Mid-Michigan Atheists and Humanists

Mid-Michigan Atheists and Humanists is a social, educational, non-profit, proactive organization dedicated to protect the welfare of society by defending the wall of separation of church and state. We monitor ongoing political events and provide information to our membership when we observe a breach forming in that wall. We write letters to the editors and legislators. We hold protests and initiate legal actions when necessary.

Our membership is open to all who share the ideals of our organization. That being defending the wall of separation of church and state and protecting our first amendment rights.

Meeting announcement! MMAH Dinner Meeting to be held at 5:00 pm, Sunday, January 24, 2010. Venue Old Great Wall Buffet Restaurant (Private Banquet Room) 4832 W. Saginaw Hwy. Lansing, Michigan 48917 (517) 327-9500 Cost: Buffet $8:79 incl. tax (beverage extra except for hot tea), or order individual entrée from the menu By popular demand, we are delighted that Mark Thompson will again be our featured speaker for this month’s program.  Mark will speak on The Science of Influence: Building the Better Society or Social Engineering? Social psychology has been unpacking what happens when we make decisions.  One of the great insights has been the influence of factors that many of us never see or understand as we make “free” decisions.  This research is being done by psychologists, neurologists, behavioral economists, policy makers, marketers, lawyers and many others.  This work can now allow us to shape how we choose to live and interact with each other by shaping our environments and thereby our choices.  Is this a new form of mind control?  Or is it only taking what used to be done haphazardly by others and allowing society to choose how to use this “bug” (or feature) of our nature?  One way or another we are being influenced.  The question is “Who decides how we decide?”

Welcome! For those who know that the separation of church and state is constitutional, that science is not faith, that reason does prevail in moral debate - you’ve found friends. Video of the week. This is awesome, enjoy. Places to explore.

Carl Sagan The following are suggested as tools for testing arguments and detecting fallacious or fraudulent arguments: * Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts * Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view. * Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities"). * Spin more than one hypothesis - don't simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy. * Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours. * Quantify, wherever possible. * If there is a chain of argument every link in the chain must work. * "Occam's razor" - if there are two hypothesis that explain the data equally well choose the simpler. * Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified (shown to be false by some unambiguous test). In other words, it is testable? Can others duplicate the experiment and get the same result? Additional issues are * Conduct control experiments - especially "double blind" experiments where the person taking measurements is not aware of the test and control subjects. * Check for confounding factors - separate the variables. Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric * Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument. * Argument from "authority". * Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavourable" decision). * Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence). * Special pleading (typically referring to god's will). * Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased). * Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses). * Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes). * Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!) * Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because they are not "proved"). * Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down. * Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by" - confusion of cause and effect. * Meaningless question ("what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?). * Excluded middle - considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is). * Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?"). * Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle - unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile). * Confusion of correlation and causation. * Straw man - caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack.. * Suppressed evidence or half-truths. * Weasel words - for example, use of euphemisms for war such as "police action" to get around limitations on Presidential powers. "An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public"

• Home >