to authority. You'll find a fringe person to say it on the flip side though. What you see so often in pseudo archeology is like this reverse. It's like appeal to the underdog. 34:40.16 kinkella Authority is wrong right? Authority is bad. They don't know what they're doing. They are big archeology right? They're they're part of the system man. Really interesting and dangerous change. You know in our culture where it's like oh authority is always wrong. Um, because they're they lie to you. They don't tell you the truth. So I see much more a flip of this the idea that um because I'm an archaeologist with a ph d and that kind of stuff that is immediately a bad thing because I'm locked in the box right. There's just another archaeologist um trying to save his career I get that one all the time. Oh I guess you just doing this for your career like it's not has nothing to deal with it. You know it's it's sad. Um, but. But those arguments can work see. That's the thing course. There's no such thing as but I love the idea of big archeology. It's like hilarious I want a t-shirt that says like minion of big archaeology that would be hilarious, but it's sad at the same time because those arguments work you guys you know Graham Hancock does that one all the time. Right? Just just another cug in the machine who doesn't think beyond his academic hovel. You know, um, another logical fallacy of um, this is this is related to some of the others but like. 36:15.92 kinkella If 1 part is true. It must be applied to all the other parts or if there's some statement about the whole of an argument that it applies to every single bit of it. Um, we we could say something like um, you know for ancient astronauts. Um. Since the hands are placed like some like an astronaut in the apollo capsule well that whole thing is an image of an astronaut you see I've just used this one thing and it's tenuous and crappy to well the hands of pacall on his sarcophagus lid. Parving's just like an ancient as is just like a modern astronaut. So obviously the whole thing is that's an ancient astronaut right? there that you see you know you disregard all the other stuff. It's just the one little piece. Um silly ah this other one has a terrible name. No true scotsman. 37:12.73 kinkella Another one of those terrible names but all this is is a purity play related to some of the others of course that where it's like you'll hear this no real archaeologist would say what you say you're not a real archeologist because no real archaeologist with it. Yeah oh I've gotten that one so many times you guys. It's just ignorant. You know like. You don't know what a real archaeologist does on top of it I am a real archaeologist I'm about as real as you could get you know? Um, or I've even got this one so weird 99% of archeologists disagree with you I'm like that makes no sense whatsoever. But. They'll put that on there you know and it just you see how it could work. You could put me on a on my back foot if especially if they go first. Well you know Kingin Kela I mean let's all be honest, 99% of archaeologists disagree with you know they don't but I but then I have to then I have to. Okay, and I have to go actually that's not true blah blah blah and I'm already on my back foot right? I've already been punched. Um, there's another one called the genetic argument where um, an idea is good or bad. Just purely based on where it's from. Just turn your brain off and go with it. Graham Hancock has 1000000 people who do this Whatever he says they go with in the pseudo archeology world I've gotten this again and again and again where they'll be like they they take his whole argument. They don't even listen to me. It's like pointless. What I say almost. It's like. 38:45.51 kinkella Oh well, we know that I mean there's a super civilization that was here before the last ice age right? They just start with that and it's just because they believe every single thing that's on like ancient apocalypse you know it's it's the genetic argument. Whatever I say is bad. Whatever I say is big archaeology just where it's come from. You know? and unfortunately this bleeds out to our current culture. We've seen this. We have these 2 silos you know, either, you're in the democrat silo or you're in the republican silo. It's genetic and whatever they say whatever they say on Fox News is right whatever they say on Cnn is right right and it's the worst way to be I swear you guys I feel like I just. Roam a field somewhere because I don't feel a kinship with either of the silos it's a good way to be that it's terrible just to believe something based on where it comes from and not turning your brain on um in a in a bit of a. Relationship to that. There's also the black or white argument also known as the false dilemma where it's like you don't you don't deal with any shades of gray. Um, it's just ah, hey look the age of the earth is either four point six billion years or 6000 years the end you know like there's just this like. Black and white you. There's no there's no room to talk. There's no room to um, ah, explain there's no room to sort of talk in a gray area about well. In this case, it's like this but over here, it's more like this. Um you know? well the pyramids in Egypt are actually built in this manner and then the pairs pyramis in the Maya world are actually built in a very different manner. 40:18.32 kinkella And then the go. So what you're saying is there's a version There's some like strawman arguments in here. You'll start to see you guys if you think that some of these arguments will have follow ups of other logical fallacies. So black or white. They'll be like you know, look all the pyramids are related. It's obvious. You know and and then and then they can go what you're saying they're not and where the truth is look egyptian and Maya Pyramids are not related at all but Maya Pyramids and pyramids in Central Mexico they do have a certain relationship but see that's the true shade of gray answer. But then they can follow up and so what you're saying is there's no relationship between any of these pyramids ever see. It's like a double It's like a one two punch um of begging the question this is this is another way way of saying a circular argument. So the logical fallacy of the conclusion in the premise. I do this all the time you guys when I joke about my film degree now. It's true that I do have a films degree but whenever we're talking about like Indiana Jones movies or whatever I will I'll say like um I'll say like ah so you know, um, since I have a film degree. Whatever I say is correct in terms of the Indiana Jones movie right? It's ah it's like a circular argument right? So there's no room for art. It's there's there's no room to get into the conversation I'm like talking to myself. So whatever I say is right because I mean I have a a film degree. Um and whatever you say it's just not right I mean I just know what I'm doing. 41:48.80 kinkella And it just goes on forever. It's like oh um, so how do you know about this movie. Well I have a film degree. You know? Um, oh so why should you? we listen to because yeah I have a film degree. It's just like la la la la la la la right? like forever. Um, it's this is another one that I find this one doesn't work too. Well. A lot of times. It's kind of hilarious and sad to watch somebody really do this because you can actually really dig yourself a grave if you just do this circular argument thing I think people a lot of times can kind of call this one out and note it. It's why I use it for comic effect because it's funny. Um. Oh here's one that's sneaky all the time. The appeal to nature hey look. It's just how it is you know I mean look and and it's only natural this is right right? because it's only natural that this is right I mean um, look it's don't you see. The stones of Atlantis aren't those just naturally square I mean and and in terms of natural What I mean by that is human beings must have done. They just must have because that's it. That's not nature. Actually it's just look at them right? It's just ah, no right? No nature can make. Angular things too right? Um, we we can. We can use any any of them. Um, stin of some other ones I I've I've oh face face on mars face mar well look I mean looks like a face to me doesn't look like a face to you. It's obviously a face come. 43:23.42 kinkella Why are you? So so small mindded right? this appealed and it's just the natural way of things come on. Don't buck the system and then this is another one where you can do the ah follow up with a good little St Strawman. Oh so what? you're saying is that there's no possibility made life on Mars Ever You know. 43:42.64 kinkella Um, don't you get angry. Um, and oh anecdotal of ah personal experience. You know, um, look I had an archeology professor one time who did say that there was a little bit of evidence for atlantis see. Oh I see that your sample size is one but it can work personal experience can go a long way right? but it it doesn't have anything to do with a real data set or something like that. It can be 1 point as long as you have let me get a hundred other people's personal experience and personal experience itself we all know you know courtroom it has it has its own problems. Anecdotal evidence is terrible. There's what speaking of our bad names. There's the Texas sharpshootter fallacy this is cherry picking. That's all this is um I prefer the name cherry picking or go false cause we've seen this a million of 1 times. We'll we'll take this evidence but not all the other evidence that shows you wrong, right? We can. We can pick any of them that that are like that you know, um, ah Atlantis oh well, you know there's a. Volcanic eruption. Yeah, but it doesn't show all the other um evidence that shows this and doessis thing of Atlantis all the other non-evidence moments um pbe ree's map. Well there is a. 45:10.25 kinkella Part at the bottom where it could be Antarctica yeah, but all the evidence it shows that it's naturally it's just a curvature of South America it's way better evidence yet you just you just cherry pick used all the time of pseudo archeology right? You just you just you just picking what works for you just pick what works. Um. Ah, oh on on the um cherry picking side. You can you can go to ways with that too. You have the what's called the hasty generalization. You know, conclusion based on like no facts what? ah ah or the slot the flip side the slothful induction. Um. You you don't acknowledge the overwhelming facts that this is stuff like um I think this would be more of a hasty generalization when you get that. Um for the ah complex civilization at the end of the last ice age. The evidence is everywhere. No, it's not you know it's just that's just sort of you know. However, you want to argue. It's just this hasty generalization just based on Bs nothing I love the word slothful it slothful induction. It's like yeah you are lazy you know and you're just lazy and allowing yourself. It's like a loud ignorance. You know, um, where you just don't acknowledge where it's like well the facts are against you friend. No, they're not I don't understand you see how it write relates into some of these other logical fallacies I just don't get it. Um god oh here's one. 46:45.94 kinkella Here's one that will like burn your biscuit dude the middle ground fallacy where if I bring up something that's 100 % true right the pew res map does not show Antarctica hundred percent true. And then the other side goes. Well I think it does show Antarctica so we'll meet in the middle. We'll agree to disagree. No, it's not fifty fifty you see it gives credence to total bullshit arguments right? Where you oh well meet in the middle. It look can color. You're such a curmudgeon such an angryngri old man you need. Meet in the middle. This is the 1 this middle ground thing. This is why I will never take a pseudo archeology argument and go well maybe is the worst thing you can do as a professional right? Well, they're. Could have been at Atlanta so the so super civilization. Well you know the antikythera mechanism could have been a very advanced device that ah more advanced and modern computers. No, it's not right. We have to stick to our facts we need to know like that that we are on the side of the right because it's obvious there is facts and. Fiction here. My friends that is all it is right? and I think the real downside in all of this you know, um, when we're dealing with Pseudo Archeology is so much of it. It's actually not even every day where they can get to the point of having a. 48:15.85 kinkella Decent ah logical fallacy because their arguments are so stupid to begin with. They're just a hundred percent fake right? If you have something that's 100 % made up. It's just this like red herring trail of worthlessness from the beginning. But. As I said at the beginning us as professional archeologists or people in general public who want to make a good argument because Uncle Frank is spouting his Bs again, you know you can be aware of these arguments and once you hear all these you're like oh my god you know you realize how many times you've been um, a. Party to these how many times people have used these on me how many times like in a social situation somebody has made you look bad who used that sort of like um, some sort of appeal to that you an ad hom in an attack and sometimes they're subtle right? and ah an attack on your character to sort of. Angle away from the fact that you were right? Yeah, how many times how many high school bullies learned this stuff you know so with that I hope you learned a little I hope you can now defend yourself and go out in the world and conquer my friends and with that. I'll see you guys next time.