Logic

I know someone who doesn’t believe in climate change because Al Gore flies on private jets. That’s a terrible argument. Gore’s carbon footprint has nothing to do with whether carbon dioxide traps heat in the atmosphere. The science stands regardless of who delivers the message. But here’s what bothers me: bad arguments don’t just fail to convince people. They make good conclusions look suspicious. When you hear a weak argument for something true, it plants doubt about the truth itself....

Bertrand Russell had a thought experiment. He asked us to imagine he claimed there was a teapot orbiting the sun, somewhere between Earth and Mars. Too small for telescopes to detect. But definitely there. If Russell made this claim, who would need to prove what? Would you need to prove the teapot doesn’t exist? Or would Russell need to prove it does? Obviously, Russell would need to provide evidence. The burden of proof falls on whoever makes the positive claim....