Movie Review: Transformers

Summary: A war re-erupts on Earth between two robotic clans, the heroic Autobots and the evil Decepticons, leaving the fate of mankind hanging in the balance. Based on the great cartoon in the 80s.

Rating: 7.5 out of 10

Review: I love Transformers. I grew up with the cartoon and had tons of the actual transformers growing up. First of all, the movie did a pretty good job bringing me back to my childhood. It was fun to watch and try to remember the names of the transformer characters. In terms of action, this movie has it all. There are some fantastically epic battles. My only gripe in the action category is that some of the fights were so fast that it was hard to pick out what was going on. It was just a blur of metal rolling around and destroying the city. The actual transformations of the characters were really good. I wish I had one of those as a figure. The plot was the weakest part of the movie. It wasn’t really bad; it was just an excuse to see big, sentient robots fighting one another. My last gripe was that some of the dialogue did not seem to fit the characters. The humor from the transformers wasn’t always smooth. Some of the puns and one-liners took the viewer out of the movie and were not needed. Other than a mediocre plot, this was a great movie with some kick ass battles.

LFotW: Post-hoc ergo propter hoc

This week's logical fallacy is Post-hoc ergo propter hoc.

This is perhaps the most common of logical fallacies. It follows the basic format of A preceded B, therefore A caused B, and therefore assumes cause and effect for two events just because they are temporally related (the Latin translates to “after this, therefore because of this”). This logical fallacy is frequently invoked when defending various forms of alternative medicine - I was sick, I took treatment A, I got better, therefore treatment A made me better. It is possible to have recovered from an illness without any treatment.

Keep in mind (as with the correlation and causation fallacy described later) it is possible that A did cause B. The logical fallacy is in assuming causation. It is still valid to argue for causation if there is independent evidence to support a causational relationship over other interpretations, such as coincidence.

LFofW: Argument from final outcome or consequences

The logical fallacy for this week is Argument from Consequence. Such arguments (also called teleological) are based on a reversal of cause and effect, because they argue that something is caused by the ultimate effect that it has, or purpose that is serves. This argument takes some permutation of the form that if a claim were either true or untrue, then the consequences would either be good or bad, and therefore what is true is what leads to either achieving a good outcome or avoiding a bad outcome.
For example, Christian creationists have argued that evolution must be wrong because if it were true it would lead to immorality.

Subtype: Argument from Benefit
Another common, and perhaps more subtle, form of this logical fallacy is the notion that if someone or some entity benefited from an event they must have caused the event. This fallacy is commonly invoked in the context of the JFK assassination in order to support an alleged conspiracy. The argument is that if someone benefited from the assassination of JFK they must have been involved in a conspiracy to carry out the assassination.

Subtype: Appeal to Fear
The appeal to fear is an argument from consequences, but in this case the consequences are individually relevant – an outcome to be personally feared. For example, proselytizers often argue that you should accept the claims of their religion for if you reject them you risk eternal damnation.

Subtype: Appeal to Flattery
Like the appeal to fear, this is a personalized version of the argument from final consequences, this time positive rather than negative. This logical fallacy is the attempt to convince someone of a claim because of implied flattery. For example, alleged psychics may support their claims of psychic abilities by claiming that they sense psychic potential in the person they are trying to convince.

Subtype: Appeal to Pity
This fallacy attempts to support a claim out of pity, sympathy, or even obligation to some person or group. For example, some proponents of Gulf War Syndrome have argued that we should accept the reality of this syndrome because we owe it to our veterans who fought for us in the Gulf War. Another example is the claim that silicone breast implants cause autoimmune disease, despite all evidence to the contrary. During this debate there were many appeals to pity for the victims of silicone breast implants. This can also be considered the fallacy of assuming the conclusion, because having sympathy for the victims of silicone breast implants assumes they are victims, which is the very matter of debate.

Movie Review: Blades of Glory

Summary: How can you make pairs figure skating even more exciting? How about we add Will Ferrell skating with Napoleon Dynamite? Oh, yeah.

Rating: 7.5 out of 10

Review: Before I rented this one (actually, we use Netflix) I was told it wasn’t very good. Even for a Will Ferrell movie. When you go into a Ferrell movie, you know what to expect: stupid situations mixed with “you can’t help but laugh” humor. His movies will not win an Oscar any time soon. You know this, and yet they are still freakin’ hilarious. BUT, I was told that this one was bad, even for Ferrell?! Let me tell you, this was not true. It was a great movie (again, for a Ferrell-style comedy). I laughed out loud at least a dozen times. Will Ferrell was the perfect complement to Jon Heder (Napoleon Dynamite). Will was the tough, manly skater compared to the very feminine and graceful Jon Heder. This proved the prefect combination for banter and hilariousness. Not only that, but the other actors were great: Amy Pholer (SNL), Jenna Fisher (The Office), and Will Arnett (Arrested Development). All in all, a good laugh that did not disappoint.

The Baby Moved!!!

And I felt it. She ... I mean he was kicking up a storm today. I think we were pissing him off by pushing back trying to feel the kicking. But, he was really kicking. Pretty cool.

LFotW: Argument from Authority

The logical fallacy of this week is Argument from Authority. The basic structure of such arguments is as follows: Professor X believes A, Professor X speaks from authority, therefore A is true. Often this argument is implied by emphasizing the many years of experience, or the formal degrees held by the individual making a specific claim. The converse of this argument is sometimes used, that someone does not possess authority, and therefore their claims must be false. (This may also be considered an ad-hominen logical fallacy.)

In practice this can be a complex logical fallacy to deal with. It is legitimate to consider the training and experience of an individual when examining their assessment of a particular claim. Also, a consensus of scientific opinion does carry some legitimate authority. But it is still possible for highly educated individuals, and a broad consensus to be wrong – speaking from authority does not make a claim true.

This logical fallacy crops up in more subtle ways also. For example, UFO proponents have argued that UFO sightings by airline pilots should be considered valid because pilots are trained observers, are reliable characters, and are trained not to panic in emergencies. In essence, they are arguing that we should trust the pilot’s authority as an eye witness.

The argument from authority, or appeal to authority, has many potential subtypes, all of which invest authority in a particular group or situation. In the broadest sense this logical fallacy assumes that because a person or group possesses some positive quality (such as authority), their claims are true. Below are some examples of different types of positive qualities worth specific mention.

Subtype: Appeal to Common Belief
This fallacy is the argument that a claim must be true because many people believe it. It ignores the possibility, demonstrated frequently throughout history, that the majority can be completely wrong. The popularity of an idea or claim is often based upon features other than logic or evidence.

Subtype: Appeal to impending acceptance
I consider this to be a subtype to the argument from authority, because it attempts to invoke the authority of future belief and acceptance. Many peudosciences, such as creationism, ESP, and UFOlogy, claim that broad acceptance is right around the corner. This is a logical fallacy (the argument from authority) coupled with an assumed premise (that of future acceptance).

Subtype: Appeal to virtue or sincerity
This is the argument that a person or group possesses a virtue and therefore their claims must be true. For example, alternative medicine proponents often cite that a particular practitioner is very sincere and caring, and therefore claims for the efficacy of their treatment should be believed. Also, a credulous ghosthunter argued to me that an eyewitness who claimed to have seen someone levitate three feet off their bed should be believe because “why would she lie.”

Subtype: Argument from Conspiracy or anti-authority
This is the converse of the argument from authority, and basically states that a claim is false because it is held and promoted by an authority. This occurs often in the context that the official government position must be false because it’s the official government position. This is more properly considered a subtype of ad-hominem logical fallacy, arguing that the government must be wrong because they habitually lie or engage in cover-up conspiracies.

Movie Review: Zodiac

Summary: True story of a murder mystery with a lot of investigative journalism.

Rating: 5.0 out of 10

Review: The movie started strong with some murders and with a “who done it” feel. But, as the hours roll by, I just wanted them to find the guy (or girl) and get it over with. The movie was 2 ½ hours long and this was at least 60 minutes too long. It finished much weaker than it started. Pretty boring in the end. So, all in all, it was just an “alright” movie. It is an interesting story; it just wouldn’t end. (I guess that can happen when you tell a true story)