The Skeptic's Field Guide

Can ChatGPT be used for teaching critical thinking and informal logical fallacies?

2023-01-19T21:00:00.001+10:00

It's been a while since I last wrote a blog post, but with all the recent media attention (and my own interest), I thought it would be interesting to share some of my results in using ChatGPT. Specifically, using it to replicate the things that this blog, a book and podcast did regularly, back when blogs were big and podcasts were small.

What is ChatGPT and how could it assist in teaching critical thinking and analysing arguments?

Unless you've been a participant in the series 'Alone' since December last year, you've probably heard about ChatGPT, the cutting-edge language model developed by OpenAI that utilises deep learning techniques to generate human-like text. The recently media attention has highlighted its potential to revolutionise various industries and applications, including education. While there are plenty of potential challenges of AI in education, an interesting application of this technology is its potential to help teach critical thinking, informal logical fallacies, and how to analysise/improve arguments.

ChatGPT can be used to generate realistic examples of common logical fallacies and explain where the argument goes wrong. This can help students develop the skills necessary to recognize and avoid these fallacies in their own arguments and in the arguments of others. For example, it can generate a statement like "Vaccines cause autism" which is (sadly) a common logical fallacy called False Cause.

Additionally, ChatGPT can be used to analyse and evaluate arguments by generating counterarguments and identifying any weak points in the reasoning. For example, it can be used to evaluate an argument in favor of increasing the minimum wage, by generating counterarguments such as "increase in minimum wage would lead to inflation" or "small businesses would suffer" and help students identify any weak points in the reasoning.

You can also use ChatGPT to facilitate discussions and debates by generating thought-provoking questions and prompts. For example, it can generate a question like "Should the government regulate social media to combat misinformation?" this can help students to consider different perspectives and to develop their own critical thinking skills.

Overall, ChatGPT has the potential to be a valuable tool for teaching critical thinking, informal logical fallacies and to analyse people's arguments. Despite concerns about the potential challenges of AI in education, the technology holds a lot of potential in various fields. As the technology continues to improve, it will likely become an even more powerful tool for educators and students alike.

Hopefully anyone who has played around with ChatGPT has reaslised by now that most the above is a copy and paste from ChatGPT. It's too well written to be me (and it's kind of boring and lacks my use of irony or references to TV shows).

See below for my initial few prompts and its response.

Using ChatGPT to generate an explanation for concept, such as an informal logical fallacy.

My next step was to get it to explain a fallacy.

As Larry David would say, pretty, pretty, good.

Using ChatGPT to analyse an argument.

I then decided to see how it would go assisting me in analysing text for fallacies, which is pretty much the entirety of this blog. So I tested ChatGPT against some text from this post: No conflict here, just scientists doing their jobs - you know - science.

Okay, I told it to look for a particular fallacy. So how about just looking for them in general?

And then again for another bit of text from the blog post:

It's certainly not perfect, and I've found other examples when ChatGPT is completely wrong, but as an assistant and teaching tool it already has a lot of potential. Just as with Wikipedia for doing research, a good starting point for a topic or constructing (or destructing) an argument, but not an endpoint.

We said in the introduction to Humbug!, that the book:

...is more a tool to consult as the occasion demands, rather than a book to read in a linear fashion. You may find it to be a useful resource for those occasions when you read or hear a suspect statement or claim, and want to identify the flawed reasoning in the assertion.

If I ever do a 3rd Edition I'd probably update this point to suggest running the suspect statement or claim through ChatGPT or an equivalent AI, and then checking its output against an authoritative source. Speaking of which (and as an aside) I just realised that according to Betteridge's law and my headline, all of the above is wrong.

Valuing scientific expertise

2020-08-24T07:00:00.003+10:00

This is the second of two posts that go hand-in-hand. The first post is a brief overview of some important concepts and well established results of psychology that help me think about my thinking. This second post is about valuing scientific expertise and why our non-expert default position should be to believe scientific consensuses, or at the very least, to be comfortable in saying, "I don't know".

You are not an expert (and neither am I)

As Socrates is said to have said, wisdom is knowing that you don't know. A big part of critical thinking is intellectual humility. While it is possible to become an expert at something, it takes years and years of training in a discipline. Think about something that for you this applies to. Think about all the time, hard work, practice and dedication that it took to earn that expertise. Think about all the mistakes you learned from and the pitfalls you now know how to avoid, On that one thing you're probably pretty safe talking at length about all that you know. And when you meet other experts, they can easily recognise you know what you're doing or talking about.

Now think about non-experts and novices trying to talk to you about it. How much credit do you give their views? Well, that's you (and me) when it comes to every other field of human endeavour. It's the ultimate form of arrogant overconfidence to assume your opinion on a subject that you don’t have expertise in has much, if any, merit. And when you dismiss expert consensus out-of-hand, by definition, your dismissal of something you know nothing about is worthless. In fact, it says everything about you and nothing about the experts or their view(s). Imagine a non-expert novice dismissing your views out of hand when discussing a subject you are an expert in?

Scientific (and expert) consensus

A scientific consensus is more than scientists within a field being surveyed for their beliefs or tallying their views in research papers. It relates to what the researchers in a field are interested in studying and why. When there is a question to be answered or a problem to be solved, they'll be researching it and arguing about it; i.e. doing science. But when a question is answered to sufficient satisfaction, e.g. anthropogenic climate change, evolution by natural selection or the second law of thermodynamics, there is little or no incentive to keep researching this question — it's done. Scientists operate within well-established paradigms for a reason — they're well established based on the convergence of theory with data.

Now, on occasion "settled science" is accused of being wrong, as if "science" itself has failed. People who make this claim basically know nothing about the history and nature of science, and are typically guilty of an exaggerated conflict. Modern science is a collaborative endeavour, "far too complex to be understood, let alone experimentally verified, by any one person". Yes, paradigms can shift, but it's through doing more science, not thanks to some "maverick researcher" who thinks they're the next Galileo or Tesla.

Most of the time, especially in the last 50 years or so, you don't tend to get "wrong" science, but rather incomplete science. For example, there are theories and predictions that are not detailed, accurate or precise enough, or have oversimplified a phenomenon. Over time, however, more data and better models and technology change and improve our understanding (think climate change), to the point that previous predictions or recommendations can even be overturned.

There have been cases where science has gotten it completely wrong. But we only find this out by doing more science. To get to the level of expertise to be able to do this requires dedication and hard work. So, unless you have dedicated yourself to doing this hard work, your opinion carries little weight. Thus a critical thinker's default position is to believe the experts. They're the ones who are smart enough and dedicated enough to do the hard work that you're not able or prepared to do. Here's a nice overview of what it takes to develop that expertise.

Another way of thinking about this is that you almost certainly do align with the scientific consensus with many topics, so why those but not others? If, for example, your views align with the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change, but not the consensus on the safety of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), vaccine efficacy and safety, health effects of mobile phone radiation, or even how to handle a worldwide pandemic, ask yourself, "Why is that the case?" I'm fairly confident in assuming that you lack the expertise to evaluate any of these scientific fields directly. I know I don’t have the expertise, and I have a science degree and taught high school physics and maths. (You can see the gap between scientists and the general public with a number of scientific questions here.)

So why would you take a position that agrees with one consensus, but not another? Often the rejoinder to this point is some variant of, "No, I do believe in science, but this is a special case where this field is hopelessly compromised", e.g. "But research into GMOs is beholden to corporate interests / evil Monsanto and can't be trusted". Well, for whatever field you do believe the scientific-expert consensus, there are very likely people who use the exact same argument to try and deny it, e.g. "Climate change research is beholden to green/leftist ideology and can't be trusted".

Why is your special case special to you and not to others, and vice-versa? An obvious reason is it's because of an ideological belief that puts the conclusion first (see motivated reasoning). This was me, by the way, when it came to GMOs back in the late nineties and early naughts (thanks David Suzuki). But because I care more about the process of science rather than a predetermined conclusion, I eventually changed my mind. I also recognised the fundamental inconsistency in believing climate scientists but not believing GMO researchers. (Finding out that the details of all the most famous anti-GMO claims were outright lies or deliberately distorted propaganda helped move me on pretty quickly too.)

This isn't to say you can't or shouldn’t have opinions about stuff, but the default should be to stick with the expert and scientific consensus (even if you believe it for the wrong reasons, such as common sense). And if you can't bring yourself to that, then it should be, "I don't know enough about that topic". None of us are immune for thinking we're more knowledgeable than we really are (yes, me included). Given this knowledge we should try to do our best to have some intellectual humility, lest we fall victim to Dunning and Kruger.

Thinking about thinking

2020-08-21T07:38:00.004+10:00

This is the first of a planned two posts that I've been mulling over and sporadically writing notes to myself about over the last year or so. This first post is a very brief overview of some important concepts and well established results of psychology that help me think about my thinking. The second post is about valuing scientific expertise and why our non-expert default position should be to believe scientific consensuses, or at the very least, to be comfortable in saying, "I don't know". Both include a lot of links to further reading and learning if you're so inclined.

Why?

Since the ascendancy of Donald Trump to the White House, and now with the coronavirus pandemic, I've noticed a lot of weird beliefs and thinking take hold across social media. Common to these groups is the idea that "the media" and other non-specific all-powerful groups or people (the "deep state", Bill Gates) are manipulating us with their "fake news", false narratives and sinister motives; that scientists and so-called "experts" can't be trusted. Unlike me, this new group of free and critical thinking peoples see the truth; the scales have fallen from their eyes (not that they are being manipulated by an authoritarian dictator and a disinformation campaign). I, on the other hand, as someone who tends to take experts and journalists who have a proven track record at face value, am one of the “sheeple”.

Arguing with people who have fallen down the YouTube and Facebook rabbit hole about their specific beliefs and claims is exhausting and likely to backfire. As such, I thought I'd take a different tack and discuss how I think about critical thinking vs non-critical and pseudo-critical thinking, and the importance of valuing expertise.

If I have sent you a link to this post, it's because I know I won't convince you about whatever it is we're disagreeing about. I'm not even going to try. Forget about whatever it was we were discussing as it’s not specific to what follows. What I hope to do is to show how I think about any claim, how I try to reflect on my own thinking (I'm not always successful), and in another post, why I think we should all value and respect expertise.

Critical thinking vs non-critical and pseudo-critical thinking

First, I think it's important to distinguish between the three different modes of thinking that to some degree we all use to come to a point of view — critical thinking, non-critical thinking (see Kahneman's slow and fast thinking) and pseudo-critical thinking.

Critical thinking isn't a "thing" to be defined, but rather a mindset linked to a particular set of knowledge and skills that can be honed and developed over time. A key characteristic of critical thinking is its goal, which is not to “win” an argument at all costs, but to “seek the truth”. Truth seeking involves both a habit of mind (a disinterested search for truth), a set of knowledge and intellectual skills, and criteria by which we can feel confident in our knowledge claims.

Non-critical thinking is unconscious and passive, typically involving "going with my gut" and "common sense", as well as regurgitation of beliefs that are accepted a priori, without justification. Non-critical thinking doesn’t really have an intellectual goal, it's just what we do most of the time in most situations to make everyday decisions and go about our lives. It's only an issue when it is applied to claims that we would like other people to believe or when making important decisions. Asserting that we like the smell of coffee does not require justification, whereas stating that coffee causes cancer does.

Pseudo-critical thinking dresses itself in many of the characteristics of critical thinking, using most of the techniques, but the goal is reversed. That is, the goal is to "win" at all costs and critical thinking knowledge and skills are employed to this end.

Fallacies

Critical thinking requires some understanding of informal (and to a lesser extent formal) logical fallacies and applying them to our own (and other people’s) reasoning. Non-critical thinking typically means not even knowing about fallacies and unconsciously employing (or falling for) them. Pseudo-critical thinking occurs when one knows about fallacies and deliberately employs them in order to "win" an argument.

We don't need to know a list of fallacies off by heart to be a critical thinker, but we do need to scrutinise our own arguments and avoid making non-sequiturs. We should also try to apply the principle of charity when evaluating the arguments of others, rather than immediately trying to tear them down (I'm the first to admit this is easier said than done).

Neuropsychological humility and cognitive biases

Critical thinking requires an understanding of cognitive biases and all the ways our brains can fool us, and applying this understanding to our own beliefs and experiences. For example, as a consequence of understanding the sunk cost fallacy, successfully developing sufficient self-control to not finish the entire meal if we're full, even if we've paid for it.

Non-critical thinking often involves a naïve belief about how our brains and senses work, for example, taking an interpretation of an experience or eye-witness recollection of an event at face-value, as if our brains are a video recording. Our memory is incredibly unreliable.

Pseudo-critical thinking deliberately uses cognitive biases against us. For example, the ingroup bias is used by politicians and the media, and the anchoring effect by marketers, to manipulate us all.

How much do you know about your (and my) cognitive biases? My personal favourite, that I regularly catch myself in the act of doing, is the fundamental attribution error.

Metacognition vs motivated reasoning

Critical thinking requires disinterested reasoning; avoiding as much as humanly possible investing in a particular belief or conclusion. As seekers after truth and critical thinkers, we should invest in the process of truth seeking, logic and reason, well-established scientific evidence, and intellectual honesty, not in any specific answer. To do this we must reflect on our own reasoning and try to ensure we are "married to the process", even seeking evidence to disconfirm our favoured idea and celebrating the times we do change our minds.

Non-critical and pseudo-critical thinking involves being "married" to a predetermined answer, consciously or unconsciously seeking confirming evidence and dismissing counter-evidence to maintain the favoured narrative. This typically occurs when we have an ideological position or belief, where we engage in non-critical unconscious motivated reasoning and confirmation bias in order to minimise cognitive dissonance — the treacherous trio of biases. Pseudo-critical thinking is conscious motivated reasoning, typically in defense of or attacking an ideological belief system, and especially in professions such as politics and law. The predetermined conclusion is all that matters.

A good trick to test our own motivated reasoning is to employ a substitution, e.g. substitute “Obama” for “Trump” and think about how we'd react. This can quickly reveal that we're holding a position not because of evidence or logic, but rather, because of the nature of the conclusion or who is making the argument. Another technique is to be our own Devil's advocate. Deliberately be the opponent, skeptical of our own position and try to find flaws in our own reasoning.

Conservative bias about 'leftist bias'

2019-11-23T09:41:00.000+10:00

The ABC recently published an article Teachers, schools in firing line as conservatives rail against 'leftist agenda', based on their Australia Talks National Survey. The crux of the piece is that: 'One Nation voters are turning on the mainstream education system as conservatives across the country express a deep mistrust of what they say is a "leftist agenda" taking over the classroom.'

There's nothing wrong with the story per se, but the headline and associated graphs they use send a misleading message. They show the satisfaction of voters of different parties with the education system and with teachers.

However, they are out of 100% for each party, thus greatly 'biasing' the results for parties that have a small number of voters. Consider the sizes of the orange columns, which belong to One Nation, who nationally polled 1.29% at the last federal election.

When you adjust the graphs based on the national first preferences, making them out of 100% in total, this is the result.

There are certainly lessons to be learned in terms of why different groups responded to the survey in this way, but it should be kept in perspective. This isn’t about ‘conservatives’, given the blue LNP would fall under that category. It’s about a small far right party that already gets quite a bit of media attention, especially when compared to the proportion of the population who throw votes their way. Further, as the article goes on to say:"[t]he root of the frustration can be traced to a wider dissatisfaction with the political landscape...", rather than the education system and teachers themselves.

Education 'Cargo Cults'

2018-09-17T07:30:00.000+10:00

Education guru (not self-proclaimed) John Hattie, along with co-author Arran Hamilton, list a number of fatal cognitive biases in the blog post How to stop cognitive biases from undermining your impact, which is well worth a read for any educator (or anyone for that matter). They point out that:

...a growing database of Cognitive Biases or glitches in our human operating system have been catalogued and confirmed through laboratory experiment and psychometric testing. The research suggests that biases afflict all of us, unless we have been trained to ward against them.

The post is a small part of the bigger white paper: Education cargo cults must die (pdf). It's a somewhat ironic paper, given the criticism levelled at Hattie's guru status and cult-like following. However, this is something Hattie and Hamilton are well aware of, noting the danger of appealing to authority:

Authority Bias: Tendency to attribute greater weight and accuracy to the opinions of an authority figure—irrespective of whether this is deserved—and to be influenced by it.

EDUCATION: Don’t be swayed by famous titled gurus. Carefully unpick and test of all their assumptions—especially if they are making claims outside the specific area of expertise. Be particularly suspicious of anyone that writes and publishes a white paper [!!!] (p 20, emphasis added).

Some key quotes from the white paper:

We make the case that ingrained cognitive biases make us all naturally predisposed to invest in educational products and approaches that conform with our existing worldview and to only grudgingly alter our behavior in the face of significant conflicting evidence. In section two, we argue that educators and policymakers must fight hard to overcome their cognitive biases and to become true evaluators of their own impact (p 9).

Health warning: May ultimately make you feel as though you can trust what you see again, because you’ll have a framework for identifying evidence and being more skeptical of initiatives and resources that just don’t have sufficient backing (p 10).

We advocate an approach to education that is built on reason, rather than intuition alone. This involves systematic collection of data on students’ learning experiences in the classroom and the ways in which teachers and product developers can accelerate this learning. From data, we can inform intuitions and judgements and build theories. And, from theories, we can build structured processes—continually testing and refining these too (p 25).

While there are plenty of critics of Hattie's work (and how Hattie's work tends to be used), it's great to see educators engaged in discussion about our profession and continually improving evidence/research base of our practice. Or at the very least, minimising the chances of wasting our time on myths and errant nonsense.

The slippery slope of same sex marriage

2017-09-07T20:50:00.002+10:00

Australia is about to undertake a pointless non-binding postal survey about our views on same sex marriage (SSM), which if a majority say ‘Yes’, will see a bill before parliament that politicians will vote on. I.e. an abject failure of how representative democracy is supposed to work (there’s no need for a $120m survey for any other bit of legislation).

As predicted by everyone, the stupid has begun. Here’s one such example I came across on Facebook:

In our book, we ended our section on the slippery slope fallacy with this:

On the other hand, it is important to be aware that when people who lack the mature judgement of the authors venture onto a slippery slope, they will inevitably wallow in ever more bizarre misconceptions and fallacious reasoning until we end up with nothing but gibberish —and finally, the complete destruction of civilization as we know it.

The unironic employment of the slippery slope argument, that SSM will lead to ‘our own destruction’, may in fact be evidence that we are seeing the first steps in a series of events of poor thinking, fallacious reasoning and even more bizarre misconceptions, that will lead to the complete destruction of civilisation as we know it. Thus proving, ironically, the deliberately tongue in cheek prediction from the book.

Thoughts about MRAs on the internet and accurately employing fallacies - NECSS and Richard Dawkins

2016-02-03T20:36:00.000+10:00

Over-sized brain leads to over-sized hubris

Recently the skeptical part of the internet went into yet another meltdown about women. In short, the Northeast Conference on Science and Skepticism (NECSS) withdrew their invitation to Richard Dawkins to be a featured speaker at their conference, because he, yet again, was a twitter tool. See the details here. (If you don't know why it's "yet another" and "yet again" count your blessings or google "elevatorgate", or "used to be nearly everyone's favourite big brained science dude, but now... not".)

I'm not going to discuss this in any specific detail. This is just a thought I had when reading some comments about it. (Note to self, for the millionth time: Stop. Reading. Comments!)

Normally I try to avoid using fallacies when I make a point, but in this case, stuff it, I'll make an exception because I'll still be right.

What's the deal with all the middle aged white dudes (overgeneralisation) who seem to continually be upset at the idea that women should be afforded the respect they ask for, as opposed to the respect the we think they want or deserve (straw man, but not really)? So much energy and vitriol wasted on something that should just be a no-brainer, when there are actually important issues to get upset and worked up about (false dilemma, but again, not really).

Seriously, calm down. I'm a (nearly) middle aged white dude and guess what, I won the fucking lotto and I know it. I don't want to "give up" this accident of birth luck I've had, but I wouldn't mind everyone else having my luck too. It's not a zero sum game.

Big pharma shill defends more than 90% of drugs being contaminated

2015-12-21T07:30:00.000+10:00

A recent study in Nature has found that 92% of 26 medicines tested were found to have some form of contamination and/or substitution, because they included toxic metals, non-listed substituted pharmaceuticals and stimulants, and a variety of DNA, none of which were listed on the product's label.

These researchers used highly sensitive DNA sequencing, toxicology and heavy metal testing to assess the composition of 26 widely available drugs (they were purchased in Adelaide and are available for sale in retailers and markets nationally). The Venn diagram below, taken from their study, shows that only two of the 26 drugs tested were clean.

One results worth highlighting: some of the drugs also included ephedrine, which gives many people a buzz, making them feel good immediately (ergo, the medicine feels great and they should keep taking it). Also worth noting that nearly all were non-compliant for heavy metals and other dangerous substances, including more than the safe limit of arsenic, cadmium, lead and strychnine.

This is appalling. Big pharma is a multi-billion-dollar industry and this lack of quality control is inexcusable. What is just as shocking and inexcusable as the results, is the reaction from National President of the Federation of Pharmacists of Australia, Professor Linda Child. She does not believe such findings would be widespread across the industry, saying: "It will be one or two individual companies. It may be one or two cases [that have] happened, but not many. The current regulatory regime is perfect."

Ah, what? 24 out of 26 would suggest it's the norm and the opposite of perfect. For her to say this, instead of being outraged, shows she is simply the chief big pharma shill, bought and paid for by the multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical industry. This is an industry that clearly puts profits before patients. What anyone who cares about patients getting the actual ingredients of the prescribed medicines would say (I'd have thought) is that this needs to be properly investigated and someone needs to go to jail.

This is a multi-billion dollar industry. If they chose they could ensure rigorous quality control of ingredients at a minimum. And I'll go further — they should undertake proper, rigorous and open trials that test for the efficacy and safety of medicines. Not the dodgy process they currently go through, with sympathetic proponents rubber stamping every new drug any company wants and protecting them from real regulation and testing.

Substitution is a great technique for testing your own reasoning and biases. If you've clicked on any of the links in the post, you'll see that's what I've done. All the statistics and data are real, but it's not "big pharma", it's Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM).

If the above sounded appalling to you, then it should be because it's appalling in its own right, not because it was pharmaceutical medicine. It should still be as appalling even though its TCM. If your view is now different because it's TCM, then you can be the judge of where your own biases lie, and hopefully see the benefit of using substitution as a meta-cognitive thinking technique.

(Aside: Why are the TCM manufacturers adding in synthetic pharmaceuticals if the TCM is meant to work on its own?)

Second Edition of Humbug! Price drop - only $2

2015-10-31T10:31:00.000+10:00

The Second (eBook) Edition of Humbug! is now US$2 from:

Essentially it's as cheap as I can make it through Amazon without enrolling it in Kindle Direct Publishing Select, which you can only do if the book is exclusively on Amazon (which I'd never be prepared to do).

Humbug means "deceptive or false talk or behaviour". This book is a tool for detecting humbug. The core of the book does not concern itself with the structure of good arguments, or with models for inquiry. Rather, the content focuses on error. If individuals become astute at identifying and critiquing flawed arguments, they will become more skilled at identifying sound arguments presented by others and in formulating sound arguments of their own.

The subtitle of the book is the Skeptic’s Guide Field Guide to Spotting Fallacies and Deceptive Arguments. The skeptical inquirer, whether a student, an academic or a member of the public, is a person who has the habit of questioning assertions made by others.

This second edition of Humbug! has been expanded and now includes three sections. Part 1 provides a rationale for the book and an introduction to critical thinking, Part 2 provides some simple techniques that are useful in the analysis of arguments and in forming a position, and Part 3 describes and provides examples of common fallacies and flawed arguments.

Mike Huckabee's arse backwards analogy

2015-02-02T09:14:00.000+10:00

One of the main problems with arguments from analogy is that it's often quite easy to reverse them. From The Guardian:

The Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee on Sunday said... forcing people opposed to same-sex marriage to accept it was the same as telling Jews they had to serve “bacon-wrapped shrimp in their deli”.

No Mike, no. Saying gay people are not allowed to marry would be like Jews telling non-Jews they can't eat bacon.

You've actually just made an argument for gay marriage. We live in pluralist democratic societies with governments that (should) say: "You're free to follow your own beliefs and ways of living so long as you don't force those beliefs on others."

The correct analogy: "Jews are free to not eat and serve bacon-wrapped shrimp, but others are. You are free to not be gay and married, but others are."

Hunting Humbug 101: Episode 0006: Brain gym and the argument from imag...

2014-08-02T15:14:00.001+10:00

Hunting Humbug 101: Episode 0006: Brain gym and the argument from imag...: As with the previous episode, this is partially based on my presentation at Brisbane SkeptiCamp 2014 Clips and information from this epi...

Hunting Humbug 101: Episode 0005: Factoid propagation - brain claims:

2014-07-19T23:22:00.001+10:00

Hunting Humbug 101: Episode 0005: Factoid propagation - brain claims:: This episode is partially based on my presentation at Brisbane SkeptiCamp 2014 Clips and information from this episode can be found here:...

Hunting Humbug 101: Episode 0004: False Analogy (Original Episode with...

2014-07-06T09:27:00.001+10:00

Hunting Humbug 101: Episode 0004: False Analogy (Original Episode with...: This episode looks false analogy . This is an episode from the original run of the podcast. It also includes a newly recorded part lookin... The Second (eBook) Edition of Humbug! is available for about US$3.99 from:

Hunting Humbug 101: Episode 0003: False balance

2014-06-20T19:41:00.001+10:00

Hunting Humbug 101: Episode 0003: False balance: Show notes In this episode we look at false balance . We discussed the Dunning-Kruger effect with some Dunning-Kruger like accuracy

Direct link to audio: https://archive.org/download/HH101/HH101e0003.mp3

Cosmos: the Pale Blue Dot and Neil deGrasse Tyson on Science

2014-06-14T20:55:00.001+10:00

The above clip is Carl Sagan's brilliant "Pale Blue Dot" speech, remastered and produced in the final episode of the new Cosmos series - highly recommended. Immediately following this the new host Neil deGrasse Tyson follows up with a great speech of his own, outlining the ideals of science. Text below courtesy of a commenter on the youtube clip:

How did we, tiny creatures living on that spec of dust, ever manage to figure out how to send spacecraft outer among the stars of the milky way? Only a few centuries ago, a mere second of the cosmic time. We knew nothing of where and when we were. Oblivious to the rest of the cosmos, we inhabited a kind of prison, a tiny universe bounded by a nutshell.

How did we escape form the prison? It was the work of generation of searchers, who took 5 simple rules to heart.

Question authority. No idea is true just because someone says so, including me. Think for yourself.

Question yourself. Don't believe anything just because you want to. Believing something doesn't make it so.

Test ideas, by the evidence gained from observation and experiment. If a favorite idea fails a well designed test, it's wrong. Get over it.

Follow the evidence, were ever it leads. If you have no evidence, reserve judgement.
And perhaps even the most important rule of all, remember you could be wrong. Even the best scientist have been wrong about somethings. Newton, Einstein, and ever other great scientist in history. They all made mistakes. Of course they did, their were human. Science is a way keep from fooling ourselves and each other.

Have scientist known sin? Of course, we have misused science, just as we have every other tool at out disposal. That's why we can't afford to leave it in the hands of a powerful few. The more science belongs to all of us, the less likely it is be misused. These values undermined the appeals of fanaticism and ignorance. And, after all, the universe is mostly dark, dotted by islands of light. Learning the age of the earth, or the distance from the stars, or how life evolves, what difference does that make?

Well, part of it depends on how big of a universe we are willing to live in. Some of us like it small, that's fine, understandable. But I like it big, and when I take all of this into my heart and my mind, I am uplifted by it. And when I have that feeling, I want to know that it's real. Not just something happening inside my own head. Because it matters whats true. Imagination is nothing compared with natures awesome reality.

I want to know what's in those dark places. And, what happened before the big bang. I want to know what lies beyond the cosmic horizon and how life began. Are there other places in the cosmos were matter and energy have become alive, and aware? I want to know my ancestors, all of them. I want to be a good strong link in the chain of generations. I want to protect my children and the children of ages to come.

We, who embody the local eyes and ear and the thoughts and feelings of the cosmos, we begun to learn the story of our origins, star stuff, contemplating the evolution of matter. Tracing that long path to which it arrived at consciousness. We and the other living things on this planet carry a legacy of cosmic evolution, spanning billions of years. If we take that knowledge to heart, if we come to know and love nature as it really is, then we would surely be remember by our descendants as good strong links in the chain of life. And our children will continue this sacred searching, seeing for us, as we have seen for those who came before.

Discovering wanders yet undreamt of, in the cosmos.

Hunting Humbug 101: Episode 0002: What is Humbug! (Original Episode)

2014-06-09T09:27:00.001+10:00

Hunting Humbug 101: Episode 0002: What is Humbug! (Original Episode): This was the first episode in the original run of Hunting Humbug 101. In it we (my Father Jef and I) discuss the general idea of fallacie...

The Second (eBook) Edition of Humbug! is available for about US$3.99 from:

Direct download of the episode: https://archive.org/download/HH101/HH101e0002.mp3

Interview on the Skeptic Zone podcast

2014-06-08T19:05:00.001+10:00

I was lucky enough to be interviewed in this week's Skeptic Zone podcast by Australian Skeptics' President Richard Saunders. We chat about the second edition of Humbug! and some of the most common fallacies we run across.

You can (and should) subscribe to the Skeptic Zone podcast at skepticzone.tv.

Virtual Skeptics #91 - 6/4/2014

2014-06-05T18:45:00.001+10:00

Thanks to Tim Farley of Skeptools and What's the Harm for plugging Humbug! in this week's episode of Virtual Skeptics.

Brisbane SkeptiCamp July 2014

2014-06-01T18:05:00.000+10:00

Brisbane SkeptiCamp is coming up on Saturday the 19th of July, at Hamilton Town Hall in Brisbane. It's a free community event to discuss critical thinking in a friendly and social forum.

There will be presentations throughout the day by local skeptics, including me. Check out the link above to see the list of talks and to register.

Hunting Humbug 101: Episode 0001: Homeopathy - appealing to tradition

2014-05-29T10:05:00.001+10:00

Hunting Humbug 101: Episode 0001: Homeopathy - appealing to tradition: This episode looks at the fallacy of appealing to tradition . Reading from the book: www.skepticsfieldguide.net/p/ebook NHMRC draft ...

Climate change and false balance - Last Week Tonight with John Oliver

2014-05-16T22:01:00.001+10:00

False balance in the unthinking or deceptive media trope of assuming there are “two sides to every story” and portraying those sides as equal.

The debate over vaccine safety is often one of false balance, as is climate change. I could write a long post about this, but why bother when John Oliver nailed it.

Argument from imagination

2014-05-09T17:02:00.000+10:00

Other terms and/or related concepts

Appeal to ignorance; hidden premise; unfounded assumptions; Hume's razor; Ockham's razor; wishful thinking; conspiracy thinking; magical thinking; intuition; simpleminded certitude.

Description

The advocate forwards a hypothesis and assumes it is true without any evidence other than their imagination. They do not refer to any external or empirical evidence in support of their claim. They rely solely on intuition, making unequivocal statements about their hypothesis as if it is a fact, when in reality it is something based on an unfounded belief or their imaginings.

Examples

1. Jan Jones is deputy principal as a large primary school. She is reviewing a colleague's Year 3 mathematics assessment, which asks students to photograph and classify 3-dimensional objects. She says: "I don't think Year 3s would find his investigation interesting. I'd imagine they're more interested in doing something hands-on with concrete materials rather than this."

2. A recent government inquiry recommended that health funds stop covering homoeopathy on the grounds it is pseudoscientific, has no plausibility or demonstrable efficacy beyond placebo. Johnson Royale, spokesperson for the Homoeopathic Society, is attempting to defend homoeopathy on a talk show.

One of the hosts asks a surprisingly adroit question: "How could homoeopathy have any effect given there is no trace of the supposed active ingredient after it has been diluted hundreds or thousands of times? And then how is it that the other natural trace elements in the water have no effect given the exact same thing happens to them?"

Johnson says: "We're still not sure. The leading views are that water has a memory, which could be something to do with quantum theory or information theory. And water remembers the ingredient we want because we shake it 10 times in a special way every time we dilute it."

Comment

An argument from imagination can be thought of as the opposite of an appeal to ignorance (something cannot be true because the advocate cannot imagine how it could be true); that is, an advocate states their position is true because they imagine it to be true. They will rarely phrase it this way, but if we consider the two examples above, neither cites any external evidence in support of their claims. They assert a belief and justify it with another belief.

In the first example, Jan makes a seemingly plausible statement. It is reasonable to think students in Year 3 will find hands on activities interesting. However, this does not mean they will find the proposed assessment uninteresting. More importantly, she does not have any evidence for her position other than what she imagines to be the case. She is in her mid-fifties. What she imagines 8 year olds find interesting or uninteresting might not be as accurate as she thinks. Given this, it would be worth trialling the assessment to gather some empirical evidence, rather than throwing it out based on her intuition.

The second example, homoeopathy, contradicts all the known laws of physics and chemistry. Any possible explanation about how homoeopathy works is stated as if one of them is actually true. Again, they provide no external evidence or coherent theory. We are expected to believe the supposed mechanisms imagined by the proponents. In this case, we would also be contradicting well-established physics and chemistry. The imaginings of how homoeopathy supposedly works do not pass the test of coherence with the rest of science. Either what Johnson proposes is wrong, or if right, the laws of physics and chemistry need to be re-written. In order to do this we will need evidence on the level of Hume's razor. Other elements of homoeopathy, such as the dilution process known as "succussion", enter the realm of magical thinking.

Imagination is essential. Scientific discovery and technological progress all involve creativity and imagination. The clichéd robotic and unimaginative scientist would never discover anything. The issue arises when one is too simpleminded to recognise the difference between imaginings, and scientific theory and evidence; or too lazy or incapable of doing the work to investigate and test what they imagine.

A simple way to approach arguments from imagination is to point it out bluntly. If a proponent claims: "Doing X will cause y", responded to by rephrasing: "In your imagination, doing X will cause y." Try not to be too mocking. Just point out that all you are asking for is some evidence beyond the proponent's own opinion.

The F-35 false dilemma

2014-04-25T10:30:00.000+10:00

Ever since the announcement that the Australian Federal Government is going to buy 58 more F-35 Joint Strike Fighters at a cost of $12.4 billion, the anti-Government social media memes have been in full swing.

There’s nothing wrong with criticising any specific Government policy. The report linked to above outlines some of the (I assume legitimate) criticism of the JSF program. However, memes such as these are examples of disingenuous (I won’t say idiotic) and win-at-all-costs thinking that only serve to reinforce partisan politics and do not lead to civil discourse or help with getting to the truth of a matter.
Specifically, these arguments make the false dilemma fallacy - the error of portraying one choice as necessarily excluding another, even though there is no necessary connection; and the false cause fallacy - asserting there is a causal link between the funding of the JSFs and other funding.

Even if one doesn’t like a particular political party, organisation or person, every issue should be treated on its own merits and in good faith. To do otherwise is to engage in dogmatic unthinking. Politically, announcing the $12 billion spending adjacent to discussion of spending cuts in other areas might not have been very savvy. However, a disinterested analysis recognises that one has nothing to do with the other, anymore than any other government expenditure.

The total 2013 budget for Australia is almost $400 billion. As this interactive shows, social security and welfare is $138 billion, education is nearly $30 billion, and recreation and culture is $3.7 billion. These figures are for a single year.

My understanding is the $12 billion had been accounted for in the defense spending cycle. Unless you are a complete pacifist who believes Australia should disband its military (in which case I say good day to you sir/ma’am, could you please leave my website and go back to playing with your imaginary rainbow unicorn), you will recognise the need for this spending. You might disagree with this specific program, on its own merits, but not based on some supposed link to another completely unrelated program.

Unless you can establish that Australia could spend, say, $3 billion less on alternative fighters that have similar capabilities; and that this $3 billion could go to another area of government expenditure, you are clearly interested in winning a political fight, rather than discussing a real issue.

Dumbing it down with Donnelly

2013-12-22T18:45:00.000+10:00

Kevin Donnelly is the "go to" pundit for newspapers and television commentary about the supposed dumbed down and politically correct school curriculum in Australia (curricula really; doesn't matter which, it's all dumbed down and politically correct). He even wrote a book about it. But, in fact, it is Donnelly who deliberately dumbs things down with his straw man mischaracterisations.

Donnelly simply trots out the same few facile points over and over and seemingly has fooled the media, and now apparently the federal government, into thinking he is an expert in educational standards. (To be fair to the media, he is the "Director" of Education Standards Institute. On a completely unrelated note, I'd like to take this opportunity to announce that I am now the CEO and Lord Commander of the Institute of Standards for Sciolism. The standards are pretty high in News Corp publications...)

The latest example is his attack on the Australian Curriculum which, along with the journalist who wrote this article, either shows a complete lack of understanding or is a deliberate misrepresentation.

Donnelly, who typifies a LAME self promoter, was quoted as saying:

...the existing curriculum was "a mile wide and an inch deep" and demanded more "academic rigour".

I don't take issue with Donnelly stating that the curriculum should focus on rigour and depth. But this is a non-statement when it comes to education. Who doesn't say or believe this? Who doesn't want to "raise the standards", have "rigour" in maths and science, and have "high quality teachers", for example?

Where is the evidence for the lack of rigour? The article seems to go on to provide it:

In every subject - from science to physical education - children must study Aboriginal culture, environmental sustainability and Australia's engagement with Asia, under the national curriculum forged by the former Labor government.

Politically correct red alert! The article gives some examples from maths:

And Year 4 kids learning about fractions will "investigate the use of fractions and sharing as a way of managing Country: for example taking no more than half the eggs from a nest to protect future bird populations.'

Year 10 statistics involves "investigating biodiversity changes in Australia since European occupation."

Shock and horror. I can't believe the curriculum would force teachers to focus on such non-core mathematics!

But of course, the writer, News.com's "Social Editor"... has stacked the deck and cherry picked examples. She fails to disclose these statements are from the content elaborations, which are not mandatory. These are just some examples of how content descriptions, that are mandatory, could be taught.

Could... not must.

The actual content descriptions that are to be taught, related to these examples, are, in Year 4:

Count by quarters halves and thirds, including with mixed numerals. Locate and represent these fractions on a number line (ACMNA078)

And in Year 10:

Investigate and describe bivariate numerical data where the independent variable is time (ACMSP252)

This sounds like maths to me... The other non-mandatory elaborations associated with these, in respective order, are:

Year 4: converting mixed numbers to improper fractions and vice versa
Year 10: constructing and interpreting data displays representing bivariate data over time

Yet more maths.

As far as rigour goes, I'll give a couple more examples from the curriculum:

Foundation: Subitise small collections of objects (ACMNA003)

Year 3: Recall multiplication facts of two, three, five and ten and related division facts (ACMNA056)

Year 6: Multiply decimals by whole numbers and perform divisions by non-zero whole numbers where the results are terminating decimals, with and without digital technologies (ACMNA129)

Year 8: Extend and apply the distributive law to the expansion of algebraic expressions (ACMNA190)

Year 10: Expand binomial products and factorise monic quadratic expressions using a variety of strategies (ACMNA233)

The curriculum is published online here: http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/Mathematics/Curriculum/F-10. The curriculum includes achievement standards which have samples of student work associated with them. Judge the depth and rigour of mathematics for yourself.

There are about 280 content descriptions (i.e. must be taught) in the curriculum in total. The article does not cite a single one of these as an issue.

The article cites a total of five non-compulsory (that is, they can be completely ignored) elaborations as examples of what they see as politically correct or woolly statements. There are about 420 elaborations in total, which are just examples!

This in not to say the curriculum is perfect or that there aren't issues with education in Australia. There clearly are. The devil is in the detail and as per usual, Donnelly (and the journalist) are clearly short on such detail. Worse than that, either through intellectual ineptitude or bankruptcy they incompetently or deliberately paint a false picture; straight forward examples of a straw man and observational selection with some stacking the deck.

The article calls for more rigour and depth in the school curriculum... The irony. How about some more rigour and depth in discussions about education, instead of the usual superficial generalities and "go to" punditry? We won't make any progress in "raising educational standards" if the basis of our decision making is false and self-serving.
_____________________
Source: Education Minister Christopher Pyne questions teaching Aboriginal and Asian culture in maths classes - Herald Sun.

A scientist as Minister for Science?

2013-09-16T09:49:00.001+10:00

The recent election win of the Liberal-National coalition means Australia will have a bunch of new Ministers. It was assumed that the Member for Indi, Sophie Mirabella was going to get this port lose her seat, so she has ruled herself out.
As such, the only scientist elected to the House of Representatives, Dr Dennis Jensen, has put his name forward. Ordinarily I’d be in favour of such a thing. (But then again, how often do any Ministers have expertise in their portfolios….)

Unfortunately, Jensen is a climate change denier. This is itself I do not have an a priori issue with. I do have an issue when the denier is a scientist who misunderstands some of the basic rules of logic and reason. From the Age article:

Dr Jensen has made headlines by questioning the scientific consensus that humans are contributing to global warming.
Dr Jensen believes carbon dioxide is contributing somewhat to global temperatures, but not as much as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is suggesting.
Moreover, Dr Jensen does not think governments should be taking urgent action to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. “In the climate area there is appeal to authority and appeal to consensus, neither of which is scientific at all,” Dr Jensen told Fairfax Media on Thursday.
“Scientific reality doesn’t give a damn who said it and it doesn’t give a damn how many say it.” It was wrong to accept the view of the 97 per cent of climate scientists who agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely caused by human activities, because “the argument of consensus … is a flawed argument,” Dr Jensen said.

(Source: The Age: http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/climate-sceptic-mp-dennis-jensen-wants-to-be-science-minister–20130912–2tltt.html#ixzz2eknuPxj9)

Dr Jensen misunderstands the Appeal to Authority and what a consensus view in science means. An appeal to authority can be fallacious on two grounds:

An appeal to a false authority. For example, if someone appealed to Dr Jensen’s authority as a scientist about his views on climate change, they would be making a false claim of authority. Dr Jensen is not a climate scientist.
An appeal to a real authority but one that is not backed up by evidence or argument. I.e. One, if questioned about a position, should be able to provide some evidence or argument that the authority themselves provide.

He is right in saying that “reality doesn’t give a damn….” He is wrong in saying the argument of consensus is flawed. A consensus among scientists is hard fought and should be respected. Over years the experts in a field have studied “X” and the significant majority come to understand that “Y” causes (or doesn’t cause) “X”. By what basis can anyone outside that field challenge this view? Only someone within the field has any legitimate ability to challenge the consensus, and then, not by dismissing the consensus arbitrarily, or claiming they are the “next Galileo”. They have to convince their colleagues by doing more science.

Dr Jensen’s espouses a view that is essentially no different to post-modern relativists, anti-vaccination cranks and advocates of intelligent design.
________________
Update: Who needs a science portfolio anyway... "For the first time since the creation of a science portfolio in 1931, Australia does not have a science minister."