An underlying theme of this course is logic: what constitutes a logical argument, and how we can identify logical fallacies in arguments. Our Department of Philosophy has entire classes devoted to logic, and they are really the experts However, even if were not experts, we can learn some basic terminology that can help spot weak arguments and faulty inferences. This assignment is meant to help in this regard.
The link below is for an episode called Higher Level Technologies from a documentary series called The Pyramid Code. It is also available on Netflix, if you have an account and prefer to watch it there. You only need to watch the first 20 or 25 minutes to answer the questions below.
Here is the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHRUFVolU3k
While you are watching the video, think about the structure of the argument being made. Consider the following:
What is the central claim that is being made? Remember, the claim represents the conclusion of the argument, but it may be stated from the outset.
What are some examples of the evidence presented for this claim? The evidence here is equivalent to the premises, the things that are assumed as true in an argument.
How is the evidence connected to the claim being made? What inferences are being made? Do other things follow from the conclusion that could be used to test or verify it?
What is at least one example of a logical fallacy in this argument? Be specific, and remember that logical fallacies are different from false premises. Some of the evidence that is provided here is inaccurate or false, but you dont have to know that to spot the logical fallacies, which occur in how the evidence is connected (or not) to the claim being made.
Why is this argument a bad application of Occam’s Razor? Are there other qualities that make the claims here identifiable as an example of pseudoscience or pseudohistory?