Comments on: The Fireplace Delusion

By: Grasspunk

Grasspunk — Wed, 18 Dec 2013 06:24:24 +0000

Do people really believe that fires are good for you? Fun and romantic, maybe, but not good. The main reason to base your heating on wood was cost.

There also seems to be a bit of confusion between recreation fire use and with data from regular fire use in dense urban areas. The people that might be romantic about fires don’t run them very often.

I guess there could be a slippery slope: romantic fires could lead to harder fire use and addiction.

By: Dave

Dave — Wed, 18 Dec 2013 03:42:39 +0000

Jesus loves humanity and desires to reconcile himself to fallen man. Repent of your sins against God’s law and rejoice that God sent His Son to save you!

By: William Newman

William Newman — Tue, 17 Dec 2013 21:37:58 +0000

I wonder whether this is another delusion warring it out with the delusion it attacks. I find it very plausible that people are overfond of fireplaces for irrational reasons. But 70% of smoke reenters buildings? From eyeballing the amount of soot deposited (noting lots of interiors have very light walls) and remembering typical patterns of chimney smoke seen from outside people’s homes, and remembering that I’ve never heard of a remarkably high figure for residences slurping up nasty material even in fairly numerate discussions of chemical attacks and nuclear fallout, I wonder whether the figure the article states as an absolute is even within an order of magnitude of what typically happens in the US or other places where most of his audience is. (Though admittedly, it is “research shows” which from context could easily come from mouth-breathing NGO fundraising literature, paraphrased without citation in a medium where citations are dead easy to give, by someone whose name has come up in other Internet drama, so I must concede that it’s pretty much guaranteed to be strictly true.)

By: Isegoria

Isegoria — Tue, 17 Dec 2013 19:32:27 +0000

The delusion is the heartfelt belief that a wood fire is good for you — since it smells and feels so good and has been good for thousands of years.

The problem is that it’s not an unalloyed good. In our natural environment, having a fire is much, much better than the alternative of freezing in the dark as predators approach. In our modern environment, it’s a (mildly) toxic alternative to cleaner sources of heat and light.

By: Hephaestus

Hephaestus — Tue, 17 Dec 2013 18:57:20 +0000

The example shows what it is like for someone, including the nonbeliever, “to suffer an unhappy collision with scientific rationality.”

The atheist who uses a fireplace is informed by the dry facts of modern science that he is a fool for the innocuous act of burning wood in a fireplace.

Get with the times, fire kills! Modern science provides a safer form of heat! Cast off the needless ritual of building a fire! Why are you comforted sitting next to the fire, hearing the crackle of the wood, watching the sparks of the fire wizard?

Likewise, the atheist informs the believer that he is a fool for tending the hearth in his soul.

By: Grasspunk

Grasspunk — Tue, 17 Dec 2013 14:51:47 +0000

Where’s the delusion?

Does this only work on city people that have a fireplace and central heating? I don’t get it.