Being Reasonable

Review of Jasmine Revolution debate, organised by IDEA

2011-05-27T14:17:00.010+01:00

Launching the London 2011 Youth Policy Symposium, Intelligence Squared (in association with the British Council and IDEA) presented a debate at the Royal Society asking whether the Jasmine Revolution in North Africa will wither. Six brilliant speakers presented us with a thoroughly enjoyable evening, which presented some interesting questions and answered a few of them.

@intelligence2
Jasmine: peak flowering in June and July. Will the same be true for the Revolution? #iq2rev
2011-05-13, 13:29

The full motion for the debate was “The Jasmine Revolution Will Wither in North Africa: It Won't Meet the Expectations of Youth”, although there seemed to be some confusion about the subtitle – sometimes it was about economic dividends, sometimes about political ones, sometimes about expectations. This confusion was reflected in the variety of arguments that discretely missed each other like busy passengers on the Tube. Convening the debate was Nik Gowing, the main presenter of BBC World News since 1996, who brought an immediate calm and professionalism to the whole event. The audience, with no clear majority of any race, age or sex, pre-voted approximately 3:2 against the motion, but with around a quarter saying they weren’t sure.

Each speaker had the floor for 8-9 minutes and Nora Ayman, a 23-year-old corporate analyst at the National Bank of Egypt who was at the Egyptian revolution this year, was first to propose the motion. Ayman argued that the conditions are not yet right for democracy to flourish; there is no real dialogue, merely posturing. The defining value of democracy is hearing and listening to dissenting voices, which is not happening. Specifically in Egypt, she asserted, the media uses the tone of the old regime and there is a noticeable lack of education about the values and methods of democracy.

@intelligence2
Democracy takes time - just look at the histories of Western European countries, argues Nyman #iq2rev
2011-05-16, 18:34

The first speaker against the motion was Ahmed Naguib, the Advising and Exchange Director for AMIDEAST and a key player and mobiliser in the 2011 Egyptian revolution. Naguib spoke in rallying, emotive tones about how “this revolution is unprecedented by all measures” and that “we will no longer tolerate dictatorship”. He argued that the immense sense of ownership the Egyptian people had felt will push them toward actively taking control of their economy and government; that where education had not previously been a priority, it is now; and that legislation is already on its way to improve civil liberties.

@pia_muzaffar
Ahmed Naguib: people of #Egypt now have sense of ownership of their country - won't tolerate corruption and poor governance anymore #iq2rev
2011-05-16, 18:44

The next speaker for the proposition was Norman Stone, Professor of International Relations at Bilkent University, Ankara, and previously of Oxford University. Professor Stone spoke frankly about a world where children gather like bunches of grapes and forty people live off one wage; this is not a world where one can just slap on a democracy sticker and have done with it. Democratic reforms, he argued, are no guarantee for long-term economic stability. In fact, history shows us that the very danger of revolutions is the instability that follows.

@Its_Zippy
Agreeing with Norman Stone - Egypt may not have the apparatus to sustain revolution. #iq2rev
2011-05-16, 18:49

Roger Cohen spoke next against the motion and was the first to really engage with anything his opponents had said. Professor Stone had said that we must believe in yesterday – only the Americans believe more in tomorrow. Cohen replied that he must then be an American, for he believes in tomorrow, when the alternative is the police state of yesterday. As a reporter for the New York Times and the International Herald Tribune, Cohen was at Tahrir Square and has experienced many other elements of the Arab Spring. He argued that the people have overcome their fear and that powerful emotions engulf the youth in these cascades of revolution. He spoke as if it was inevitable and the audience applauded and cheered him on.

@intelligence2
Cohen: the opposition aren't exercising sensible 'realism' - instead, they're guilty of 'pessimism' and 'cynicism' #iq2rev
2011-05-16, 18:55

@_mohamedm
Bravo Roger Cohen, excellent summation of the aspirations and hope of the revolutionaries in Egypt and elsewhere #Egypt #Jan25 #iq2rev
2011-05-16, 18:59

@schnitzelboy12
#rogercohen just slammed his opponents. What a legend #iq2rev
2011-05-16, 19:01

Responding to Cohen’s accusations of pessimism on the part of the proposition, Douglas Murray explained that they were actually cautious. They don’t wish for the revolutions to wither, but they also don’t share the thundering optimism clearly demonstrated by the opposition. This was just one of the straw men that Murray identified in Cohen’s arguments and effortlessly dispensed with before proceeding. I don’t think the audience were as convinced by this as I was, as Cohen had sat down to a roaring crowd. Murray is Associate Director of the Henry Jackson Society and formerly Director of the Centre for Social Cohesion, both non-partisan think tanks. He argued that there are many reasons to warn caution upon the Arab youth, mostly the lack of democratic accountability. From a wider perspective, open and free societies have a duty to help those emerging from closed ones, but the will to help is not present. We wish them well, he said, but we must warn them not to be led astray.

@intelligence2
Murray criticises response of international community to events in North Africa - reserving particular censure for Hilary Clinton #iq2rev
2011-05-16, 19:09

The final speaker against the motion was Fawaz Gerges, Professor of Middle Eastern Politics and International Relations at LSE. This is just the beginning, this is a psychological rapture that has shattered political apathy in the Middle East, he argued; Arabs have been empowered and emboldened with international values in their hearts. An impassioned speech, extolling the undeniable power and force of these uprisings, ended the speakers’ command of the floor and gave the audience a chance to have their voices heard.

@Nanyatef
RT @intelligence2: Gerges emphasises the 'psychological rapture' - in other words, the fear in Arab people has now gone #iq2rev
2011-05-16, 19:30

During the audience’s questions I kept half an ear open, but voting had already started and I felt the speakers were no longer persuading us, only reiterating their positions. I reflected on the evening and how my pre-vote ‘For’ the motion had been a gut instinct and how my mind had not been pushed that hard away from that feeling. It seemed the rest of the audience were similarly stubborn, as the post-vote came out with only five ‘For’ votes converting to ‘Against’. However, the quarter of the room that were unsure in the pre-vote had been swayed into action and the vote ended 40 ‘For’ to 178 ‘Against’, with 12 continuing to abstain.

Overall, I felt the speakers who had had more direct contact with the revolutionaries were the ones who had more confidence in the revolutions. I wondered whether they were better informed, or if they had just got caught up in the spirit of the thing. I wondered what kind of a person you have to be to see your world turned upside down all around you and not to get carried away with it.

How to accidentally become a social entrepreneur

2011-03-30T11:26:00.005+01:00

Guest Blog on enternships.com

March 18, 2011, 8:19 am

This week’s guest blog is from Will Bentinck, a recent graduate who found himself drawn to social enterprise. Here he explains his story of how he ‘created his own job’ and how his experience as an ‘entern’ inspired and helped him on his journey as a serial social entrepreneur.

I finished my degree last summer and spent several months job hunting and claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA). This is not an experience I recommend, particularly because I grew out of getting an allowance when I was ten. And it’s really boring. I hated it. So, instead of trying to get hired by someone else, I created my own job. The interview was a doddle.

I had quickly got sick of trying to be heard over the cacophony of voices screaming,

“Please give me a job! I am keen to work in a dynamic industry; I have dynamic transferable skills and am a dynamic team player!”

My CV wasn’t perfect (as I kept being told by my very helpful, perfect-CV lawyer friend) and I had to do something worthwhile (I’m not motivated solely by money, much to my surprise); so I set out to do two things: get an internship or three and start my own organisation.

Aside: There is on-going commentary about internships only being for people from wealthier backgrounds because they can afford to work for no money, but you can do internships even when you’re claiming JSA (there are some rules) and it is probably the most effective thing you can do for your career other than sleeping with a CEO. (I’m a CEO by the way.)

So I went to w4mp.org(Work for an MP) and looked at their job listings (I wasn’t clever enough to use enternships.com). I found an internship at a debating website (read that again, it doesn’t say dating website). Debatewise.org aims to create crowd-sourced debates and, among other things, use them to influence policy. I applied, went for interview and quickly started peppering my job hunting with some interning at a desk in Shoreditch. Around the same time, a friend of mine introduced me to an idea in a pub.

“I had this idea…” is a phrase I hear a lot. These ideas usually involve monkeys and occasionally spaceships. This idea was a little more far-fetched. Alex (beardy Glaswegian autodidact) wanted to continue the work of Lord Shaftesbury and rekindle the Ragged Schools, the precursor of state primary education. Except Alex wanted to create the Ragged University.

We’ve all been in a pub or café and found that we’ve learned something from the person we’ve been talking to. The Ragged University’s primary goal is to expand that experience so that one person is passing on their knowledge to a whole room. It gives a platform for communities to educate themselves, it increases social capital (I didn’t know what it meant either), it encourages civic engagement and allows people who would otherwise be distant from education to engage with topics and attitudes they never would have been exposed to. And it’s free.

“That’s a frightfully good idea!” I thought (I’m quite posh) and the idea quickly turned into action – raggeduniversity.com.

If you take anything away from this article other than eye strain, let it be this compound statement: It has never before been easier to start something; it has never before been cheaper to share your ideas with an almost inevitably growing market; it has never before made more sense to take an idea, mix it with some friends and make some entrepreneurial cake.

It’s quite an experience being part of a team of your friends creating, developing, repairing, adjusting, re-launching, publicising and then maintaining an idea that is so much bigger than you originally conceived. I could write for hours about my experiences with the Ragged University, but I will share only one observation here (please write to me if you want to know of any others).

Don’t get too big for your boots, but make sure you wear big boots.

I’ll rephrase that: Implement your idea on a manageable scale, but implement it hard. This is similar to the advice not to bite off more than you can chew, but with the added instruction not to talk with your mouth full.

My internship at Debatewise went well. Debatewise was an entrepreneurial endeavour itself, the brainchild of the brilliant David Crane. His idea got picked up by IDEA, ironically, and after a couple of years of them funding the site, he has now taken over their UK operations; or rather, our UK operations, because he gave me a real job when we became a charity at the beginning of the year. So internships can turn into jobs too – especially internships with start-ups and entrepreneurs (I think they call them enternships).

Blatant plug: IDEA (the International Debate Education Association) UK are hiring enterns right now. We promote informed public debate to help people build more open, participatory societies. There’s a massive revamp of our website going on and we need help with all sorts of things, from code to prose. There’s a job advert on this very site, so sign up immediately!

The Ragged University would have happened without me; IDEA would have a UK branch even if I’d never worked for David; I was just there at the right time and grabbed at those great opportunities. However, the lessons I learned from those experiences (and keep learning) enabled me to substantially contribute to my next project – Levantine Links.

The lawyer friend I mentioned earlier (Ben) went to Syria a couple of summers in a row, to the Syriac Orthodox community in the north east, to teach English and learn Arabic. Ben kept telling me he wanted to set up a recruitment process in the UK to send top graduates out to do the same thing. He kept talking about it. And talking. I kept pushing and pushing him to actually do it and eventually we sat down and started planning.

We achieved more in eight hours that day than I had contributed to the Ragged University in eight months. When we work together, we are astonishingly efficient and productive. I am new to this entrepreneur stuff, I’ve only been at it since last summer, but I am sure that the following lesson will prove to be the most valuable one I ever learn.

Who you work with will define your business, its successes and its failures. So work with people who inspire you with their brilliance, yet acknowledge and defer to your areas of expertise.

If you’re one of those people, I want to work with you; whether that’s at the Ragged University, at IDEA or in Syria. Drop me a line and let’s make some cake.

Enternships.com gives you the opportunity to work with other people and learn how to be better at doing your own thing. While you wait for that world-changing idea to come along, you can intern in brilliant buildings, with passionate people, doing awesome activities.

Let’s make some cake.

Thinking Critically

2010-10-07T12:48:00.005+01:00

“There are two ways to slide easily through life:

to believe everything or to doubt everything.

Both ways save us from thinking.”

- Alfred Korzybski

The Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal is a famous critical thinking test.

Watson and Glaser define critical thinking as a combination of:

An attitude to inquiry that involves the ability to recognise problems and an acceptance of the need for evidence in support of claims.
Knowledge of the rules and restrictions of logical reasoning.
The skill to apply this attitude and knowledge.

So how do we do this then? First, we take the attitude that nothing is going to get past us. We are the bouncers on the door of debAte, the members’ club where all the coolest arguments go. If they’re not on the list, they’re not coming in. How do arguments get on the list? They have to satisfy these criteria:

All claims are backed up with reasoning or evidence or both.
The conclusions follow logically from the premises (i.e. the argument is valid).
The premises are true (provably, or at least there is evidence for them being true).
There are no redundant or stuck-on conclusions.

Let’s go through those one-by-one:

1. All claims are backed up with reasoning or evidence or both.

If you make a claim, whether factual or emotional, you need to back it up. The most common mistake on Debatewise is making unjustified claims.

You can justify your claim with reasoning or with facts, but using both is better.

Example:

“The sky is blue.”
- unjustified claim

“The sky is blue. This is clear from the fact that when we look up at the sky, we see blue.”
- reasoned claim (the reasoning is flawed, however!)

“The sky is blue because of ‘Rayleigh scattering’. As light moves through the atmosphere, most of the longer wavelengths (red end) pass through. However, much of the shorter wavelength light (blue end) is absorbed by gas molecules. This absorbed blue light is then radiated in every direction, getting scattered all across the sky. Whichever direction you look, some of this scattered blue light reaches you. So you see a blue sky. [ref1][ref2][ref3]”
- reasoning and three separate references (yes, you are allowed to use Wikipedia for one of them!)

This is also something to look for in other people’s arguments. Seeing whether someone has backed up their claim will help you to evaluate how strong their argument is.

2. The conclusions follow logically from the premises (i.e. the argument is valid).

There is a detailed tutorial on the logical mistakes that can occur in arguments on this blog (How to Win an Argument, parts 1-4).

However, if you don’t want to read 7,000 words on logical fallacies, here is a short introduction to how logic can help you think critically:

Non sequitur is Latin for ‘doesn’t follow’. This describes an argument where what someone claims doesn’t follow from what they started with. This might be because the argument is invalid or unsound (we’ll look at ‘soundness’ in the next section).

Most arguments say something like “because of A and B, therefore C”. A and B are called premises and C is called the conclusion. The ‘validity’ of an argument is just based on its structure, the ‘soundness’ is based on whether the statements are really true.

Valid means:
If the premises are true, then the conclusion is true. Always.

Invalid means:
If the premises are true, that doesn’t necessarily mean the conclusion is true (it could be true, but that would just be a coincidence).

A valid argument:
All men are mortal.
Ben is a man.
Therefore, Ben is mortal.

A valid argument:
All animals with wings can fly.
Penguins have wings.
Therefore, penguins can fly.

The second argument is definitely valid, but its conclusion is false - penguins can’t fly. How has this happened? The first premise “All animals with wings can fly” is not true. Notice that ‘validity’ is only about the logical structure of the argument, not about whether any of the statements are really true. The first argument above is sound, the second one - because its first premise is false - is unsound.

3. The premises are true (provably, or at least there is evidence for them being true).

So, we’ve seen how even valid arguments can produce false conclusions - because they are unsound:

Sound means:
A valid argument with true premises (and so a true conclusion).

Unsound means:
A valid argument with at least one false premise OR an invalid argument.

(If an argument is invalid, it is automatically unsound.)

We could argue that “All animals with wings can fly” is actually true. This would stop the argument being unsound and so mean that is was a good argument. To do this, we would need to provide evidence or reasoning (see point (1)) to show that it was true.

If we were against this argument, we would only need to show ONE animal with wings that could not fly to show that the whole argument is unsound. A penguin, for example!

As well as using things that are wrong to show that an argument is unsound, you can use unsound arguments to prove that things are wrong. This is called reductio ad absurdum, which means ‘reducing to an absurdity’.

For example, if your opponent claims that “All animals with wings can fly”, then you can use the argument above to conclude that penguins can fly (which is absurd) and so show that your opponent’s claim is false.

4. There are no redundant or stuck-on conclusions.

All of these four criteria for good arguments can be difficult to spot or difficult to use. Redundant or stuck-on conclusions are probably the most difficult.

Imagine an argument is trying to get into the members’ club debAte. He’s got good credentials, this argument, but he’s got a few friends with him. If we let him in, should we let his friends in without checking their credentials? No. If an argument appears to conclude two different things (or more), then we need to check each conclusion separately.

Here is an extreme example to illustrate:

“1+1=2” and “2+2=4” are true statements.

We could say something like:

If “1+1=2”, then “2+2=4”
1+1=2
Therefore, 2+2=4
---- This argument is valid and sound.

But because “2+2=4” is ALWAYS true, that means that this next argument is also valid and sound:

If “1+1=2”, then “2+2=4 or the moon is made of cheese”
1+1=2
Therefore, 2+2=4 or the moon is made of cheese

So we have managed to conclude that the moon being made of cheese is somehow related to 1+1=2 and might actually be true!

Keep a watchful eye out for these stuck-on conclusions; most of the time they are not even known to the person giving the argument.

---

So, a good argument needs to satisfy the entry conditions:

All claims are backed up with reasoning or evidence or both.
The conclusions follow logically from the premises (i.e. the argument is valid).
The premises are true (provably, or at least there is evidence for them being true).
There are no redundant or stuck-on conclusions.

How to read an argument

2010-10-07T12:41:00.004+01:00

1. Get the feeling.

Read the argument from an emotional point of view. Try to feel what the author wants you to believe/understand/agree with. Does the argument feel persuasive? Do you feel like they might have a good argument?

Consider how reliable the author’s words feel as you re-read the argument. Do they sound like they know what they are talking about, or are they just launching into opinionated claims? Do they sound like they have vested interest in the subject, or are they arguing from an objective standpoint? The author’s reasons and psychology are important when considering their argument.

If there are any references, it is worth reading them to see how reliable the sources are. Wikipedia or newspapers can be reasonably reliable, but it’s usually better if they’re supported by other, more reliable sources.

2. Get the main points.

The next step is to draw out the main points of the argument. This involves going through it a few times to brush away the fluff and filler and find what is actually being said. Is the argument coherent (does it make sense to go from one step to the next)? Is the argument consistent (does it ever disagree with itself)?

Has the author written hundreds of words when one or two sentences will have done? Are they waffling and distracting from the weakness of their argument with a volume of words? Or do they actually have a lot of very important stuff to say? What about the other way round? What if they make a good point, but have only said it in one sentence and then never explained it?

A very useful thing to do here is write down the main points and see how strongly each one is justified. A lack of justification is a common mistake on Debatewise.

3. Go Spock.

When we get very logical about the whole thing, I like to call it Going Spock. This can be very useful when you’re up against an argument that seems unassailable. By picking logical holes in an argument, you can find its weaknesses and exploit them.

Being really logical requires a decent insight in to various logical fallacies and a basic understanding of the rules of logic (some of which can be counter-intuitive). These things are not needed, however, to just be very rigorous with your analysis. Don’t be afraid to be pedantic!

Go Spock!

---

Let’s look at some examples from Debatewise:

Patents on life-saving drugs should be bypassed (15 September 2010)
- From the Irrational to the Ingenius[sic]:The Status Quo and Our Proposal

No, because...
The current patent system is flawed to its very core. Under the status quo pharmaceutical firms make use of research from state-funded university labs, that has been released into the public domain, to base their own research programs. They usually enter late in the process when there already is a possible product in sight. Once a product is completed it is patented for the sole use of the company for a period of 20 years. This 20 year monopoly is rigidly enforced by both domestic & international law across the world.

Devastating problems arise with this because the high prices charged by these firms to maximize their profit are too expensive for those in developing countries, and even in some developed countries that lack proper social security institutions, resulting in millions of unnecessary deaths. The current system suppresses innovation by placing legal hurdles to further researching and improving existing drugs. It also incentivizes spending on non-life threatening diseases common in the West (such as hair loss) and therefore bring in more revenue than those focused on poorer countries that can’t afford to spend as much on medication.

Therefore, we propose a plan set out by Economics Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz where an international multi-billion dollar fund would be set up to award scientists and firms once they discover or develop cures to life-saving diseases. This would aim to cover research costs but also incentivize research into life-threatening diseases over other ailments. Once payment is made the product is pooled into the public domain, available for use by any company anywhere in the world. While this would be expensive (0.6% GDP) it would pay-off in the medium term as health care systems would no longer have to pay huge premiums to drug companies. More importantly, it would allow for millions to afford medicines [1].

[1] http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-the-hidden-truth-behind-drug-company-profits.html

1. Get the feeling - corporate = bad, big pharma = bad, solution = utopian system; author is reasonably credible, but makes a lot of unjustified claims. The only reference is from a newspaper and it is a broken link; it would have only been one journalist’s opinion of a scientific report - it is better to have read the report yourself and use that as a reference.

2. Main points - current system is flawed: too expensive and prioritises non-life-threatening diseases; they propose a solution based on a suggestion by an academic.

3. Going Spock - where is the justification for the all the claims made about the current system? A reference would help, but evidence would be better. Where are the facts that say hair loss is prioritised? The solution, while delightfully labelled with some academic’s name, isn’t analysed to show its effectiveness at solving the problems listed. So it is presented as a solution, but it isn’t explained how it solves. Finally, and this is getting quite pedantic, the current system being flawed is based on whose ideal? What ideal system are they comparing it to, to say that it is “flawed to its very core”?

---

Is the UK education system getting better? (15 September 2010)
- School is to educate !

Yes, because...
Seeing as the point of school is to educate students and a better result would suggest they have been educated better which would mean the education system is getting increasingly better.
[link to graph of results going up 1988-2010]

Let’s just jump straight in and go Spock on this one:
What are they actually saying?
A. The point of school is to educate.
B. Better results suggest that students have been better educated.
C. Results are getting better.
D. Therefore, the UK education system is getting better.

(A) is irrelevant to the argument about the education system being better or worse. (B) and (C) are premises and (D) is a conclusion. Does the conclusion follow from the premises? No. The conclusion that would be valid is (E) “Therefore, students have been better educated.” This is similar, but not the same as (D). Also, (B) may be true, but is not necessarily the whole truth. There may be other things that improve results.

This is noticed by the opposition:

No, because...
A better result could be caused by something other than better teaching: easier exams or the way examinations are marked not working properly, children being naturally more intelligent, or being motivated by the recession to work harder in order to gain qualifications needed for jobs, parents paying more attention to their children's educations.

We could add that students being better educated does not necessarily mean that the UK education system is getting better (i.e. (E) does not imply (D)).They could have got better another way.

---

Remember - Don't be afraid to be pedantic. Make sure you are rigorous in your analysis. 'Leave no stone unturned.'

How to win an argument (Part 4)

2010-09-03T12:48:00.007+01:00

In case you missed them, here are the various logical fallacies we’ve been looking at:

Surgeons, Clouds, Red Herrings, Scarecrows, Mistresses, Journalists, Swans, Flying Penguins, Farting Dogs and Non-existent Sofas.

Let’s have a look at how these fallacies can be put into place. We won’t be able to get all of them in, mainly because some of them are quite rare and others are more difficult to spot than others. The most common fallacy you will come across is non sequitur. This is simply when what your opponent is claiming does not follow from what they’ve said.

Warning: This post is pretty long. If you are interested, but don’t want a long read, just look at the first example. The approach is the same in all of the others, there are just different fallacies addressed in the later ones.

On 2 September 2010, I had a look at the debate on Debatwise.org called “Music that glorifies violence against women should be banned.” This was one of the World Online Debating Championship rounds (between Australia and Botswana). I note the date, because the arguments may have been changed/improved since then. Below is one of Australia’s proposition points, titled “A change is needed to stop the cycle of violence.”

Any material which explicitly devalues the intrinsic worth of another human or expresses a message of malefaction or malice without justification needs careful examination. We must consider the impact of the content in music and the content in music videos on the general public; including all of the stakeholders who are affected by being exposed to such negative portrayals of VAW. Men are not as heavily represented in lyrical content, nor have they been suffering from abuse & violence as severely as women over history. As such we find the portrayal of women in music & music videos to be a major problem that must be actioned immediately in order to stop the continuing cycle of abuse against women across the globe.

If music explicitly expresses a message of debasement, hatred, or violence without just cause, then what is the real benefit to society- and in particular women- of producing & distributing such content? There is a clear moral imperative to not accept the current status quo, as women shouldn't be forced to tolerate or condone music which debases their character or dignity.

They then go on to propose their solution to this apparent problem. I won’t look at their solution, because we are only interested in their reasoning. So, sentence by sentence I have analysed what they are saying into simplistic statements, hopefully taking out any emotive content.

Any material which explicitly devalues the intrinsic worth of another human or expresses a message of malefaction or malice without justification needs careful examination.

> If material is devaluing of a human or malicious, then it needs careful examination.

This is an emotive statement that actually means nothing. What is the nature of this ‘careful examination’? To what ends are we to carefully examine this material? WHY does it need careful examination? There is also no justification for this standpoint - it is merely a bold statement of a trivial opinion. Not a good start.

We must consider the impact of the content in music and the content in music videos on the general public; including all of the stakeholders who are affected by being exposed to such negative portrayals of VAW.

> We must consider the impact of music/video content on the public, including those who are affected by being exposed to it.

Again, why must we? Again, what is the nature of our consideration? To what ends are we considering, rather than, say, carefully examining? Also, if we are considering the impact on the public, doesn’t this already imply that we are considering those affected by it?

(Also, although this is a little pedantic, they say “negative portrayals of VAW”. Aren’t negative portrayals of violence against women supposed to be a good thing? It’s usually good to say a bad thing is bad, isn’t it?)

Men are not as heavily represented in lyrical content, nor have they been suffering from abuse & violence as severely as women over history.

> There is an imbalance across the sexes regarding this issue.

If I am kind here, I will assume that this is the result of the authors’ ‘careful examination’ and ‘considering’ of the music/videos. However, this is not at all explicit. Even being kind, there is no justification, there are no facts, no arguments as to how the authors arrived at this conclusion. It is also not explained how this statement is at all relevant to the argument as a whole.

As such we find the portrayal of women in music & music videos to be a major problem that must be actioned immediately in order to stop the continuing cycle of abuse against women across the globe.

> Therefore, if the portrayal of women in music/videos is stopped, then the cycle of abuse against women will stop too.

Now we have a conclusion (“As such...”). So from the empty, unjustified statements that preceded, the authors have somehow concluded that there is a causal link between the portrayal of women in music/videos (not just the negative portrayal, although this is getting pedantic again) and the cycle of abuse against women across the globe. So ALL portrayals of women in music/videos are the cause of ALL violence against women in the whole world. Even the places where they don’t have access to Western music, or know what a ‘booty call’ or a ‘milkshake’ is. How this conclusion has been reached, or how on earth the authors intend to explain or justify it is beyond me. This is the weakest part of the argument - at least the previous bits were trivially true. This is just ridiculous.

> This assumes that: ‘Music must have just cause to express a particular viewpoint, otherwise its production and distribution it is of no benefit to society.’

The authors ask what the benefit to society can be if the music expresses its message without just cause? This implies that the message would be beneficial to society IF there was just cause to express it. I find this a very interesting argument and much subtler and more powerful than anything else this excerpt. However, it’s washed up in a sea of empty statements and ridiculous conclusions; and it is only addressed in this sentence. At no point is there an investigation into any of the following, likely enlightening, questions:

Is this message actually expressed without just cause?
What constitutes just cause in this case? And why?
How does a justly expressed message benefit society?
How does an unjustly expressed message NOT benefit society?
How does any of this relate to anything the author has said?

It would be good to start answering these questions yourself (as the opposition) and show how they in fact support your argument (if they do)!

There is a clear moral imperative to not accept the current status quo, as women shouldn't be forced to tolerate or condone music which debases their character or dignity.

> Women are being forced to tolerate and condone music that debases their character and this is morally unsatisfactory.

Again, an interesting argument. However, this falls short of laziness and generalisations as well. Women are not being forced to tolerate or condone any music (this is a version of the Loaded Question - it’s just a loaded statement, assuming that women are being forced to tolerate and condone this music). At least not all of them. You might force your sister to listen to Gangsta Rap, but I certainly don’t. The word I take particular umbrage with is ‘condone’. What possible justification do they have for saying that women are being forced to condone this music? Are they being put at gunpoint and told “Repeat after me... ‘G-Funk, Ice-T, Wu-Tang Clan - they all speak the truth!’”?

The major problems with this excerpt are: there is no justification given for any of the statements; and the conclusions are wildly over-generalised to the point of silliness. The third, slightly more minor, problem is that the conclusion in no way follows from the premises (non sequitur).

-----

Next is an example of listening to someone’s argument, thinking that what they say sounds about right, but getting a niggling feeling that it isn’t. Then ‘Going Spock’ and logically analysing what they’ve said to discover the fallacious reasoning.

From the debate “Can science explain everything?” (Also 2nd Sept 2010)

The very purpose of the term “science” is an explanation for everything. If a perfect knowledge could somehow be obtained then the universe and everything in it could be explained by the holder of that knowledge.

This whole debate seems, to me, to be futile as it is like asking the question “Can an explanation for everything explain everything?” the answer to which is unquestionably and obviously: Yes it can.

The question we should be asking ourselves is “Can such a knowledge be obtained?” my answer to which would be “No, absolutely not” but that’s another debate altogether.

One sentence at a time:

The very purpose of the term “science” is an explanation for everything.

> Unjustified claim.

Who says so? I didn’t know terms had purpose. And even if they do, who defined science’s purpose as an explanation for everything? JUSTIFY!

If a perfect knowledge could somehow be obtained then the universe and everything in it could be explained by the holder of that knowledge.

> If perfect knowledge is possible, then complete explanation is possible.

A bold statement that seems like it could be true, but again isn’t justified - or at least argued for. However, it assumes that the possession of knowledge implies the capability to explain.

> Asking “Can science explain everything?” is futile, because ‘science’ is ‘an explanation for everything’ and so the question is trivially true.

This assumes the truth of the initial, unjustified statement, as well as assuming that asking a trivially true question is always futile. This is not as stupid as it sounds: consider the question “Is Stephen Fry really Stephen Fry?” This is trivially true, but could be very informative. You may find out that your neighbour Stephen Fry is actually that famous bloke off the telly.

The question we should be asking ourselves is “Can such a knowledge be obtained?” my answer to which would be “No, absolutely not” but that’s another debate altogether.

> We should instead ask: “Is perfect knowledge possible?”, but that is not the same discussion. And so the author ends; with no actual discussion of their alternative question.

Wow. So the author suggests an alternative question, but claims that it is a different discussion. This contradicts what they have said. I’ll show you how, by taking what they say as true and deducing the opposite conclusion. This uses a bit of logic; or as I like to call it “Going Spock”.

Author’s Conclusion:

The truth of the statement “Perfect knowledge is possible” (P) is a different matter from the truth of the statement “Science can explain everything” (E).

Let’s take as true the author’s premises:

Premise 1:

“The purpose of science is an explanation for everything.”

Premise 2:

“If perfect knowledge is possible, then complete explanation is possible.”

We can rewrite E as “Complete explanation is possible”, because if it is, then the purpose of science is achievable, which means that ‘science can explain everything’. (This might not be true, but we are saying it is because we have taken the author’s premises as true and this follows from those premises.) This is known as ‘logical equivalence’, which means (loosely) that whatever makes one of them true, makes the other one true as well.

This new version of E is familiar: by the author’s own admission (premise 2), if P is true, then E (new version) is true. So how can they be different debates? The truth of one is dependent on the truth of the other.

Continuing the Spock Attack, let’s look deeply at premise 2:

“If perfect knowledge is possible, then complete explanation is possible.”

The author’s words are:

If a perfect knowledge could somehow be obtained then the universe and everything in it could be explained by the holder of that knowledge.

Really? I know a lot about my feelings, but am not very good at explaining them. My cousin’s very young children know stuff, but are rubbish at explaining any of it. So if I had perfect knowledge, that would apparently give me the ability to explain all of it.

NONE of this has anything to do with the actual question - “Can science explain everything?” Bugger.

Be careful not to get involved in someone else’s irrelevant point. Just say that it’s irrelevant and explain why, then move on.

---

Another WODC debate gives us an example of a straw man fallacy. In a debate about the legalisation of prostitution in order to reduce HIV infection, the point ‘Prohibition doesn’t work’ has a well-structured argument from the proposition. The opposition correctly note a contradiction in the proposition’s argument, but then go on to talk about something other than prohibition. They promote education as a way to reduce infection, but do not address the proposition’s position that prohibition doesn’t work. What the opposition is saying may well be very good, but it is not about whether prohibition works.

---

In the debate “Should religious education be part of the curriculum?”, the proposition made the point ‘It helps build society’:

Religion is a major influence on people’s lives. It shapes their thought process [sic] and decides their actions e.g. a Jehovah’s Witness refuses blood transfusion based on his/her religious beliefs. Religious studies acts as the academic platform from which we can build a better understanding of these major influences and hence people. With a better understanding of people we are able to relate better with them. Communication is more effective as we understand why they do things. Progress in society is dependent on effective communication amongst people. Religion allows for this by bringing about compromise stemming from an understanding of each other’s viewpoints.

Initial Premises:

Religion is a major influence on all people.
Religious studies allow people to better understand the influences of religion on each other.

Initial Conclusion:

Therefore, religious studies allow people to better understand each other.

Further Premises:

If people have a better understanding of each other, then communication is more effective.
Progress in society is dependent on effective communication.

Further Conclusion:

[missing]

Another conclusion:

Religion allows for effective communication (and so progress in society) by bringing about compromise, stemming from an understanding of each other’s viewpoints.

If we allow for a bit of sloppiness, we can rewrite this last conclusion so that it fits as the ‘further’ conclusion:

Final Conclusion:

Religious studies make communication more effective and so help progress society.

Problems:

Religion is a major influence on some people, not all. Even so, the argument could be used to say the same thing about understanding religious people, rather than all people, so this objection is weak.
There is no justification for the jumps from better understanding to more effective communication and then to progress in society.
The final slip up of saying that religion is responsible for this great understanding, rather than the study of religions, implies that the egalitarian ideals of this argument are a thin veil over the top of a single religious preference. I wonder how the author would respond to the Religious Studies syllabus containing the benefits and disasters of the five most adhered-to faiths in the world. In order, they are Christianity, Islam, no faith, Buddhism and Hinduism. Also, if the major benefit of studying religion is to better understand the people around you, then, for example, Judaism should be taught in America and Israel, but nowhere else – 40 per cent of Jews live in the USA, another 40 per cent in Israel.

The opposition’s response is even worse:

it needs to be optional for the student and only the student, because it's their choice to believe or to not believe in religious phenomenon [sic]. And religious people (this is mainly to the Christians) should not try to force their beliefs down their throats, which I find to be quite sinful. And they should teach more than just Christianity but every religion, like paganism and neo-paganism.

OK, this is bad.

The opposition starts their response with a contradiction. Answering ‘no’ to the question “should it?” and then explaining that it shouldn’t because “It should, but…” is a very bad start. Ignoring that this argument is in the wrong place, what does it say?

Religious education should be optional for the student because it is the student’s choice to believe in religious phenomenon (?).
Religious people should not force their religious beliefs on others.
Religious education should teach every religion.

The first point says that a student should be able to choose whether to study religion because they have the choice to believe in religious phenomenon. I assume this means either the phenomenon of religion (which is undeniable) or religious phenomena (which could mean miracles or just the experience of having faith, I suppose). Either way, the choice to believe should not inform the choice to study, should it?

The second point assumes that religious education says that a particular set of beliefs are taught to be true. This may be correct in practice, but in theory it shouldn’t be like that. As a remedy to this practical problem, the author suggests a practical solution – teach about all the religions. All of them? That’s impractical. The Internet tells me there are over four thousand religions. I then went on to compile a list of the religions that have more than 10 million adherents:

Religion	Adherents (millions)
Sunni Islam	1050
Roman Catholic Church	989
Hinduism	820
Pentecostalism	450
Buddhism	369
Shi’a Islam	201
Shinto	100
Russian Orthodox Church	90
Anglican Communion	77
Lutheran Church	49
Presbyterian Church	48
Ethiopian Orthodox Christian Church	45
Baptist Church	37
Methodism	33
Sikhism	25
Jehovah’s Witnesses	17
Judaism	14

Even teaching the workings of these 17 religions and even considering that there will be an enormous amount of overlap, the whole project seems impractical.

This is an example of using facts and other justification to back up your counter argument.

-- End of Part 4

That’s it then. All finished. Well done for getting this far. Now get out there and destroy some arguments!

How to win an argument (Part 3)

2010-09-02T16:40:00.005+01:00

In part 1 we had a look at four problems of reasoning, stemming from generalisations and implications:

Destroying the exception - all swans are white... until you find a black one.
Disregarding the exception - all surgeons are criminals cos they cut people up.
Mistaking the direction of the arrow (confirming the consequent) - clouds mean it must be raining.
Mistaking the meaning of the arrow (denying the antecedent) - no rain means there must be no clouds.

In part 2 we saw how distractions, intended or not, can come in many forms and begging the question is something journalists constantly get wrong:

Red Herrings - arguments that don’t address the issue.
Straw Men - arguments that address a superficially similar, but in fact different issue.
Loaded Questions - controversially complex questions that presume things that haven’t been proved.
Begging the Question - when the conclusion is assumed in the argument.

In this third part, we’ll look at laziness of thinking, particularly to do with cause and effect. This will lead us to a discussion of similar mistakes with words rather than reasoning.

In the next and final part, we’ll have a look at some real arguments and take them apart.

It’s worth noting at this stage that, while we’re looking at all these fallacies as ways to break down your opponent’s arguments, they should also be a guide for you to develop your own indestructible arguments.

-- Flying Penguins

Non sequitur is Latin for ‘doesn’t follow’. All logical fallacies can be described as non sequitur, but it is predominantly used to mean an argument where the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises. This might be because the argument is invalid (we’ve been looking at ways in which this might be the case), or because it is not sound.

I should explain that difference:

Valid means:
If the premises are true, then the conclusion is true.

Invalid means:
If the premises are true, that doesn’t mean the conclusion is true (it could be true, but that would just be a coincidence).

Sound means:
A valid argument with true premises (and so a true conclusion).

Unsound means:
A valid argument with at least one false premise OR an invalid argument.

A valid and sound argument:
All men are mortal.
Ben is a man.
Therefore, Ben is mortal.

A valid but unsound argument:
All animals with wings can fly.
Penguins have wings.
Therefore, penguins can fly.

This is unsound because the first premise is false.
It is valid because, if the first premise was true, the conclusion would be as well.

An invalid (and so unsound) argument:
All men are mortal.
Jane is mortal.
Therefore, Jane is a man.

Can you spot why this argument is invalid? If you can, then you’re doing well. (Clue: Clouds.)

So the two ways an argument can be non sequitur (conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises) is either by being invalid or unsound.

There are lots of ways this can happen, but I want to look particularly at our laziness of thought when it comes to causation. Previously, we looked at mistakes that come from reasoning based on generalisations and the problem of inductive reasoning (going from specific instances to a universal generalisation). Inductive reasoning was not called that when Hume was discussing it. [Don’t know who Hume is? See Swans.] He talked about causal reasoning and was concerned with what it means for one thing to cause another. This is intricately linked with making generalisations (induction), but I won’t bore you with how (if you want to find out, check out this introduction - a little technical, but readable).

-- Farting Dogs

So what does it mean for one thing to cause another? Well, a major part of it must be that the effect comes after the cause and not the other way round. However, we need to be a bit more specific than that, because me turning on the TV just before the dog farts does not mean that the remote controls the dog. For one thing to cause another, it must always do so in the same conditions. This way, my pressing the power button on the remote causes the TV to turn on (if the batteries aren’t dead), but doesn’t cause the dog to let loose.

When one thing always follows another thing, they are said to be in ‘constant conjunction’. Hume was worried; he thought there was nothing more we could say about cause and effect. He was worried because, for example, day and night are in constant conjunction - but day does not cause night, nor the other way round. It’s these kinds of difficulties that make up our next batch of logical fallacies.

If two things always occur together, we feel like they must be linked in some way. Birds start singing in the morning, just before the sun rises - does birdsong cause the sun to rise? What about if your child develops autism after he’s been vaccinated - did the vaccination cause the autism? I’ve got a new flatmate and ever since she arrived the boiler has been playing up - does her presence cause the boiler’s problems?

Be careful! When we feel like there is a connection between things, we tend to misjudge how strong it is and can easily be swayed into believing the connection goes one way when it doesn’t. This mistake comes up a lot more often than you’d think.

Another way of making this mistake is to look at events that happen to occur at the same time and conclude that one causes the other. This is usually because there is a less obvious thing that causes them both. Let’s say I notice that, in the UK, people wear less clothing during the summer months. I want to know why. They also consume much more ice cream. I conclude that the increased consumption of ice cream is causing people to shed their winter-wear and jump into skimpy swimwear. Whoops.

These causal misunderstandings (not ‘casual misunderstandings’ as I keep writing) can be very subtle. For example, we saw in part 1 how we can easily feel that rain and clouds have a deeper relationship than they actually do. When they are subtle, they are difficult to spot.

-- Non-existent Sofas

Another pair of mistakes that are related to this generalisation/induction misunderstanding are when we say something is true of the whole because it is true of some part, or vice versa.

“The university is seven hundred years old, therefore all the staff are seven hundred years old.”

“Every band member of Heaven’s Nails is brilliant, therefore Heaven’s Nails are brilliant.”

The first argument makes the mistake of saying that the whole has a property, so its parts must do too.
The second argument mistakes individual brilliance for band cohesion. It may be that they work really badly together, regardless of how brilliant they are individually.

Some more examples:

“This tiny piece of tin foil cannot be torn by hitting it with a hammer, therefore the spaceship I have made by wrapping large sheets of tin foil around a thin wooden frame is impervious to hammers.”

“Atoms are 99.9 per cent nothing. My sofa is made of atoms. Therefore, 99.9 per cent of my sofa doesn’t exist.”

Keep your eyes peeled...

-- End of Part 3

This time we’ve seen the most common of argument mistakes: non sequitur - what they claim simply doesn’t follow from what they have said. There were a few specific examples:

Two things happen in succession - this doesn’t mean the first caused the second.
Two things happen around the same time - this doesn’t mean they are linked.
The parts aren’t necessarily the same as the whole.
The whole isn’t necessarily the same as its parts.

Next time:
We’ll deconstruct some real arguments from Debatewise.org.

How to win an argument (Part 2)

2010-08-25T17:09:00.009+01:00

In part 1 we had a look at four problems of reasoning, stemming from generalisations and implications:

Destroying the exception - all swans are white... until you find a black one.
Disregarding the exception - all surgeons are criminals cos they cut people up.
Mistaking the direction of the arrow (confirming the consequent) - clouds mean it must be raining.
Mistaking the meaning of the arrow (denying the antecedent) - no rain means there must be no clouds.

In this second part, we will be looking at some more ways to take down an argument; this time by identifying distraction techniques (even when your opponent wasn’t intending to distract).

-- Red Herrings

For some reason, the practice of strongly curing in brine and heavily smoking a kipper has lead to an idiom that means ‘a distraction’. This ‘red herring’ is also a logical fallacy and a debating tactic in which the respondent seeks to divert the opponent. When it’s not done on purpose, though, it’s called ignoratio elenchi. This roughly translates as ‘ignorance of refutation’, which in turn can be better expressed as ‘not understanding what response would correctly refute the argument’.

A ridiculous example might be:
Alice: “Monkeys are intelligent, because they can peel bananas.”
Bert: “You’re wrong, because whales live in the sea.”

Be careful of clever debaters who will employ subtle red herrings to avoid discussing difficulties in their arguments.

-- Scarecrows

Another way you might be duped by a devious debater is via a Straw Man. If you find that your opponent is attacking an argument that is superficially similar to yours, but not quite what you are saying, then they have built up a Straw Man and are attempting (maybe not on purpose) to follow this sort of reasoning:

(1) You present argument X.
(2) They, in what sounds like a refutation of your position, present argument Y that is superficially similar to your argument X, but isn’t the same.
(3) They show argument Y to be wrong in some way and so conclude that argument X is wrong in the same way.

So it looks like they’ve proved your argument wrong, when in fact they just made something up and proved that wrong instead.

Alice: “Monkeys are intelligent, because they can peel bananas.”
Bert: “Just because monkeys eat bananas doesn’t mean they’re intelligent. Bats, parrots, hamsters and mice all eat bananas - and they’re clearly not intelligent.”

-- Mistresses

Our final distraction technique is the loaded question. My favourite name for this fallacy (they all have many names) is the Fallacy of Many Questions. The famous complex question is “When did you stop beating your wife?” To answer this question, whether yes or no, is to implicitly admit to having a wife and having beaten her at some point.

There are three levels of complex question, two of them fallacious, but only one of them counts as a loaded question.

(1) Legitimately complex questions:
“Who is the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?”
To answer this question directly, you would be implicitly accepting that there was such a place as the UK and that it has a queen.

(2) Illegitimately complex questions:
“Who is the present King of France?”
To answer this question directly, you would be implicitly accepting that there was such a place as France and that it has a king - but it doesn’t. So this is a Fallacy of Many Questions.

(3) Controversially complex questions:
“Does your mistress live by herself or with your other wife?”
To answer this question directly, you would be implicitly accepting that that you have both a mistress and a second wife. Not wise. This is both a Fallacy of Many Questions and a loaded question.

The loaded question can be used as a distraction device, but watch out for the more general fallacy when people accidentally use illegitimately complex questions (i.e. ones with false assumptions).

-- Journalists

According to Wikipedia, the loaded question is often mistaken for Begging the Question. I’m not sure why. I think it might be because very few people seem to know what begging the question actually is. Please excuse what is about to be a mini-rant.

I just went to guardian.co.uk and typed into the search box ‘begs the question’. There were 1394 results. Here are the first six (with my italics).
“..hours of dull activity that requires their personal intervention. It begs the question: why do they do it?” (22 Aug)
“...where it conflicts with the "principles of Islam" (which of course begs the question of how the principles of Islam are to be determined)” (5 Aug)
“...by Francis Veber's 1998 French comedy Le Diner de Cons, begs the question – what has happened to mainstream US comedy? “ (2 Aug)
“Even more than most titles based on popular pastimes, it begs the question "why not try the real thing?” (1 Aug)
“That of course begs the question about whether it is strictly necessary...” (28 July)
“Research has shown that boards comprising a variety of people from different backgrounds and experiences are more effective.
This also begs the question why the Bank of England's monetary policy committee, making key decisions about everyone's future, is all male?” (19 July)

I would put a lot of money on ninety nine per cent of “begs the question” on most UK newspaper websites being followed with what particular question is being begged. This is very, very, very wrong. What they mean is something like ‘implies the question’, ‘asks the question’, ‘raises the question’, ‘inspires the question’, or even ‘we should ask’.

If an argument begs the question, the question that is being begged is this - and ONLY this:

“How can you justify your conclusion, when you have already assumed its truth in your argument?”

A very simple example:
(Premise 1) Monkeys are intelligent.
(Premise 2) Monkeys can peel bananas.
(Conclusion) Therefore: Monkeys are intelligent.

This argument begs the question, because its conclusion has already been assumed in the argument. It usually isn’t so easy to spot.

One of the most famous examples of question begging is with inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning goes from premises to conclusions mathematically and undoubtedly. Inductive reasoning is the reasoning we use in our everyday thinking. I was tempted to delete this whole section, as it goes off into a little history of philosophy, but I think it illustrates nicely some of the pitfalls arguments can fall into. Please feel free to skip it if you get bored, but that does mean you will go straight to the end of the article.

-- Swans

“Every time I have seen a swan, it was white; therefore, I can reasonably believe that all swans are white.”

Inductive reasoning is going from a finite number of observations to a general rule. (For you pedants out there, this is only one kind of induction, called enumerative induction - but it is the easiest to explain and there are lots of academic papers about how the problem of induction can be translated into these other kinds.)

The rotund Scottish philosopher David Hume was the first to note that this kind of reasoning is problematic. In fact, he concluded that it was entirely irrational. If we construct inductive reasoning in a deductive way, we’ll see why:

(1) So far, all swans have been white.
(2) Nature is uniform - i.e. the future will be much like the past; and ‘over there’ will be much like ‘over here’.
(C) Therefore: ALL swans are (and will be) white.

The problem is with (2) - it needs proving, we can’t just assume it. Hume identified that we couldn’t prove it deductively, because that would mean that we couldn’t conceive of it being any other way - but of course we can, we can imagine a black swan. So we have to try and prove it inductively.

So we might say something like “Nature has been uniform so far, so i can reasonably believe that it will continue to be.” But this argument, however you put it, begs the question. It assumes that nature is uniform in order to prove that nature is uniform. You can’t, concludes Hume, prove induction with an inductive argument. It begs the question. (For further discussion on this topic, particularly about the people who say you can prove induction with inductive arguments, go to the entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.)

That is what ‘begs the question’ means - when an argument’s conclusion is assumed within the argument.

-- End of Part 2

So this time, we’ve seen:

Red Herrings - arguments that don’t address the issue.
Straw Men - arguments that address a superficially similar, but in fact different issue.
Loaded Questions - controversially complex questions that presume things that haven’t been proved.
Begging the Question - when the conclusion is assumed in the argument.

In Part 3, plain old laziness and a discussion of verbal fallacies.

How to win an argument (Part 1)

2010-08-19T17:23:00.006+01:00

Can you win an argument without any evidence, or without even being right? By the end of these articles, you should be able to.

Think about how many times we have come across someone who is clearly wrong, but seems to have all the answers, all the arguments and absolutely no weak points? They may be suffering from argumentum verbosium, which is when someone

tries to persuade by overwhelming those considering an argument with such a volume of material that the argument sounds plausible, superficially appears to be well-researched, and it is so laborious to untangle and check supporting facts that the argument might be allowed to slide by unchallenged. Wikipedia

So how do we defeat these ‘masters of argument’?

Identifying the problems, mistakes, assumptions and fallacies in an argument can be tricky. This is especially because the symbols usually used to explain them can be very confusing.

Take this for example:

∃x[sky(x) & blue(x) & ∀y(sky(y) → x=y)]

Which means “The sky is blue.”1 Great.

I’m going to put together a list of fallacies (misconceptions as a result of incorrect reasoning) while trying not to use the brain-blending symbolism above. I will use symbols, but they will likely be of breasts or bananas, or other things beginning with ‘b’.

There are two broad categories of fallacy: problems with reasoning and problems with words. The latter is usually to do with the fact that words can mean more than one thing. The former is mainly to do with the fact that our natural reasoning is not as rigorous as true, proper, mathematical, godlike logical reasoning. Well, not necessarily godlike. Or true. But that’s another discussion entirely.

Problematic reasoning stems from generalisations, assumed implications, distractions, circularity or just plain old laziness. Today I will talk about generalisations and assumed implications, because I’m just lazy.

-- Surgeons

Generalisations are the most common mistake people make. We are very good at generalising, it’s hard wired into our brains to look for patterns and generalisations to make our lives easier. The problem comes when we start to construct arguments around them.

We are all guilty of generalising from too little evidence. For a long time people said that all swans were white. Until they found a black one. Then they felt silly. This is known as destroying the exception, because in claiming that all swans are white, you destroy the possibility of there being any black ones (or fuschia ones for that matter).

Another problem with generalisations is disregarding the exception. Cutting people up with knives is a crime. That clearly doesn’t apply to surgeons. So to argue that because surgeons cut people up with knives, they must all be criminals, is silly. And probably wrong.

Which brings me to an aside. The argument about surgeons being criminals is invalid. This doesn’t mean, however, that its conclusion is wrong. All surgeons might be criminals - but they wouldn’t be criminals because they cut people up with knives. Finding fallacies in an argument does not automatically make the conclusion come out false - it just means that your opponent has to find another argument to support their position.

-- Clouds

Another natural mistake in our everyday reasoning is assuming implication. If it is true that one thing implies another, we implicitly allow for the possibility that the implication works the other way round. It is true that rain implies clouds, but not that clouds imply rain. But we do get the feeling that clouds imply rain. We’re wrong, clouds imply rain maybe occurred or maybe is occurring or maybe is going to occur. Rain implies clouds. Straight, bang, just like that - no wishy-washy maybes.

In symbolic logic, an arrow is used to describe this relationship. The arrow goes from rain to clouds, but not from clouds to rain. It is unfortunately called confirming the consequent when we assume that the arrow goes the other way. Like this:

(1) “If it is raining, then there are clouds.”

- Setting up the arrow from rain to clouds.

(2) “There are clouds.”

- Confirming the consequent (the bit after ‘then’).

(3) “Therefore, it is raining.”

- Mistaking the direction of the arrow.

It might not be raining. In fact, I just looked out of the window and there are clouds and no rain. Ha. Mistaking the direction of the arrow.

You can also mistake the meaning of the arrow. To be more specific, the arrow means that the existence of rain implies the existence of clouds. It does not mean, as is assumed in the next example, that the non-existence of rain implies the non-existence of clouds.

(1) “If it is raining, then there are clouds.”

- Setting up the arrow from rain to clouds.

(2) “It is not raining.”

- Denying the antecedent (the bit before ‘then’).

(3) “Therefore, there are no clouds.”

- Mistaking the meaning of the arrow.

As we saw in the previous example, we can have clouds without rain.

So far we have seen four fallacies: two from not being careful with generalisations and two from not being careful with implications (or conditional relations).

Destroying the exception - all swans are white, until you find a black one.
Disregarding the exception - all surgeons are criminals cos they cut people up.
Mistaking the direction of the arrow (confirming the consequent) - clouds mean it must be raining.
Mistaking the meaning of the arrow (denying the antecedent) - no rain means there must be no clouds.

Next time...

Distractions, circularity and plain old laziness.

---
Footnotes:
(1) Take a deep breath... “There exists a thing, such that the thing is a sky AND the thing is blue AND for all the stuff that might not be the thing, if it’s a sky, then it’s the thing.”

In bed with information

2010-08-11T16:33:00.002+01:00

Could you tell me what the GDP of Azerbaijan is? Could you explain to me what an axolotl might be? Could you possibly show me how to disengage the ignition retard mechanism on a Suzuki SV650 motorbike? Of course you could. Just click the links. Now you are an expert.

We have well and truly entered the information age. We are deep between her thighs and thoroughly enjoying ourselves. This moment of rapture, we are told, is what we've all been waiting for; the more we plough this enchanting furrow of information, the better off we we'll be.

It would be easy, however, to get overexcited. We don’t want to lose control and find ourselves overwhelmed.

Information has become cheap and easy. We’ve all been there, though, and we know that road leads to poor quality and a bad feeling the next morning. We have the world of knowledge at our fingertips; with our smart-phones (our WiFi-enabled brains), we’d put the QI elves to shame. No longer does someone ask in the pub “I wonder what the hottest chilli in the world is...”, only to inspire two hours of hot (sorry) debate. Now it’s a competition to see who can get Wikipedia to work faster, or who knows the best site to turn to for Scoville-related advice.

So what happens when this question is asked?

“Should Wikileaks have released all those Afganistan documents?”

Well, most people will vomit up the received opinion they’ve dutifully memorised from The Sun or The Guardian (depending on which pub you’re in) and then everyone will agree with whatever they think is socially acceptable (again, dependent on the pub) and then go home, thinking they’re engaged in political debate and are thoroughly good citizens.

But we’re not, are we? We’re not politically engaged. We are passive consumers of opinion, withering away at our computers; not active members of international democracy, all hands on hips, inflated chests and billowing capes. We stand rank and file in the servitude of the popular media. Political scientists across the Western world are despairing at the thunderous decline in political engagement, particularly in our youth. And what do they recommend we do about it? The Internet of course!

It is hardly surprising, ten years into the 21^st century, that our panacea is digital; even less so that it is on-line. So what is my radium-infused solution for our lack of engagement? It is called Debatewise.org and it should be taken once a day at minimum.

Debatewise, for those of you that haven’t spotted the clever pun, is a debating website. This is a very simple and quite misleading description. For a start, it doesn’t stand across from you and tell you that you’re wrong. Instead, debates are created, added to and edited by anyone. In a wiki-style, crowd-sourcing, gathering of communal knowledge and opinion, Debatewise is the daddy of argument. You want to make your mind up on an issue? Go to Debatewise. You want to tell other people what you think about an issue? Go to Debatewise.

Take a look at the debate about Wikileaks and Afganistan. No really, even if you just go to have a look at the format. Red on one side, blue on the other. FOR and AGAINST, YES and NO. This is not impartial, this is not just facts and figures; this is opinion and argument and persuasion. This is where to make decisions.

So, lost under the sheets with our cheap and easy information, we can be sated and spent, knowing that we didn't get overwhelmed and disappoint. We can be smug in the knowledge that we took the information just as we wanted it and gave it the time of its life.

She doesn't get it

2010-04-27T15:28:00.000+01:00

So I got a reply from Ms Thornberry. Here are the salient bits:

I can see why the Select Committee reached the decision it did ... but I still feel that there should be some room for other complementary therapies, including homeopathy.

I should stress that those sentences are from the beginning and end of her letter, not the same sentence, or even the same paragraph. The notable argument in the filling in between these two contradictory slices of information is that I don't disagree with her on the perceived benefits of seeing a homeopath, which she considers an important point.

I think she was concentrating on my second paragraph,

That people are happy with the treatment they receive from homeopaths is undeniable. The stronger claim that people get better after visiting homeopaths is also undeniable.

and not on the sentence in bold in the final paragraph,

the positive effects of homeopathy are not being ignored.

Either way, here is my reply in full.

Next time, my first ever letter to our Liberal Democrat candidate, in view of updating her page on sceptical-voter.org.

Dear Ms Thornberry,

It seems I’m not doing a good job of explaining myself. Please excuse any ranting in what follows; I’m afraid I feel pretty strongly about this issue.

If you can see why people think it is wrong to provide complementary therapies on the NHS, then why do you feel there should still be some room for them? If I understand you correctly, it is because of “the perceived benefits of seeing a homeopath for some people with long-term conditions”.

You are correct that I acknowledge a perceived benefit in homeopathic treatment. But I very strongly disagree that that benefit is a reason to encourage or explore its use. ALL un-harmful interventions have the SAME perceived benefit – the placebo effect. Some of those interventions have other benefits; the government agrees that homeopathy is not one of them. If I sat and chatted with a patient with chronic back-pain for an hour or so and then prescribed a lengthy treatment of soaking their back in tepid salt water and continuing consultation, they would perceive a benefit. I am not a doctor and to say that this chatting-and-tepid-water treatment should be investigated by the NHS is ridiculous – just as it is ridiculous to continue to put time and effort into homeopathy, which has the SAME effect.

I am strongly against the government providing a placebo treatment, like homeopathy, on the NHS – they have rules about this sort of thing, rules that say things like ‘don’t provide placebos, they’re deceitful and unreliable’.

I agree that more time and effort should be put into ‘talking’ treatments; I do not agree, in fact I find it morally abhorrent, that they should be presented as anything other than ‘talking’ treatments. To dress up extremely valuable and effective face-to-face contact as a complementary consultation resulting in the prescription of placebo is not only wrong in my view, but also in the eyes of medical ethicists, philosophers, scientists and many a rational human being.

It is called LYING.

Homeopathic treatments misrepresent the facts and have no benefit beyond just simply talking to the person. While it is true that ‘just simply talking to the person’ is worthwhile and that more emphasis should be put on those therapies, we should not and must not deceive patients.

I hope that I am closer to showing you why homeopathy, along with all the other treatments that show no benefit beyond placebo, should not be investigated or provided by the NHS; because providing placebos is lying and providing a talking service that is presented as anything else is lying.

Yours,

&c.

Dear Ms Thornberry MP

2010-03-30T12:51:00.000+01:00

Here is the final draft of my letter to my MP about homeopathy. I have included links which will not go into print, but are there in case the reader doesn't know which bits of the discussion I'm referring to, or wants to check the details themselves. Please leave feedback, I haven't sent it yet.

-----------

Dear Ms Thornberry,

Your responses are, as ever, considered and fruitful. I am glad to hear that you are not intending to sign Mr Tredinnick’s EDM. You are not, however, happy with the results of the Science and Technology Select Committee. You give heartfelt reasoning: “making people with chronic conditions feel a bit better is a worthwhile endeavour for the NHS.” I would be a fool to deny that. I would, however, humbly but strongly suggest that there is a flaw in your reasoning.

That people are happy with the treatment they receive from homeopaths is undeniable. The stronger claim that people get better after visiting homeopaths is also undeniable. That the NHS should try to make people feel better would be ridiculous to deny. So it seems reasonable to say that the NHS should provide homeopathic treatment, because it makes people feel better. The problem is, it isn’t reasonable to say this.

Scientists have been testing to see if homeopathic treatment makes people feel better more effectively than if they used sugar pills instead. They have found it doesn’t. In the words of the Committee: “the Government acknowledges there is no evidence that homeopathy works beyond the placebo effect”. This doesn’t stop people getting better. This doesn’t stop people feeling happy about the treatment. It just means that it’s no better than giving them nothing-in-a-pill. That means that no matter what anybody says about how well it works or how happy they are with the treatment, it has been shown, by people who really did a lot of work on it, that they are not getting better more than if they were getting nothing-in-a-pill. Why is that so bad, if it’s still making people feel better? Here’s what the committee has to say:

“Prescribing of placebos is not consistent with informed patient choice – which the Government claims is very important – as it means patients do not have all the information needed to make choice meaningful.

Beyond ethical issues and the integrity of the doctor-patient relationship, prescribing pure placebos is bad medicine. Their effect is unreliable and unpredictable and cannot form the sole basis of any treatment on the NHS.”

So, prescribing placebos is deceitful and unreliable; homeopathy is no better than a placebo; yet the NHS still prescribes homeopathic pills, so the NHS still provides a deceitful and unreliable service. All this, while it could be spending money on things like improving palliative care for those with chronic conditions, or increased contact time with patients in General Practices, or other things that actually work and don’t involve lying to the patients.

I see that your other disagreement with the SciTech Committee’s report was based on the choice of witnesses. I can understand that you may feel the ‘side’ of the homeopaths was under-represented and so the positive effects of homeopathy have been ignored or swept under the carpet. I hope I have made it clear that the positive effects of homeopathy are not being ignored; that they are instead being factored-in by people whose job it is to be aware of those sorts of things and then being tested rigorously to eradicate any bias. I would urge you to reconsider the evidence before you, perhaps in the way I have presented it here, and notice the ethical implications of a government that knows the facts about homeopathy, and so is at risk of lying to the patients of the Royal National Homeopathic Hospital.

Yours,

etc.

---------

Wxx

Ahem.

2010-03-27T20:43:00.000Z

So it will take me a while to get used to the formatting on this site.

For those of you unable to read invisible ink, here are the quotes from the last post...

Ms Thornberry MP:

[Y]ou can assured [sic] that I am not intending to sign the EDM in question.

However, I know that many patients are happy with the treatment they receive from homeopaths, and it seems to me that making people with chronic conditions feel a bit better is a worthwhile endeavour for the NHS.
...
Whilst I do not intend to sign the EDM, my view is that Select Committees should consider carefully how they select witnesses to avoid possible imbalance.

SciTech Committee:

Prescribing of placebos is not consistent with informed patient choice—which the Government claims is very important—as it means patients do not have all the information needed to make choice meaningful.
Beyond ethical issues and the integrity of the doctor-patient relationship, prescribing pure placebos is bad medicine. Their effect is unreliable and unpredictable and cannot form the sole basis of any treatment on the NHS.

Homeopathy

2010-03-27T19:37:00.000Z

I've finally got interested in Politics.

It started with me reading Ben Goldacre's Bad Science, which caused me to subscribe to badscienceblogs.net, which led me to sign www.libelreform.org/sign, which led me to send my first ever correspondence to an MP.

I asked my MP to sign the EDM that supported the reform of the libel laws and she sent me a lovely reply saying she already had. On the back of that, with her seeming reasonable and all, I asked her not to sign the EDM that "expresses concern" at the results of the Science and Technology Committee meeting on Homeopathy.

She writes on 22nd March:

[Y]ou can assured [sic] that I am not intending to sign the EDM in question.

However, I know that many patients are happy with the treatment they receive from homeopaths, and it seems to me that making people with chronic conditions feel a bit better is a worthwhile endeavour for the NHS.
...
Whilst I do not intend to sign the EDM, my view is that Select Committees should consider carefully how they select witnesses to avoid possible imbalance.

I am in the process of writing a letter in reply, saying two things (i) people saying they are happy with the treatments or that they feel "a bit better" is positive evidence in favour of homeopathy, but has not been ignored as Ms Thornberry MP suggests; and (ii) stressing the point made so well by the Select Committee that

Prescribing of placebos is not consistent with informed patient choice—which the Government claims is very important—as it means patients do not have all the information needed to make choice meaningful.
Beyond ethical issues and the integrity of the doctor-patient relationship, prescribing pure placebos is bad medicine. Their effect is unreliable and unpredictable and cannot form the sole basis of any treatment on the NHS.

I will post the letter at the Post Office before I put it up here.

First, I'd like to know your views...