Guru10-spreads

#SCEPTICISM
LATIN, AND THE MODUS
OPERANDI OF THE
SUPER SCEPTIC
HOW TO WIN ARGUMENTS AND INFLUENCE PEOPLE
DARYL ILBURY • SCEPTIC GURU
RIGHT:
A tablet with
a 5th century
Latin inscription
located in the
Colosseum in
Rome.
LATIN, AND THE MODUS OPERANDI OF THE SUPER SCEPTIC
English is rapidly becoming the lingua
franca of scientific communication,
allowing scientists the world over to
share their ideas and discoveries. But
English is not the only language to
empower scientists, and give voice
to scientific reason. It’s ironic that
one of the most powerful tools for
debunking both pseudoscience and
those superstitions rooted in archaic
thinking is itself thousands of years
old. So what is this language? Our
Sceptic Guru, Daryl Ilbury, has the
answer: it’s Latin.
Don’t laugh and roll your eyes. It’s easy to
dismiss Latin as a ‘dead’ language, particularly
given that it’s no longer the official language
of any country. However, not only is it still
used, but it also remains the bedrock of several
cornerstones of modern civilisation – most
notably law and medicine. And for this reason
it evokes strength and authority.
It’s also impressive. Whip out the odd Latin
phrase in polite discourse, especially with a
dash of restrained ceremony, and it has the
same impact as George Clooney announcing
at a ladies’ book club that he also has a PhD
in astrophysics: discussion suddenly stops and
everyone pauses to ponder what’s just been
said, invariably with at least an eyebrow cocked.
So here are some handy Latin phrases to
keep tucked into your sceptic tool belt, and
explanations of how to use them in situations
drenched in superstition and pseudoscience:
The dinner party scenario: ‘How I
got pregnant…’
You’re at a dinner party and a woman claims
that she is finally pregnant after months of
trying, and it’s all because – on the advice of
an aunt – she and her husband made love
with a potato under the bed. After everyone
has smiled and nodded, you lean forward and
say wistfully: “Aaah – the classic post hoc ergo
propter hoc fallacy”. When everyone looks at you
with raised eyebrows you explain – with mild
surprise that they obviously didn’t get it – it
means ‘after this therefore because of this’.
This is a commonly-used line of reasoning
employed by peddlers of pseudoscience and
superstitions, which basically goes like this: if
B follows A then A must have caused B. This
is ridiculous because it assumes coincidence
is causation. Example: after successive games
without scoring, a footballer dons a new pair of
underpants when getting into his kit, and later
scores a goal. Ergo, the new pair of underpants
must have been responsible.
PAGE 19 • FEBRUARY/MARCH 2013 • ISSUE 10 • GURU
Previous Page: (People) Flickr • Ed Yourdon, (Tablet) Wikimedia • Wknight94, (Pregnant Woman) Flickr • mahalie