A Magical Journey through the Land of Logical Fallacies - Part 1
An examination of many of the most common logical fallacies.
Filed under Logic & Persuasion
| Skeptoid #73 November 06, 2007 Podcast transcript | Listen | Subscribe Also available in Greek |
|
If you've ever had a conversation with anyone about their supernatural or pseudoscientific beliefs, you've almost certainly been slapped in the face with a logical fallacy or two. Non-scientific belief systems cannot be defended or supported by the scientific method, by definition, and so their advocates turn elsewhere for their support. In this episode, we're going to examine a whole bunch of the most common logical fallacies that you hear in reference to various pseudosciences. When you hear one that you recognize, be sure to wave and say hello.
Let's begin with:
The Straw Man Argument
We're starting with this one because it's the most common and also one of the easiest to spot. This is where you state your position, and your opponent replies not to what you said, but to an exaggerated and distorted caricature of what you said that's obviously harder to defend.
Starling says: "People who commit minor offenses should be let out of jail sooner."
Bombo replies: "Emptying out all the jails would create havoc in society."
Well, maybe Bombo's right, but that's not relevant, because "emptying the jails" is not what Starling advocated. In fact Bombo did not refute Starling's point at all — he invented a different point that was easier to argue against. He created a straw man — one of those dummies stuffed with straw that soldiers use for bayonet practice. It's too weak to fight back. And Bombo can then take satisfaction in having made a point that no reasonable person would argue with, and he appears to have successfully defeated Starling's argument, when in fact he dodged it.
Ad Hominem
From the latin for "to the person", an ad hominem is an attack against the arguer rather than the argument. This doesn't mean that you simply call the person a jerk; rather, it means that you use some weakness or characteristic of the arguer to imply a weakness of the argument.
Starling: "I think Volvos are fine automobiles."
Bombo: "Of course you'd say that; you're from Sweden."
Starling's Swedish heritage has nothing to do with the quality of Volvo automobiles, so Bombo's is an attempt to change the subject and is an avoidance of the issue at hand. Bombo is trying to imply that Starling's Swedish heritage biases, and thus invalidates, his statement. In fact, one thing has nothing to do with the other. Ad hominem arguments try to point out fault with the arguer, instead of with the argument.
Appeal to Authority
This type of argument refers to a special authoritative source as validation for the claim being made. Every time you see an advertisement featuring someone wearing a white lab coat, or telling you what 4 out of 5 dentists surveyed said, you're seeing an appeal to authority.
"Acupuncture is valid because it's based on centuries-old Chinese knowledge."
"This article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal says that people are getting fatter."
"A growing number of scientists say that evolution is too improbable."
"Wired Magazine says that Skeptoid is an awesome podcast."
An appeal to authority is the opposite of an ad hominem attack, because here we are referring to some positive characteristic of the source, such as its perceived authority, as support for the argument. But a good authority supports a position because that position has been shown to be otherwise justified or evidenced, not the other way around. If you say that scientists support Theory X, are those scientists claiming that Theory X is true because they believe it? No, good scientists attach no significance at all to their own authority. Theory X needs to stand on its own; an appeal to authority does not provide any useful support.
Special Pleading
An argument by special pleading states that the justification for some claim is on a higher level of knowledge than your opponent can comprehend, and thus he is not qualified to argue against it. The most common case of special pleading refers to God's will, stating that we are not qualified to understand his reasons for doing whatever he does. Special pleadings grant a sort of get-out-of-jail-free exemption to whatever higher power lies behind a claim:
Starling: "Homeopathy should be tested with clinical trials."
Bombo: "Clinical trials are not adequate to test the true nature of homeopathy."
No matter what Starling says, Bombo can claim that there is knowledge outside of Starling's experience or at a level that Starling cannot comprehend, and the argument is therefore ended. Bombo might also point out that Starling lacks some professional qualification to discuss the topic, thus placing the topic out of Starling's reach.
Bombo: "You're not a trained homeopath, so you shouldn't be expected to understand it."
A special pleading makes no attempt to address the opponent's point, it is just another diversionary tactic.
Anecdotal Evidence
One of the most common ways to support just about any non-evidence based phenomenon is through the fallacious misuse of anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence is information that cannot be tested scientifically. In practice this usually refers to personal testimonials and verbal reports. Anecdotal evidence often sounds compelling because it can be more personal and captivating than cold, uninteresting factual evidence.
Anecdotal evidence is not completely useless. You could say "We saw the Bigfoot corpse at such a location", and if that information helps with the recovery of an actual body, then the anecdotal evidence was of tremendous value. But, note that it's the Bigfoot corpse itself that comprises scientific evidence, not the story of where it was seen.
"I know for a fact that ghosts exist. My friend, who is a very reliable person, has seen ghosts on many occasions."
Anecdotal evidence is great for suggesting new directions in research, but by itself it is not evidence. When it is presented as evidence or in place of evidence, you have very good reason to be skeptical.
Observational Selection
Observational selection is the process of keeping the sample of data that agrees with your premise, and ignoring the sample of data that does not. Observational selection is the fallacy behind such phenomena as the Bible Code, psychic readings, the Global Consciousness Project, and faith healing. Observational selection is also a tool used by pollsters to produce desired survey results, by surveying only people who are predisposed to answer the poll the way the pollster wants.
Bombo: "The face of Satan is clearly visible in the smoke billowing from the World Trade Center."
Starling: "And in one of the other 950,000 frames of film, the smoke looks like J. Edgar Hoover; in another, it looks like a Windows XP icon; and in another it looks like a map of Paris."
Remember that one out of every million samples of anything is an incredible one-in-a-million rarity. This is a mere inevitability, but if observational selection compels you to ignore the other 999,999 samples, you're very easily impressed.
Appeal to Ignorance
Argumentum ad ignorantiam considers ignorance of something to be evidence that it does not exist. If I do not understand the mechanism of the Big Bang, that proves that there is no knowledge that supports it as a possibility and it therefore did not happen. Anything that is insufficiently explained or insufficiently understood is thus impossible.
Starling: "It is amazing that life arose through the fortuitous formation of amino acids in the primordial goo."
Bombo: "A little too amazing. I can't imagine how such a thing could happen; creationism is the only possibility."
Using the absence of evidence as evidence of absence is a common appeal to ignorance. People who believe the Phoenix Lights could not have been simple flares generally don't understand, or won't listen to, the thorough evidence of that. Their glib layman's understanding of what a flare might look like is inconsistent with their interpretation of the photographs, so they use an appeal to ignorance as proof that flares were not the cause.
Non-Sequitur
From the Latin for "It does not follow", a non-sequitur is an obvious and stupid attempt to justify one claim using an irrelevant premise. Non-sequiturs work by starting with a reasonable sounding premise that it's hoped you will agree with, and attaching it (like a rider to a bill in Congress) to a conclusion that has nothing to do with it. The sentence is phrased in such a way to make it sound like you have to accept both or neither:
"Corporations are evil, thus acupuncture is good."
"The government is evil, thus UFOs are alien spacecraft."
"Allah is great, thus all Christians should be killed."
When we do science, it takes more than simply connecting two phrases with the word "thus" to draw a valid relationship. Thus, non-sequiturs are not valid devices to prove a point scientifically.
Post Hoc
The idea that some event must have been caused by a given earlier event, simply because it happened later, is post hoc ergo propter hoc — "It happened later so it was caused by". The assumption of cause and effect is the type of pattern that our brains are hardwired to find, and so we find them everywhere. He took a homeopathic remedy, and his cancer was cured — one happened after the other, and so the faulty assumption is that the homeopathy caused the remission.
Starling: "I bought this car from you, and the heater is broken."
Bombo: "It worked before you bought it, so you must have broken it yourself."
Bombo sees that the breakage happened after Starling made the purchase, so he assumes that one caused the other. In fact there are no grounds for such a correlation. Combined with observational selection, faulty post hoc assumptions account almost entirely for the proliferation of alternative therapies and widespread belief in psychic powers.
Confusion of Correlation and Causation
Closely related to post hoc, but a little bit different, is the confusion of correlation and causation. Post hoc assumptions do not necessarily include any correlation between the two observations. When there is a correlation, but still no valid causation, we have a more convincing confusion.
Starling: "Chinese people eat a lot of rice."
Bombo: "Therefore the consumption of rice must cause black hair."
Due to the nature of Chinese agriculture, there is indeed a worldwide correlation between rice consumption and hair color. This is a perfect example of how causation can be invalidly inferred from a simple correlation.
Slippery Slope
A slippery slope argument presumes that some change will inevitably result in extreme exaggerated consequences. If I give you a cookie now, you'll expect a cookie every five minutes, so I shouldn't give you a cookie.
Starling: "It should be illegal to sell alternative therapies that don't work."
Bombo: "If that happened, any minority group could make it illegal to sell anything they don't happen to like."
No matter what Starling suggests, multiplying it by ten or a hundred is probably a poor proposition. Bombo can use a slippery slope argument to exaggerate any suggestion Starling makes into a recipe for disaster.
The slippery slope is probably the most common subset of the larger fallacy, argument from adverse consequences, which is the practice of inventing almost any dire consequences to your opponent's argument:
Starling: "They should remove 'Under God' from the Pledge of Allegiance."
Bombo: "If that happened, all hell would break loose. Students would have sex in the hallways, school shootings would skyrocket, and we would become a nation of Satan worshippers."
That's enough for one day. Any more than this at one sitting would turn anyone into a quivering lump of irrational jelly, just like the one that first took shape in the primordial goo. Next week we'll continue and wrap up our list of logical fallacies. Until then, digest all of these that your system won't reject.
You should follow me on twitter here.
© 2007 Skeptoid Media, Inc. Copyright information
References & Further Reading
Clark, J., Clark, T. Humbug! The skeptic's field guide to spotting fallacies in thinking. Brisbane: Nifty Books, 2005.
Damer, T. Edward. Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments. Belmont CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company; 3rd edition, 1995. 224.
Miller C., Miller, D. "On evidence, medical and legal." Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. 1 Sep. 2005, Volume 10, Number 3: 70-75.
Randi, James. "SYLVIA BROWNE ON THE ROPES." Swift - Weekly Newsletter of the James Randi Educational Foundation. James Randi Educational Foundation, 2 Feb. 2007. Web. 18 Oct. 2007. <http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-02/020207geller.html#i3>
Walton, D. Informal Logic: A Handbook for Critical Argumentation. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989.
Reference this article:
Dunning, Brian.
"A Magical Journey through the Land of Logical Fallacies - Part 1." Skeptoid Podcast. Skeptoid Media, Inc.,
6 Nov 2007. Web.
10 Sep 2010. <http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4073>
Discuss!
Remember, you should always read with skepticism the comments of anyone too lame to put their real name & city.
Thats very clever of you Robert.
A fan of Peta then?
People for the Eating of Tasty Animals.
Just what exactly, is your point?
Marius vanderLubbe, Nullabour Plain, Australia
November 06, 2007 12:36pm
Thanks for the compliment, Marius. And I assume your question to be rhetorical as gauging from your previous posts, you're certainly clever enough to infer my point. However, I think it worth noting that your comment carries with it an implicit Ad Hominem attack upon me, specifically, Ad Hominem Circumstantial (though there is also a hint of Ad Hominem 'tu quoque' implicit in your attack as well). The fact that I may or may not support People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA) does not effect my "point" now does it.
Robert, New Haven
November 06, 2007 3:43pm
Not at all Bob. I simply think that the Peta crowd could benefit from a good sirloin, or a bucket of chicken. To heap scorn upon suchlike is something I do partake in with some relish, however, but not here. We play nice.(Can I call you Bob? Its' easier to type)Here's my inferral (Is that a real word?) of the point you were trying to make.
You are yourself inferring that Brian is being hypocritical. Why not just say it? He's a big lad. He can take it..So is that the point you were labouring to make?
Marius vanderLubbe, Nulabour Plain, Australia
November 07, 2007 2:32am
Thanks Marius. (Sure, you can call me Bob.) Look, my point is this. Brian made two ad hominem attacks in that podcast, i.e., two *bad* arguments relying on emotional rather than rational appeals. Now, I understand that, first and foremost, Skeptoid is intended as *entertainment*. I understand that. So I expect Brian to incorporate rhetorical flair and emotional appeals (as he often does). It makes good radio! However, as good skeptics and advocates of science and reason, we need to be hyper-vigilant when it comes to argumentation. When I first read Brian's attack on PeTA back in May, I wasn't so much disappointed that he attacked PeTA, but rather, was disappointed that he resorted to that kind of Rush Limbaugh-style 'argumentation' (a term I use loosely in describing what folks like Limbaugh do). (Though if Brian (or *anyone*) wants to argue animal rights with me, I say, "Bring it!") As advocates of reason (and, in my case, as an educator), we need to be on our toes about how we argue. Again, I understand the rationale behind Brian's use of emotional appeals. But the fact is, if one of my freshman critical thinking students submitted those two arguments to me, I would have given him an 'F'. Bottom line--entertainment or not--Brian should know better. I was just using this forum to make that point. And yes, in the spirit of Dunningesque tongue-in-cheek sarcasm, I did it on this forum. I would hope that Brian, of all people, would appreciate the *way* that I did it. Cheers!
Robert, New Haven
November 07, 2007 8:23am
Nice episode, Brian. I have a couple comments though. I think you mistook the Appeal to Ignorance for another fallacy. I think it was coined by Richard Dawkins as the "Argument from Personal Incredulity". That's basically this: I don't understand how X could be possible, therefore X isn't possible.
An Argument from Ignorance is when someone appeals to a gap or unknown phenomena and attributes the cause to a paranormal or supernatural being. It's also called "God of the gaps". Anyone claiming that a UFO is an alien space craft is committing the argument from ignorance by definition. The spot in the sky is UNIDENTIFIED, therefore it's an alien. Perhaps they should re-read the first half of their own argument.
So, yeah that's my critique. You got the argument from personal incredulity mixed up with the argument from ignorance. Despite that mixing up of terms, you points were well taken AND your examples were superb!
Danny Schade, Boulder, CO
November 07, 2007 8:30am
'Special Pleading' is more generally defined as claiming an unjustified exception to a general rule.
Shayne, Oxford, MA, USA
November 07, 2007 4:59pm
Great, succinct, funny!
Peter Gaffney, Los Angeles
November 08, 2007 2:30am
There's a commonly used argument that I think should have its own fallacy category that I like to call "ad pecuniam." (Latin corrections welcome.) Examples include:
"Giving favors to doctors must cause them to prescribe more of a particular type of drug; otherwise, the pharmaceutical companies wouldn't spend so much money on favors for doctors."
"Films depicting graphic violence must bring in more money than family flicks; otherwise, Hollywood producers wouldn't spend so much money making violent films."
"Subliminal advertising must be effective; otherwise, big advertising agencies wouldn't use it."
Basically, the arguments assume that money makes people behave rationally. Anyone who's worked in a corporation knows that isn't always true.
Shayne, Oxford, MA, USA
November 10, 2007 1:42pm
This is great, but very inspired by Wikipedia's article, in my opinion. [citation needed] :)
Matt K, Montreal
December 04, 2007 10:43am
My only critique of your podcast is that you seemingly mistook the argument from person incredulity for the argument from ignorance. Other than that, it was a fantastic podcast. Keep up the good work. :)
William, PA
January 22, 2008 12:04am
Scientific American just posted an interesting article on the Ad Hominem:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=character-attack
Rob Hooft, The Netherlands
June 01, 2008 12:19pm
I am kind of curious how you did the special voices in the podcast. Were they entirely computer generated or simply a computer modifying words spoken by a person? If the former, I am curious what program you used. They actually sounded a lot more natural than text-to-spoken word generators I have experimented with.
Next, in the spirit of identifying poor arguments, I will accuse Robert of also making something of a straw-man argument. You are unfairly characterizing what I believed to be a well-thought out and evidence-based negative look at criticisms of farm-fishing by only two of many statements. These were meant more to be jokes and satire of the ridiculousness of the arguments in favor of subject matter than serious points.
And to prevent me from being counter-accused of strawing your argument, I acknowledge that you made the point about these statements being simply rhetorical flare. But, suggesting that these were the best, and not the worst, arguments he offered is dishonest.
P.s. still want to know about those voice generators.
Patrick, Orlando
November 22, 2008 3:29pm
Okay, having just read this one, I would like to put it to the test. I'll field a dual question here (using Skeptoid's most heated topic) and invite anybody to give me an answer, without falling into any of the logical fallacies listed in this epidode.
Ready? (I'll try to make this question as clear as possible with a bit of "qualifying intro"):
INTRO
In the ongoing controversy between the two opposing views of Evolution [EVo] and Special Creation [SCr], the first one deals with biological processes and life sciences but also with earth sciences, geological evidences, paleontology, astronomy, physics, and cosmology. SCr also deals with the same fields.
EVo claims organic evolution involving micro and macro sets, and with speciation (separate species diversifying into newer species) and with biogenesis.
SCr accepts microevolution processes, but rejects speciation via macroevolution. EVo has an old-world view; SCr has a young-world view.
QUESTION: (a) If all of the Earth's (and universe) systems and processes which involve these sciences are to be viewed and interpreted in their various dynamic changes, is it fairer to follow the process back as far as possible to a Beginning, and state what that beginning would likely be (thus implying SCr)? OR (b) is it fairer to observe microevolution - which is possible - and state that macroevolution occurs and is inferred in those processes, (thus implying EVo)?
I particularly hope for no Straw Man Arguments here.
Joe Boudreault, Hanover, Ontario, Canada
May 04, 2009 5:53pm
It depends on which you try to confirm; if you don't want to confirm SCr, then don't go all the way back. If you want to prove SCr, go all the way back.
The key to that is knowing that EVo doesn't even remotely claim that it knows how everything was created; if a Deity is necessary and irrefutable, then EVo is simply a very good toolset the Deity could use to make sure the system is self-sustaining.
There should not be a controversy to bein with; EVo could be a suset of SCr's premise, or you can treat them separately and unrelated (with SCr defining the beginning and EVo defining how the Deity's creatures continue with or without Him).
Joseph, Norman
June 08, 2009 8:09am
Yes, Joseph, there are those two possibilities there. But evolution always demands a huge amount of time and creation sticks to the straight and narrow of young time.
I want to engage in a conversation or discussion of the possibility that we live in a very young universe (ie 10,000 years) as opposed to an ancient evolving universe. I believe the science supports only a young universe. Who's willing to debate this seriously?
I wish to confirm that special creation is the answer which supports the scientific evidence which we now have and can see before us.
A logical fallacyn is one in which the supposed argument says that one point of view is silly and the other poinht of view is valid. Which is true?
Joe Boudreault, Hanover, On, Canada
June 17, 2009 5:19pm
(this was posted by myself on a different podcast in response to a post Joe made. I feel it lends itself to this podcast as well)
"I have total respect for all science, and I am not afraid of its discoveries. Truth is truth."
Funny that you stated this 2 weeks ago, and yet now you won't discuss the physics-based refutation of Brown's hypothesis. Nor will you discuss the fossil record. So, what science do you have a respect for? Only the science that supports your beliefs? That's not exactly being open to the "truth is truth" bit nor being unafraid of the discoveries of science, Joe...
John, New York
July 22, 2009 3:57pm
My understanding of special pleading is that it is when one introduces new (often speculative) information for the sake of answering criticisms or deflecting falsification. Special Pleading is an off-the-cuff "plug" for a leaking argument. Example: "I checked to see if a little fairy was stealing the cookies, like you said, Johnny. My surveillance cameras found nothing."
Johnny: "They're invisible!"
The example of scientific testing not being capable of properly looking at homeopathy does seem to be a subtle example; but my point is that I don't believe every example of Special Pleading necessarily invokes a "higher level of knowledge."
Otherwise, great discussion, as always, Mr. Dunning. :)
Jason Goertzen, New Westminster, Canada
August 21, 2009 5:22pm
This discussion (both episodes) is an exceptional summary. I think it should be expanded slightly, accompanied by a study guide, and used in every high school classroom in America. Seriously, there is a need and a market for this
Jerry Griffith, Fairfax, VA
December 09, 2009 11:54am
I love skeptoid. I just want to mention that these robot voices are really hard to understand. Keep up the good work!
Melanie L., Austin, TX
January 08, 2010 2:02am
The most recent episode of Southpark, titled "Medicinal Fried Chicken" has a good sub-plot joke that illustrates either Post hoc or Confusion of Correlation and Causation. (I have a hard time telling them apart)
Aaren, Cedar Park, TX
April 02, 2010 8:13pm
That's probably because the Post Hoc is necessarily a subset of the Confussion of Correlation and Causation. The Post Hoc fallacy is essientially confussing a temporal correlation (X occurs after Y) with a causation (Y causes/caused X), without adequate discussion of causal mechanisms.
In other words, Confusion is the more generic type of fallacy, where Post Hoc is the specific fallacy.
Jerry Griffith: There's a book, "Attacking Faulty Reasoning", that does just that. I'd give you the full reference, but it's 2,200 miles away right now.
Gregory, Alabama
April 28, 2010 12:10pm
I'll give you a hand, Gregory. Have to back up my fellow southerners.
The book Gregory mentions is:
Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-free Arguments, 6th edition
Author: T. Edward Damer
Published 2009 by Wadsworth/Cengage Learning
Seems to be a fine book from what little I've seen.
Be well,
Mike
Mike Weaver, Athens, Ga
April 28, 2010 3:21pm
Another fallacy oft missed is what I call the `dismissal by fallacy'.
Finding a hole in an argument does not render the argument completely invalid, nor its conclusions false, nor its arguer evil or stupid. This is essentially ad hominem - 'youve set up a straw man, so i shall stop listening to you'.
It's an easy pit to fall in if you're constantly on the lookout for these fallacies.
Grim Shaw, Australia
August 30, 2010 7:30pm
I wish they taught this as part of the standard K-12 curriculum in the US. Have you ever considered making course materials for children?
Bill Spratley, Columbus, Ohio
August 31, 2010 9:37pm
Grim Shaw, what you describe is formally known as the 'Fallacy fallacy'. If I said, "The government is an evil Illuminati controlled puppy mill and therefore the sky is blue," the reasoning may be completely faulty, but that doesn't mean the conclusion is wrong.
However, it isn't useless shorthand to dismiss arguments presenting completely crazy reasoning. They may well have come to the correct conclusion, but using completely useless reasoning that will have no practical value. If someone is arguing their point only in straw man, ad hom, proof by verbosity, etc, I'm not going to assume the conclusion is wrong, but continuing listening to them, even just to find out what the conclusion is, is a waste of time. Better to find out through proper reasoning than to find a conclusion of unknown validity with a useless line of reasoning and then have to go over it all AGAIN with correct reasoning.
If someone says that aspertaine is dangerous because the government pushed it through and Rumsfield is an evil man, I'm not going to continue listening to that person for my information on that subject. That doesn't mean I'm going to dismiss someone else in the future saying, "Hey, here is a well performed and repeated study showing that aspertaine increases breathing problems through this specific mechanism."
Brandon, Falconer
September 03, 2010 6:35am
Make a comment about this episode of Skeptoid (please try to keep it brief & to the point). Anyone can post:
You can also discuss this episode in the Skeptoid Forum, hosted by the James Randi Educational Foundation.
Join the Skeptalk email discussion list.
What's the most important thing about Skeptoid?
![[Valid RSS]](/images/valid-rss-rogers.png "Validate my RSS feed"){kind=small}
Here are are examples of two fallacies I found on the internet. The first is an example of the Ad Hominem Fallacy:
"Fish farming is considered a good thing by such a large consensus that you have to dig pretty deep to find criticism of it: You have to dig all the way down to our favorite anti-human fire-bombing eco-terrorists at PETA, just the people you want in charge of your unbiased science information."
Here, instead of attacking the claim made by PeTA--that fish farming may be harmful--the arguer attacks the source of the argument (in this case, PeTA) with a classic example of an Abusive ("anti-human fire-bombing eco-terrorists") Ad Hominem.
And here's another fallacy I found on the internet. This one's an example of the Anecdotal Evidence Fallacy:
"They [PeTA] also argue, strangely, that eating fish is toxic. That's news to me; I eat as much fish as anyone and I appear to be alive."
This is just like the smoker who argues that smoking doesn't cause cancer because he has been smoking for 40 years and has never gotten cancer! Same type of faulty reasoning based on the Anecdotal Evidence Fallacy.
Oh, and by the way, in case you're wondering from which source on the internet I got these fallacies, why, they're from our own Brian Dunning's May 26, 2007, "Free Range Chicken and Farm Raised Fish" podcast!
Robert, New Haven
November 06, 2007 12:18pm