The Skeptic's Field Guide

Part 3: Tools for straight thinking - Humbug! 2nd Edition

2012-02-03T08:07:00.000+10:00

This book primarily deals with spotting humbug. However, it is important to be able to put forward rational reasons for believing or not believing a particular claim. There are numerous techniques a one can keep in the "intellectual toolbox" which can help in this debunking process. This section of the book outlines some of these techniques and rules of thumb.

Occam’s Razor

If there are two (or more) equally valid, but conflicting hypotheses for an observed phenomenon, one should choose the hypothesis that requires the least number of steps to explain it. If you have different explanations for something, all of which can explain it equally well, then you have no reason to choose a complex reason over a simple one.

Note that the essential criterion - explain it equally well - must be met before applying Occam’s razor. (Obviously it is always preferable to accept the hypothesis that explains "the something" best.) Occam’s razor is no guarantee of truth or even of likelihood, but it is not invoked as such. It is a "rule of thumb" that is used to give provisional acceptance to a hypothesis. The provision is that until evidence comes along to give greater weight to an alternative hypothesis, it is best to stick with the simplest one. As Occam once said: "It is vain to do with more what can be done with fewer."

Spinning Another Hypothesis

In order to use Occam’s razor it is, of course, necessary to have more than one hypothesis. The technique spinning another hypothesis is very useful in combination with Occam’s razor. When commentators propose reasons for a claim, are their reasons the only ones possible? If you are able to think of another reason, then the answer is "obviously not", and even if you can’t think of another reason it doesn’t mean there isn’t one - you might not be that smart (although given the book you're reading this is likely not the case). When thinking of alternative reasons you are, in the words of Carl Sagan, spinning another hypothesis.

Once other possible explanations have been proposed, the next step is to eliminate (if we can) each hypothesis until there is only one. Consider all the possible tests that could be done to demonstrate that all the alternative explanations are false. If it isn’t possible to whittle all the possible explanations down to one, then apply Occam’s razor. Spinning another hypothesis is essential if one wants to remain open-minded and undogmatic. People tend to make up their minds about things very early on and ignore evidence that doesn’t fit their "worldview" (as Francis Bacon called it - counting the hits and forgetting the misses).

Hume's Razor

In his work Of Miracles, David Hume nominated a principle which has since been called Hume’s razor:

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle unless that testimony be of such a kind that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavours to establish.

If we are asked to believe X, in deciding whether to believe it (give provisional assent) or not we should ask: "Is it more likely that X is true, or that the evidence for X is mistaken (or can be interpreted in a different or more realistic way)?" If it seems that it’s more likely that the evidence is wrong, then we don’t believe X.

Playing the Devil’s Advocate

This is a tool which can be used to promote open-minded skepticism. It involves strong advocacy of negations to the proposition in question. Like a good debater, the devil’s advocate employs reason to examine a position or argument in order to test its validity; bringing up facts or points that are unfavourable to the position or argument in order to test it. In this sense it is similar to spinning another hypothesis.

The role of the devil’s advocate is to be skeptical and to find flaws in the proponent’s argument despite the fact that this person often also believes the argument. Whether the devil’s advocate ultimately believes any of the points being made is irrelevant. This is a process to go through in order to ensure an argument is as flawless as possible - through the proponent’s systematic rebuttal of the points made by the devil’s advocate. (For those with an etymological bent, the expression "devil’s advocate" comes from Catholicism. It was an argumentative position taken up in order to challenge claims of advocates putting forward individuals of saintly reputation for beatification and canonisation.)

Let's consider an example that demonstrates a few of these things.

We are not going to entertain any specific claims of 9-11 conspiracy theorists. This has been done elsewhere with far greater knowledge and skill than we could hope to muster. Moreover, it's not really possible to reason with such people, even with a point-by-point take down. However, here are four points about such beliefs in general.

Playing the devil's advocate, and spinning another (or rather, the official) hypothesis, if it's a choice between a conspiracy or a "stuff up", then go with the stuff up every time. 9-11 was a stuff up by intelligence agencies. (To be fair to conspiracy theorists - there was a conspiracy - by al-Qaeda.)
The White House was incapable of covering up something as small as (known to only a few people) Bill Clinton's "extra-curricular" activities with an intern and a cigar. Yet, conspiracy theorists would have us believe they were capable of covering up a conspiracy that would require the perfect compliance and secrecy of hundreds of people?

To both these points let us apply Occam's razor. To be justified in applying Occam's razor, the conspiracy needs to have equal explanatory power as the standard explanation. For the sake of argument, we will grant the 9-11 conspiracy equal explanatory validity as the official version. We can apply Occam's razor and still refute it. By definition, conspiracies are always more complex than the standard explanation - conspiracies involve steps to cover them up. More steps, more complex. To rationally believe a conspiracy, it must have better explanatory power than the standard explanation. But, of course, they never do (which, presumably, is why they're not the standard version!).

Following from this we can now see a place for Hume's razor. We are asked to believe a 9-11 conspiracy theory. In deciding whether to believe it (give provisional consent) or not we should ask: "Is it more likely that the conspiracy is true or that the evidence of the conspiracy (as outlined by the conspiracy theorists) is mistaken or can be interpreted in a different or more realistic way?" Putting it simply - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Conspiracies such as 9-11 certainly fall under the category of an "extraordinary claim", yet their evidence is completely unconvincing (and at times, quite laughable).

The official version - al Qaeda (who have claimed 9-11 of course) hijacked and crashed four planes - is far more convincing. It's not that extraordinary - Muslim terrorists exist, have been and continue to be suicidal, and state their hatred of America and the West on a regular basis. However, it would be extraordinary if the evidence from 9-11 was faked, mistaken or could be interpreted in a more convincing way.

After the tragedy of the September 11 attacks in the US, it was a given that the conspiracy nuts would be out in full force. Their claims are as numerous and detailed as they are paranoid, single-minded and simple-minded. Broadly, they believe the US government, CIA and military orchestrated the attacks. They make claims such as the US military flew planes into the World Trade Centre and used a bunker buster bomb to attack the Pentagon. Al-Qaeda had nothing to do with it, in contrast to what the 'official' version of events would have us believe.

Inversion

Using an opponent's argument against them by reversing the direction of their reasoning. That is, the argument is turned on its head. If we reach a dubious or absurd conclusion (reductio ad absurdum) then we have reason to assume the original argument is flawed.

Consider the following fictitious example.

Shamoo Shabang is opposed to embryonic stem cell research. She says: "You can’t destroy an embryo as each is a ‘potential life’."

Her friend Olive Olivers responds by pointing out: "The basics of biology tell us that there are many stages in the development of life. Given this, it seems rather arbitrary to say the ‘potential’ begins with fertilisation."

She goes on to invert Shamoo’s argument by heading in the other direction: "Before fertilisation we have the ‘potential life’ of each sperm and ovum (each of them, potentially, could fuse and start off the whole process). If we follow the ‘potential life’ reasoning we ought to attribute them this moral status too. This is patently absurd."

Though Olive has given a reason to doubt the "potential life" argument, Shamoo understands inversion also, and inverts the inversion: "If I granted that argument any validity, then surely we can go the other way? Concluding that there is no point at which we can attribute ‘potential life’ to a gestating human, and as a consequence award no moral status to any unborn child? Clearly, you’d agree, that’s an abhorrent position?"

Substitution

Replace the group, person or phenomenon involved in the proposition they are arguing for (or against), with another group, person or phenomenon for which they hold a different (often inverse) position. Assuming that the chain of reasoning for the argument ought to be comparable, it follows that a comparable conclusion ought to be reached.

The following example illustrates how substitution can be used.

Lee N Wright is arguing with his girlfriend Ima Green about the justification for military pre-emptive strikes on terror cells and rogue states. He says: "We might not be one hundred percent sure that there will be a terrorist attack, but the precautionary principle means we ought to act before it’s too late."

Ima is aware that Lee is an anthropogenic climate change contrarian who thinks there is no need to worry about greenhouse gas emissions. She points out Lee’s inconsistency by simple substitution: "We might not be one hundred percent sure that climate change is man-made, but the precautionary principle means we ought to act before it’s too late."

If Lee argues the precautionary principle in one case, it could be argued that he needs to uphold it in all cases. He either needs to back away from his argument for pre-emptive strikes, or alter his position on climate change. (This assumes there are no significant differences in both cases, otherwise one could be guilty of the fallacy false analogy.)

Of course, Ima is in the exact same position as Lee, given she thinks we ought to act to minimise man-made climate change. (We are often left wondering how people are able to function whilst suffering from such obvious cognitive dissonance?)

The Socratic Method

In all these cases, it is more than likely that an argument between proponents will go back and forth. In this sense it can be thought of as a dialectic inquiry. The Socratic method is a form of dialectic that, in its strictness sense, isn’t of much use in real life. However, it is worth discussing given its historical importance, and as a precursor for a more "loose" version which is of greater practical use in humbug hunting.

Essentially the Socratic method is a running dialogue between two people, one taking the lead role, in a question and answer format. The purpose is to establish the truth of the matter under consideration by proposition, contradiction of the proposition, repetition of this process and then eventual synthesis (the truth). In its strict sense, the requirement is for both people to have an agreed upon topic, to remain on topic, and to proceed by a question (from the lead person) and response (from the minor person). The lead looks for fallacies and contradictions in the minor’s responses, which are then used to drive the discussion forward until, eventually, the truth of the matter is attained.

The non-strict interpretation, which is entirely more useful, is any kind of thorough question and answer dialogue, with all involved agreeing that the questions are answered and that the goalposts remain firmly in place. This sets up the "ground rules" for a discussion and requires a strong lead who refuses to allow the dialogue to go off topic and will not tolerate non-answers (so perhaps even this interpretation is somewhat unrealistic). The best example of this is actually the epitome of its converse - any interview with any politician, anytime in the past, present and future. The second best example is any excellent teacher asking a series of questions to a bright student.

As a tool for truth seeking, the Socratic method is useful in particular domains of knowledge - in ethics and epistemology (for example) but not (usually) science. And even then the Socratic method will more than likely not yield the truth. It is best viewed as a tool used to clarify ideas, spin other hypotheses, defend a position and remove contradictions and fallacies from that position. Much like playing the devil’s advocate, the Socratic method is guaranteed to keep you "on your toes" and challenge unthinking dogmatism.

Part 1 (d): Seekers after truth - Humbug! 2nd Edition

2012-01-11T17:45:00.000+10:00

Truth-seeking involves both a habit of mind (a disinterested search for truth) and a set of intellectual skills (the capacity to make a distinction between clay and another substance with a similar colour and texture). Humbug-hunting is a way to foster one's critical thinking abilities in order to better seek the truth. It can be a rewarding and enjoyable pastime, but one needs to have the right attitude. Our enjoyment of hunting for humbug is founded on a well-honed sense of the ridiculous, an appreciation of unconscious irony, a readiness to engage in shameless hypocrisy, and a commitment to subverting the interests of those who manipulate people in ways detrimental to their own good. All of these foundations of our enjoyment of this have been enabled and facilitated by the book we wrote together, its associated website (www.skepticsfieldguide.net) and our podcast - Hunting Humbug 101.

More seriously, the ultimate path to skepticism is to avoid, as much as humanly possible, being invested in a particular belief or view. As a seeker after truth and critical thinker, one should be invested in the process of truth seeking - logic and reason, scientific evidence and intellectual honesty, not the "answers". Fundamentally, that is what this book is about.

The type of reasoning we advocate is in the tradition attributed to the Greek philosopher Socrates. He considered himself the "gadfly" that God had attached to the state of Athens. In his view, God had chosen him to interrogate the "pretenders to wisdom". Socrates was adept at asking questions, questions truth" in the historical record. He believed that the search for the truth was of the highest importance. The oracle of Delphi proclaimed that there were none wiser than Socrates. The self-proclaimed "wisest men" of Athens were oblivious to their own sciolism. They were in fact ignorant, but thought they knew everything there was to know. Socrates was wiser than they, not because of what he knew, but because he was aware of his own lamentable ignorance.

Part 1 (c): Skeptical Thinking (How to Apply Humbug!) - Humbug! 2nd Edition

2012-01-03T15:59:00.001+10:00

Most knowledge is provisional, and over the course of time, many "certainties" prove to be false or misleading. Decision makers (such as bureaucrats), keepers of the "Truth" (such as academics), people who paraphrase press releases (such as journalists), and people who comment on blog posts, often have an "axe to grind", or rather, a view of the world which they hope will prevail. When such people write or speak, they often dress up mere opinions as well founded, research based certainties. Be afraid. Be very afraid of dogmatism masquerading as superior insight (see special pleading). We all need to develop our capacity to identify and challenge humbug.

Our best protection against those who attempt to shape our society and culture through their tendentious bloviation or simple-minded sloganeering is healthy skepticism. Healthy skepticism needs to be underpinned by tools of analysis. Being able to identify humbug provides these tools. The "tools" are the informal fallacies in thinking named and described in the book. Once a reader is sensitised to a range of these fallacies, he or she is able to recognise them and is less vulnerable to... (we have to write it, there's no better word, please forgive if it causes offence)... bullshit. Such intellectual skills retain their utility over the long term, and enable new content to be tested, examined critically and placed on a firm foundation.

In his 1946 book History of Western Philosophy, the philosopher Bertrand Russell makes a clear distinction between scientific beliefs and "other ways of knowing": "It is not what the man of science believes that distinguishes him, but how and why he believes it. His beliefs are tentative, not dogmatic; they are based on evidence, not on authority or intuition."

We believe that Russell's view on what characterizes the epistemology of science can be applied as a general exhortation to the seeker after truth. That is, the proper concern of the seeker after truth - the skeptic - is the soundness or otherwise of the reasoning behind an assertion, rather than the assertion per se. Thus, to be skeptical requires us to:

ask for evidence to support a claim before accepting it as reasonable
admit to being uncertain when evidence is lacking and
reject a claim as unreasonable when the evidence does not support it.

The following commentary is intended to introduce the reader to some general principles behind sound reasoning that should help one to pick position 1, 2 or 3.

Two deceptively simple questions
Whether engaged in a discussion, forum, debate, lecture, public talk, seminar, or tutorial – or in reading and writing, the seeker after truth should always keep the following deceptively simple questions in mind.

What are you saying?
Why do you believe that what you are saying is true?

The first question – what are you saying - is about meaning. A common problem encountered when attempting to understand the reasoning behind an argument is the wording of the argument itself. In debates between antagonists, misunderstandings often lead to fruitless and unnecessary conflict. When proponents and opponents of a position are actually talking at cross-purposes, they are not addressing the same proposition. Similarly, when a reader misinterprets a writer's intention, there is no engagement with the substantive ideas in the article or book.

A necessary condition for a rational argument is therefore clarity of expression. If the proponent cannot put a clear argument, the argument does not merit serious consideration. In some cases, an argument is so badly put that the proponent may be engaging in deliberate obfuscation, or at least careless indifference (see Gibberish). Whether in a formal debate, an informal discussion, or in writing an essay, the question: "What are you saying?" (Or what am I saying?) forces the proponent to clarify an argument. Once the nature and terms of the proposition are clearly established, the second question can now be asked.

The second question – why do you believe what you are saying is true – is about justification. In response to this the proponent should now seek to justify his or her position. Justification is the essential difference between a mere opinion and a rational assertion. An opinion is a belief based on untested grounds, and the foundations of an opinion often do not stand up to careful scrutiny (that's even if they are articulated). While it is possible that a mere opinion could be true, the seeker after truth will remain skeptical so long as the opinion remains unfounded. In contrast to an opinion, a rational assertion is a view that is consistent with the known facts and based on reasoned and sound argument. In short, it is justified (and at the very least, the justifying argument should contain no obvious fallacies).

Logic and reason
There are two kinds of reasoning processes by which we establish what we know – deductive and inductive. Deductive reasoning is a guarantee of truth, so long as the premises are true. By way of illustration, consider the following statements: "Socrates is a human" (premise) and "all humans are mortal" (premise). If we accept that these premises are true then we must agree that "Socrates is mortal" (conclusion). Deductive reasoning often leads to trivial truths of this sort.

By way of contrast, inductive reasoning leads to the generation of a general law or principle after numerous specific observations have been made. For example, it has been observed that every single time an object is dropped near the surface of the Earth, the object has fallen towards the centre of the Earth (the observation). By inductive reasoning, we conclude that all dropped objects will always fall towards the centre of the Earth (the principle). Given a large number of observations of X, and if all known instances of X lead to Y, then all (known and unknown) Xs will lead to Ys as well. In terms of "watertight" formal logic, inductive reasoning is difficult (some would argue impossible) to establish. After all, we cannot know that all objects will always fall to the centre of the earth unless we personally witness every occurrence of a falling object (and even then, how can we know with certainty?).

This essentially pragmatic book does not therefore concern itself with formal logic. Most beliefs are inductive. Believing the sun will rise tomorrow morning is inductive – but it is not, strictly speaking, logical. It is, however, rational. There is a clear difference between the concepts "logical" and "rational" even though these two words are often used interchangeably. Logical reasoning, in its strictest sense is valid because of the tautological nature of the statements considered. If you are introduced to a bachelor, it follows that he is an unmarried man. Asserting that red is not a colour is logically false, because by definition red is a colour. A rational explanation on the other hand, is one that is justified by a reasoned and plausible argument that is not logically false (self-contradictory).

Identifying unreason and making your case
If an argument is not illogical (i.e., not internally inconsistent) it does not follow that it is rational. A rational argument should not contain any fallacies. Attacking the quality of reasoning underlying a fallacy is at times a commonsense task, given that many fallacies are obvious non-sequiturs (non sequitur is a Latin term which literally means "does not follow"). However a heightened sensitivity to fallacies can be cultivated and developed.

The short descriptions at the beginning of the book allow fallacies to be identified quickly. Once a fallacy is identified it needs to be isolated and nullified. This can be done by demonstrating the error or errors in reasoning. The fallacies which constitute the body of this book collectively provide a large number of "worked examples" for consideration by the reader. Once the reader has considered a significant number of these examples, he or she should be well equipped with an armoury of debunking techniques and skeptical strategies which can be built upon in the future.

How should you go about improving your humbug hunting skills? When you are ready to get serious about improving your hunting skills, you should find a piece of writing (say an article or blog post) which you suspect if rubbish. You should re-read it more carefully, with the Humbug! short descriptions in front of you. When you read a "dodgy" statement, see if you can find a name for it. (That is, does it appear to be one of the fallacies named and described in Humbug!?) Make preliminary notes at first, and then check your initial impressions about the nature of the fallacies you have spotted by reading the more extensive descriptions in the body of Humbug! (It is dangerous to rely on the brief descriptions only. They are necessarily brief and therefore somewhat ambiguous.)

Here is a grossly oversimplified example. Suppose an author (Bonehead, 2007) makes a statement like this: "There is only one reason a student ever comes late to class - a bad attitude".

You could critique this statement by writing: "That's just ****." While Bonehead's statement might in fact be *****, your criticism is disastrously weak. You might "beef up" your criticism by giving a reason for your view. For example, you could write: "This statement is **** because Bonehead is a ****." Unfortunately, this is not much of an improvement on your original response (even if Bonehead is in fact a ****).

An effective critique of Bonehead's statement might be worded as follows:

Bonehead's statement is in error because he is employing the single cause fallacy. In particular, his claim that there is only one reason (my emphasis) is clearly far too extreme. In their book Humbug!, Clark and Clark (2012) describe the single cause fallacy in the following terms: 'Single cause fallacies occur when a person assumes that there is only one cause of a complex problem.' Bonehead fails to recognise that in reality, there are many possible reasons why a particular student may be late to class on a particular occasion.

Part 1 (b): Style and treatment - Humbug! 2nd Edition

2011-12-29T14:03:00.001+10:00

The writing style of Humbug! is not disinterested and scholarly, it is deliberately assertive, "over the top" and declamatory. We frequently resort to the use of irony, overstatement and over-simplification in order to emphasize salient features of the fallacy under consideration. For this reason we will no doubt cause offence to most readers at some point. So be it. (It should be noted, besides the real examples, none of the scenarios described or characters sketched or depicted in this book are based on actual persons or real institutions.) For each fallacy, there is a cartoon which relates directly or indirectly to that fallacy. The cartoon should not be regarded as part of the substantive commentary on the fallacy. It is provided as light relief, and it may also function as an aide memoire and serve to prompt recall of the specific flaw.

The goal of the critical thinker is not to "win" an argument at all costs, but to "seek the truth". In this book, the skeptic or critical thinker is described variously as a detached enquirer, a doubter, a reasonable person, a dedicated debunker. All these labels are appropriate in the specific context described. However the commonest alternate label for critical thinker or skeptic used throughout the book is "seeker after truth". This seemingly long-winded usage is quite deliberate. A person claiming to know the Truth about any issue invites endless and unresolved controversy when engaged in argument or debate. A seeker after truth on the other hand, is one who believes that reasoned enquiry can move a debate forward towards a better understanding of an issue. While Ultimate Truth on many issues may be unknowable, we can at least move forward from egregious ignorance and error by using skilled, dispassionate, disinterested reasoning.

In this book we use the generic descriptor "the advocate" to label the proponent who engages in fallacious reasoning. This descriptor is often qualified with an appropriate adjective which captures the type of fallacy put forward by the advocate. Thus we have deceitful advocates, deluded advocates, devious advocates, ignorant advocates, superficial advocates, arrogant advocates, pompous advocates, stupid advocates and so on. Note that according to us, we should not use such terms to denigrate individuals (see Ad Hominem). However we decided to use these abusive terms anyway in order to demonstrate that we are at times capable of breathtaking hypocrisy.

Podcast related to this section: http://huntinghumbug101.blogspot.com/2011/12/very-first-episode-of-hunting-humbug.html

Part 1 (a): Purpose and usage - Humbug! 2nd Edition

2011-12-23T18:24:00.000+10:00

The short title of this book is Humbug! Humbug" may be defined as "deceptive or false talk or behaviour" (OED). Our general aim in writing this book was to create a tool for the detection of humbug. Humbug! is intended to serve two main purposes. 1) A "ready reference" which may be consulted as required during discussions, forums, debates, lectures, public talks, seminars and tutorials, whether such events are part of a formal program of study, or open to the broader community. 2) A guide to be consulted as part of the reading and writing process – particularly by students as they research and write seminar papers or essays for assessment purposes.

Humbug! is more intended as a tool to be consulted as the occasion demands, rather than a book to be read in a linear fashion, from beginning to end. Users may find it to be a useful resource for those occasions when they read or hear a suspect statement or claim, and they want to identify the flawed reasoning in the assertion – and perhaps respond to the claim with informed skepticism. There are other such texts available to the reader that aim to do this too. As Hamblin states: "Most modern writers have their minor preferences of arrangement (of fallacies), but it is almost always the same material that is being chopped about and served up reheated." (Hamblin, 1970: 49). Our approach in chopping up and reheating fallacies is focused on pragmatism and ease of use.

The subtitle of the book is the skeptic's guide field guide to spotting deliberate deceptions and false arguments. (Skeptic: "A person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions." – OED.) The skeptical enquirer, whether a student, an academic or a member of the public is a person who has the habit of questioning assertions made by others. Skepticism is a desirable trait in any person in any walk of life and it is an essential foundation of scholarship. However skepticism is sometimes confused with cynicism, and it is important to preserve the distinction. A person who is cynical is one who believes that people are motivated purely by self-interest. The outlook of a cynic is often contemptuous and mocking. The outlook of a skeptic is by contrast positive and productive. He or she assumes nothing about motives and is focussed on deeper understanding of issues - and on real solutions to real problems.

This second edition of Humbug! has been expanded and includes sections on Skeptical Thinking Tools and Bad Faith. Skeptical Thinking Tools is a small section that provides a brief overview of some simple techniques and rules of thumb we have found useful in the analysis of arguments and in forming one's own position. Bad Faith is based on an article Jef wrote for the Australian Skeptic journal. It outlines the use of critical thinking skills in bad faith.

The core of the second edition, as with the first, does not concern itself with the structure of good arguments, or with models for enquiry. Rather, the content focuses on error. The underlying premise is that 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. When students, journalists, writers and participants in discussions and debates know what not to do in presenting an argument, they will develop a more sound perception of what they should do.

From our perspective, the elimination of flawed reasoning is the most important foundation of a sound argument. This book is therefore analogous to a scalpel. A surgeon uses a scalpel to remove diseased tissue – the skeptical enquirer can use this book to remove diseased arguments. A biologist uses a scalpel to remove extraneous tissue from a specimen in order to expose the essential structure of the specimen to scrutiny. In the same way Humbug! may be used to identify and remove poor reasoning from the reader's own arguments, and to allow the reader to examine and expose poor reasoning in the arguments of others.

Part 2: Deliberate deceptions and false arguments - is an expansion on the first edition. There are forty-eight specific deceptions and false arguments named and described. It should not be assumed by the reader that our list is exhaustive, or that there is a general consensus on the number and nomenclature of the types of deceptions and false arguments in the "body of literature" on fallacies in thinking, critical thinking and informal logic. These were selected because they are commonly encountered in published writings on contentious issues, topics of interest to skeptics and in student writing for assessment purposes. The expansion covers fallacies we have found further examples of since the first edition, including some "new" fallacies of our own coinage.

We use the terms fallacy, flaw, humbug and deception interchangeably. Technically a fallacy is an “argument gone wrong”. A logical fallacy is very specific – it is a deductive argument that is in an invalid form. An informal fallacy covers all the “wrong arguments” that may have a valid deductive form, but are based on erroneous premises. Humbug covers all this but includes deliberate deceptions, such Moving the Goalposts and Stacking the Deck.

Each fallacy has a primary label (the heading). Other terms and/or related concepts are listed below the heading. The primary labels given were chosen over other possible labels for clarity of meaning. We have opted for vivid and memorable terms over less emphatic alternatives. Some of the primary labels and other terms/related concepts are very widespread and would be encountered in almost any book on critical thinking or informal reasoning. Some of the fallacies described will not be encountered in any other books as the fallacy and its label are our own coinage (e.g.Argument by Artifice, Burden of Solution, Sanctimony, Simple-Minded Certitude and WTF? Fallacy).

We decided not to organise our treatment of fallacies in thinking around a taxonomy of fallacies - as is often the case in other books and websites on fallacies (and as has been requested of us by some readers). We simply list fallacies in alphabetical order by name. Our justification at the time the decision was made was in part a function of the blurry edges between fallacies (e.g. Stacking the Deck and Observational Selection may be difficult to distinguish at times) and the fact that that there is as yet little consensus in the literature on the names of fallacies and taxonomic groupings. While there is no agreed-upon standard set of fallacies, the naming and describing of fallacies is a necessary step in the development of humbug-hunting skills.

For this edition, we gave the idea of classifying fallacies serious and scholarly consideration. For example, Hamblin states:

A fallacious argument, as almost every account from Aristotle onwards tells you, is one that seems to be valid but is not so... Of those who invent their own classifications... their most noteworthy characteristic is that they disagree not only with the Aristotelians but also extensively with one another, and have quite failed to establish any account for longer than the time it takes a book to go out of print... Despite divergences of arrangement, there is considerable overlap in raw material as between one writer and another: the individual kinds of fallacy are much the same, even down to their names. (1970: 12, 13)

As such, we decided our original decision should stand. (For a taxonomic treatment of fallacies see, for example, Gary N. Curtis site: (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/taxonomy.html)

Podcast related to this section: http://huntinghumbug101.blogspot.com/2011/12/very-first-episode-of-hunting-humbug.html

Hunting Humbug 101 v2: Hunting Humbug 101 01 - Podcast update

2011-12-20T14:18:00.000+10:00

Hunting Humbug 101 v2: Hunting Humbug 101 01 - Podcast update: An update to what's going on with the podcast and why I'm re-publishing it.

Direct download: http://www.archive.org/download/HuntingHumbug101Episode1-WhatIsHumbug/HuntingHumbug10101-PodcastUpdate.mp3

Subscribe

iPhone - you get it or you don't

2011-12-18T21:57:00.000+10:00

The following Samsung commercial takes the **** out of people who line up for iPhones and the like. I find it to be both highly amusing and true to life.

My favorite line: "I could never get a Samsung. I'm creative".

Last week well known Apple evangelist, and blogger at Daring Fireball, John Gruber provided a great example of special pleading when citing a quote in a review of the Samsung Galaxy Nexus in comparison to the iPhone 4S.

You either see it or you don’t. If you don’t, that’s cool, enjoy your Nexus. But I think the reason Apple Stores are so crowded, and getting so big, is that there are an awful lot of people who do see it.

An advocate generally reverts to special pleading when they have no other way of justifying their position. The beauty of special pleading as a rhetorical trick is it gives the opponent no room to maneuver. Gruber has argued that his opponents, Android users, cannot possibly comprehend the subtleties and beauty of Apple's iOS operating system. They are simply unable to attain the level of insight available to Gruber. "You either see it or you don't." He has a deep insight into and empathy with technology that cannot be evaluated by Android users who, by definition (they use Android), lack the capacity to make any valid judgement. How does one respond to that?

This excellent article at Gizmodo points out the irrationality of brand loyalty.

______________
(Note that I'm a happy iOS user - I wrote this on my iPad which I lined up to buy... For a full gadget disclosure, see my gdgt profile.)
Image source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gruber.jpg
Via The Verge: http://www.theverge.com/2011/12/15/2638611/horseshit

Writing in Public - 2nd (ebook) edition of Humbug!

2011-12-15T08:30:00.000+10:00

I have been, very slowly, working on a second edition of Humbug! The skeptic's field guide to spotting fallacies in thinking, which I intend to release as an ebook for Kindle, iBooks and all the other relevant ebook platforms.

In an effort to spur myself onward, to make a better product, and to do something more with this site, I am going to post drafts of the second edition as I write them. This also follows a "business model" advocated by people like Cory Doctorow - free. That is, all of the second edition of the book will be available online for free. But if anyone wants it in a coherent whole, they'll be able to purchase the ebook (for a small price). The original ebook will still remain freely available. Part 1 (Purpose and usage) posted soon.

Three ways of examining brain claims Part Three - learning styles

2011-12-12T23:21:00.002+10:00

In Parts One and Two I examined the 10 percent brain myth and the educational program 'Brain Gym'. I applied the LMGTFY test and the Plausibility test to these claims (which they respectively failed). In this final post I will look at learning styles.

The term ‘‘learning styles'' refers to the concept that individuals differ in regard to what mode of instruction or study is most effective for them. of learning style typically ask people to evaluate what sort of information presentation they prefer (e.g., words versus pictures versus speech) and/or what kind of mental activity they find most engaging or congenial (e.g., analysis versus listening), although assessment instruments are extremely diverse. The most common—but not the only—hypothesis about the instructional relevance of learning styles is the meshing hypothesis, according to which instruction is best provided in a format that matches the preferences of the learner (e.g., for a ‘‘visual learner,'' emphasizing visual presentation of information). (Pashler, H. et al. 2009 - pdf)

As with Brain Gym, when you google learning styles, it is not immediately dismissed or accepted. Moreover, at first glance its claims seem more than reasonable.

There are many variants of learning styles, for the sake of this examination I'll look at the most popular model, Visual-Auditory-Kinasthetic (VAK).

Let's consider this model and its claims a bit more closely. From http://www.ldpride.net/learningstyles.MI.htm:

Visual Learners:
These learners need to see the teacher's body language and facial expression to fully understand the content of a lesson. They tend to prefer sitting at the front of the classroom to avoid visual obstructions (e.g. people's heads). They may think in pictures and learn best from visual displays including: diagrams, illustrated text books, overhead transparencies, videos, flipcharts and hand-outs. During a lecture or classroom discussion, visual learners often prefer to take detailed notes to absorb the information.

Auditory Learners:They learn best through verbal lectures, discussions, talking things through and listening to what others have to say. Auditory learners interpret the underlying meanings of speech through listening to tone of voice, pitch, speed and other nuances. Written information may have little meaning until it is heard. These learners often benefit from reading text aloud and using a tape recorder.

Tactile/Kinesthetic Learners:Tactile/Kinesthetic persons learn best through a hands-on approach, actively exploring the physical world around them. They may find it hard to sit still for long periods and may become distracted by their need for activity and exploration.

I first came across VAK learning styles when I was doing my undergraduate degree in Education. I was immediately skeptical. Perhaps it was because I found I liked to learn with all three styles, and I generalized my own experience to be a universal one.... Or more likely, it relates to that expression, “If it smells like bullsh*t, it probably is bullsh*t”.

The claim was that optimal teaching and learning required diagnoses of my students' learning styles and tailoring my lessons to those individuals accordingly. I had no interest in teaching the same content in three different ways to my three different types of students based on this. When I was teaching, say, Newton's laws of motion, I varied my approaches anyway, to keep the lessons interesting and to give students every opportunity to understand a reasonably difficult concept. There were notes on the whiteboard, diagrams that I'd explain, they would conduct experiments, practice questions etc. I.e., all the students would learn about Newton's laws using all three learning styles. The mode of instruction depended on the content.

This is not to say differentiation for individual students isn't appropriate. It's the method by which we 'diagnose' who is having difficulty and why, that is important. I would diagnose which students were having difficulty and differentiate accordingly. I would do this by observation, collecting work, asking questions etc. I'd also take into account any medically diagnosed learning difficulties and act on them as appropriate.

That being said, so long as one doesn't make the claim that visual learners, for example, can only learn visually, at first glance, these claims seem plausible. People, when asked, do have preferred ways of learning. Moreover, people may be better at retaining visual, auditory or kinesthetic information. E.g. some people are natural musicians, or 3-D designers, or better at tennis.

This is the reason I think VAK seems plausible. We can all relate to being better at one style of of these or another. However, being more natural at one of the VAKs, is not the same as learning any kind of information through one of the VAKs. Conflating these two ideas is where proponents have gone wrong.

Be that as it may, let's take it as a given that the claims of VAK proponents are plausible. We now need to apply the Empirical Evidence test.

In 2009, Psychological Science in the Public Interest published an analysis of learning styles practices, evaluating their claims and reviewing the academic literature. From their summary:

A credible validation of learning-styles-based instruction requires a very particular type of experimental finding:

Students must be divided into groups on the basis of their learning styles.

Students from each group must be randomly assigned to receive one of multiple instructional methods.

Students must sit for a final test that is the same for all.

I.e. we need to see the results of a randomised controlled trial. If learning something in one's preferred learning style leads to improved learning, we should see that in the results. A valid learning styles hypothesis would mean students who learn with their preferred learning style should, on average, out perform students who do not.

Their literature review found that:

Children and adults will, if asked, express preferences about how they prefer information to be presented to them.
People differ in the degree to which they have some fairly specific aptitudes for different kinds of thinking and for processing different types of information.

This is pretty non-controversial. People have preferred ways of doing things. However, the literature review also found virtually no evidence for the interaction pattern mentioned above, which was judged to be a precondition for validating the educational applications of learning styles:

Although the literature on learning styles is enormous, very few studies have even used an experimental methodology capable of testing the validity of learning styles applied to education. Moreover, of those that did use an appropriate method, several found results that flatly contradict the popular meshing hypothesis.

We conclude therefore, that at present, there is no adequate evidence base to justify incorporating learning-styles assessments into general educational practice. Thus, limited education resources would better be devoted to adopting other educational practices that have a strong evidence base, of which there are an increasing number. However, given the lack of methodologically sound studies of learning styles, it would be an error to conclude that all possible versions of learning styles have been tested and found wanting; many have simply not been tested at all.

The paper, "Learning Styles - Concepts and Evidence", 2009. Association for Psychological Science. can be found here: http://www.psychologicalscience.org/journals/pspi/PSPI_9_3.pdf

Here's a good short YouTube video about learning styles.

Three ways of examining brain (or any other) claims - Part Two - Brain Gym

2011-11-26T16:26:00.001+10:00

In Part One I outlined the three broad tests I apply for examining a claim:

1. LMGTFY (let me google that for you)
2. The Plausibility Test (is it really even plausible?)
3. Empirical evidence (Okay, google wasn't definitive, and it sounds plausible, so what does the evidence say?)

I applied these to the 'we only use 10 percent or our brain' myth, which immediately failed the 'lmgtfy' test. This post will examine the claims made in a reasonably popular education program called 'Brain Gym'.

When you google Brian Gym, you do not get a black and white answer as to its efficacy. You get some official websites and a wikipedia entry. Brain Gym passes the lmgtfy test, so we move on to consider its plausibility.

From the aforementioned wikipedia entry:

The Brain Gym program is based on the concept that learning challenges can be overcome by carrying out certain movements, the use of which will create pathways in the brain. The repetition of the 26 Brain Gym activities (each of which takes about a minute to do), is said to "activate the brain for optimal storage and retrieval of information."

Already my skeptical hairs are beginning to stand on end. But, it's still not clear cut. Doing some form of physical activity always wakes me up and makes me feel more alert, thus 'optimizing' my brain. Exercise is good for you. No problems with that. However, there clearly is more to it than this.

It's at this point I ask 'what are they saying?' A common problem encountered when attempting to understand the reasoning behind a claim is the wording of the claim itself. A necessary condition for further investigation of Brain Gym is therefore clarity about their explanatory framework. Brain Gym is more than just 'exercise breaks'. They make explicit claims, that particular exercises effect specific regions of the brain and thus prepare students for specific types of learning. Let's consider some examples. If a picture says a thousand words, a video must say three, 'dumb, dumb and dumber'.

Okay, I've seen enough. This is just embarrassing.

Pressing "Brain Buttons" activates the brain for sending messages from the right to the left hemisphere, increases the flow of electromagnetic energy and is good for reading.

"Energy yawns" increase circulation to the brain and increases sensory perception, helping reading aloud and creative writing.

"Hook ups" connect the body's electrical circuits for emotional centering and help students take tests and work at the keyboard.

The claim that a specific exercise relates to improvement in a specific learning area or type of cognition is implausible. It contradicts what we know about how the brain works.

To the credit of Brain Gym, compared to say astrologers, they are specific enough that a blinded trial could easily be conducted to confirm or falsify their claims. To their discredit, as they state on the Brain Gym website, they only have anecdotal evidence and observational studies, which by definition are inherently flawed.

This post is not a critique of Brain Gym per se. This is about applying some basic skeptical principles when initially examining any claim. With a claim, such as those made with Brain Gym, we can see it immediately contradicts well established facts about how the brain works. It is, to use a technical term, pseudoscientific bullsh!t. At this point we do not need to keep on investigating Brain Gym. It is implausible; there is no need to look for any evidence of its efficacy. We can dismiss the claims of Brain Gym without much of a fuss.

In order to change my mind about Brain Gym, the known facts would need to change, or, I would need to be provided with some extraordinary evidence of its efficacy. This evidence absolutely must be more than anecdote and observational studies.

Just in case you still weren't sure that Brain Gym was a bunch of made up crap, I'll enlist the aid of Jeremy Paxman who induces this third party facepalm from Brain Gym's creator Paul Dennison "PhD". He's from California...

Occasionally you'll hear people discuss the nervous system and the brain, using the idea of circuits. Hell, I often refer to myself as a meat robot. But clearly when doing this we are speaking metaphorically. Dennison is being literal.

When describing a difficult scientific concept to lay people, it's perfectly acceptable to use analogy. However, it's unacceptable to not also describe what is actually going on. The analogy should be used for illustration only. This is even more important when being directly challenged about an explanation for a claim, as Dennison was in the clip above.

Note he also brings in the usual non-specific and meaningless term 'energy', 'midpoints' etc., all throwbacks to 'vital force' / 'life force' used by people ignorant of biology. That is, his educational pseudoscience is an extension of medical pseudoscience.

Why am I picking on Brain Gym ? Isn't it just harmless exercise? If that's all it was, that would be fine. But, it's a commercial program that schools waste good money on. More importantly, its explanatory framework is pseudoscientific bullsh*t. The job of a teacher is to tell children about how the real world works. To teach children how to think critically. Ironically, the harm being done to children's brains by this almost certainly outweighs any good the exercise does.

The clips above are from BBC's Newsnight and were sourced via Bad Science. There you will find links to the complete and unedited Newsnight clips on YouTube. For further critiques of Brain Gym see:

- Bad Science

- Skeptic Dictionary

Three ways of examining brain (or any other) claims - Part One

2011-11-18T19:44:00.001+10:00

Over the years, I've been exposed to many claims about how the brain works and how this knowledge can be applied in education. This is clearly true. Learning occurs in the brain. However, this fundamental premise does not lead to the conclusion that all claims about the brain and how it applies to education are true.

How are we to decide what to believe?

I'm only a layperson when it comes to neuroscience, but one of the good things about learning to think skeptically is being able to apply a few simple tests in order to decide whether a claim is worth believing or not. The three broad tests I apply are:

LMGTFY (let me google that for you)
The Plausibility Test (is it really even plausible?)
Empirical evidence (Okay, google wasn't definitive, and it sounds plausible, so what does the evidence say?)

The first two "tests" are different, but equal. Depending on the background knowledge you have about a claim, you'd pick one or the other. That is, some claims might seem plausible to people without much background knowledge. In this case a quick google might be the best course of action. Other claims would be immediately dismissed as implausible by someone with the required background knowledge, so a google search is unnecessary.

The third test only comes in to action when the first two tests are passed. If a quick google doesn't resolve the truth of the claim, or it sounds plausible, then deeper research is required. We need (high quality) empirical evidence.

If only there was some way of easily searching for information... here lmgtfy

I'm constantly amazed at the seeming inability, or unwillingness (if I'm being fair), of people to google. There are some claims that are checked with a 30 second google search. Take, for example, the factiod that we only use 10% of our brain.

Snopes (check), Wikipeda (check), Scientific American (check), and boom, myth busted. No need to move on.

I know a bit about brains, biology and evolution

As the Snopes article and the Wikipedia entry explain, the claim that we only use 10% of our brain is a biologically implausible. If I had a background in biology, I’d have already known, for example, that brain imaging shows all the brain is active, brain injuries lead to a loss of function, and evolution by natural selection is a merciless process that would eliminate such a wasteful inefficiency.

Thus my background knowledge allows me to dismiss this claim as implausible without heading to google.

These two ways of evaluating a claim are very simple, and work well for claims that have a black and white answer. Of course, many claims aren't so black and white.

In two more posts I’ll apply the same logic to claims about the brain and learning that are not as easily dismissed. Part two will look at “Brain Gym”, which lacks plausibility, but isn't immediately dismissed when doing a quick google. In Part three I will look at “Learning styles”, which again, isn't resolved with a quick google, but compared to Brain Gym, seems very plausible.

Update. Here's an example of what can happen to you if you don't check your facts...

(face, meet palm)

Big Tobacco's Self-Defeating Position

2011-06-05T20:58:00.000+10:00

The Australian Federal government is well on the way to introducing legislation requiring plain packaging for cigarettes. Not surprisingly, tobacco companies are not happy. From the Sydney Morning Herald:

British American Tobacco Australia (BATA) has attacked the federal government's cigarette plain packaging plans, saying there's no proof it will reduce smoking rates.

I know their arguments are more nuanced than simply "it won't work", and they claim it will effect their ability to market their brand against competing companies in the marketplace, etc. But fundamentally, the fact they are campaigning so feverishly against plain packaging contradicts their claim it won't work. If they really believe it won't work, then why bother campaigning? A position that is fairly Self-Defeating.
BATA chief executive David Crow went on to say:

We don't want to see a situation where taxpayer dollars are being wasted.

Wow. Thanks for you concern for the waste of government funds David... How much money, time, energy is being spent on combating smoking related illness? The hypocrisy of statements like this is almost admirable; the Bad Faith breathtaking.

Amazon's artificial barney with the nook

2011-05-27T21:55:00.002+10:00

The battle for supremacy in the world of ebook readers took a turn for the silly this week. When Amazon released the Kindle 3 last year, they claimed one month battery life. Barnes & Noble released the Nook Simple Touch Color Reader and claimed it has up to two months battery life on a single charge. An impressive feat.

"Phft" says Amazon, makers of the Kindle. "Well ours lasts two months too!" From CNET:
...the product pages for the Kindle WiFi and Kindle 3G (along with their discounted Special Offers counterparts) have been updated with new battery life numbers. "Long battery life - Up to two months," reads the promotional copy.

So when released the Kindle 3 had up to one month battery life on a single charge, but now it's two? Did Amazon all of a sudden double the capacity of the Kindle battery?

Nope. It turns out all they did was halve the value for the amount of time they assumed one was reading per day. Specifically, only read for half an hour per day and turn off the WiFi radio, you'll get two months battery life. If you read for an hour a day, you're back to the one month battery life... A great example of an Argument by Artifice.

Gay marriage, euthanasia and the free market

2010-11-08T23:14:00.001+10:00

If you support the idea of the free market, you should also support the euthanasia and gay marriage.

This statement popped into my head when watching tonight's episode of QANDA. This might be a non-obvious combination at first, but hear me out. It's actually a pretty straightforward argument.

Generally speaking, those on the right / conservative side of politics, claim to be against big government, pro individual freedom, pro free market. Yet, generally speaking, they are against euthanasia and gay marriage.

When I put these two views together, one sentence after the other, it should be pretty clear these are contradictory positions. Or if not directly contradictory, it shows a fundamental philosophical inconsistency.

Being for small government, I would have thought, would mean you believe governments should stay out of people's private lives unless they can give a good reason to interfere. E.g., we agree to pay taxes to the government so we can have roads and live in relative safety. What's the argument against gay marriage, from a secular government's point of view besides, 'I don't like it.'

Nevertheless, this position is typical of the hypocritical, self contradictory right on such issues (the left has their own different self contradictory positions). My imaginary conversation with a civilized tea partier goes something like:

"I'm all for the small government, for the free market where individuals can choose for themselves!"

So what about euthanasia and gay marriage, can people chose for themselves here?

"Oh no, that's where the government should tell people how to behave. The free market works for iPods and Prada, but not for any 'moral' position different to mine."

If you're for small government, for the government staying out of people's lives as much as possible, then consider applying this principle consistently, not just to the free market. Try these two premises on for size.

Remember the smart kids in high school...

2010-11-02T22:24:00.003+10:00

You know, the ones who always topped the class in science and mathematics (yes, I am equating being good at science and mathematics with being smart... just saying).

Well, many of those kids went on to university to get science degrees. Some of those - the smartest smart kids - went on to get PhDs. They studied like crazy for many years in their area of interest, to become the experts in their field - be it medical research, paleontology, climate science, evolution, particle physics... the list goes on.

Overwhelmingly, the vast majority of these scientists, believe that modern medicine is the way to go, would state that evolution is a fact, and think human activity is changing the climate... the list goes on.

Sure, they might be wrong. Individuals within even this elite group might hold alternate positions. I cannot appeal to their collective authority as the only reason to believe what they say... but

...when you take an alternate position to the modern scientific consensus, the opposite position that over (say) 9 out of 10 experts (the smartest smart kids) and peak scientific bodies hold, and you're not the one other expert, please run this thought experiment.

Imagine you're back in high school. You've just finished a big science or mathematics exam. You're mingling around with other students and discussing the responses to the questions. You get into a conversation with the group of smart kids - the top students in your cohort. The answer they have to the hardest question is different to yours.

Do you:

a) become even more certain you're right, argue with them and tell them they're wrong and idiots

b) reflect on the likelihood of you being right, get a sinking feeling and decide to reconsider your answer?

Most would choose b) I'd guess.

Now, a second thought experiment to mull over for a while. Imagine you're about to post a comment on on a blog that goes against the overwhelming scientific consensus....

I'm not saying you should just believe what all science says, "just because". That we should accept expert wisdom carte blanche. But you need a damn good reason to choose a) over b) when you have a different answer to the smart kids.

_____________
Alternate post

Smart kids are smart
You're not
Smart kids also studied
You didn't
Smart kids got the answers right
You didn't
Smart kids became scientists
You didn't
Scientists studied for many years and over time produce overwhelming mutliple lines of evidence that support position X
You do nothing, but choose Y. (Or, you "study" a topic by googling to find the points to justify Y.)

I think I'll copy off the smart kids (this is a rhetorical statement and in no way should be taken as approval of cheating).

Please abstain from euthanasia vote unless you're a closet fascist

2010-09-21T08:29:00.001+10:00

One of the first debates of the first sitting of the newly formed federal parliament of Australia will be whether the two Australian Territories (the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory) are allowed to legislate their own laws regarding voluntary euthanasia (as the states are able to). For the full rundown to the background of this story see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia_in_Australia

The major political parties (Labor / Liberal / National / Greens) have agreed this should be a "conscience" vote. It occurred to me a conscience vote is in fact a contradictory and self-defeating argument for those opposed to such legislation. (It is also offensive that these people don't seem to understand the contradictory position they are taking and believe they have the right to potentially force me to die a slow and painful death - perhaps I'll write more about euthanasia on another occasion.)

On one hand they agree that it should be up to someone's conscience to decide about euthanasia. This is clearly their position - that there is insufficient evidence or argument for or against euthanasia to the point that their party is unable to have firm and unified position, one way or the other. On the other hand, when an individual politician votes no, they make explicit that in their view, it is only their conscience that can be trusted, not the individual consciences of all adult Australians.

Note that I even think voting at all on a conscience vote is being somewhat contradictory. Even voting yes implies you think a conscience vote, and therefore a "no" vote, is legitimate. So in that sense, all our parlimentarians, except for those who abstain, are pseudo/closet fascists.

Lady Gaga creates a false dichotomy

2010-09-14T21:08:00.000+10:00

Most skeptics familiar with the Huffington Post would be well aware of its poor track record when it comes to logic and critical thinking. This is usually the case in any of the posts they write about science or health. But this time it has crept into something that is normally immune to sloppy thinking - pop culture! (It's immune because pop-culture is devoid of anything requiring critical thinking...)

They asked an important question regarding Lady Gaga's recent appearance at some award show, where she wore a dress made out of raw meat. "Lady Gaga's meat dress - offensive or awesome?" Ugh, what's offensive is the obvious False Dichotomy.

Lady Gaga's meat dress could be offensive but not awesome, awesome but not offensive, or both offensive and awesome (or neither). And this presumes, without any basis, these are the only two options. What about LAME?

I may have voted for awesome...

Fanboyism

2010-06-09T22:23:00.000+10:00

Ever since buying an iPad and reading reviews about it, and the associated comments on websites, the almost religious fervor with which people either love Apple or hate it has left me quite bemused. This post at Gizmodo goes through the cognitive biases that allow us to rationalize our choices in brand loyalty (or hating, as the case often is).

For the record - as listed on my gdgt profile - to date I've owned 2 Windows Mobile PDAs, an ASUS eeepc netbook on which I ran Windows XP and then Ubuntu Linux, and an iPod Touch. I certainly have no brand loyalty. I really only have loyalty to my wallet... The iPad is easily the best mobile computing device I've ever owned.

Podcast - Hunting Humbug 101: Tutorial 36 - False Attribution

2010-06-06T09:59:00.001+10:00

In this podcast we take a look at the fallacy False Attribution. Specific examples include taking a scientist out of context, and deliberately creating a false news report.

The ABC’s Media Watch explains this example in full detail and can be found here - deception detection fallacy.

We also discuss the ‘Ultimate False Attribution‘.

http://www.archive.org/download/HuntingHumbug101Episode1-WhatIsHumbug/03Tutorial03_FalseAnalogy.mp3

Too much information

2010-04-28T12:25:00.000+10:00

Here is a poor choice of analogy:

The truth of the matter is there is nothing wrong. As I said, sometimes sex is just sex; it’s what you do when you are married. Just like cleaning the toilet is what you do to keep your house clean…and I bet you don’t have this great desire or huge emotional connection to scrubbing the porcelain! You do it because it needs to be done and that’s the way it is with married sex… it does need to be done! It’s the glue that God gave us to bond us to one another. The bible is very clear that it is your responsibility as a spouse.

Hopefully this is a false analogy for all you married people out there...

HT: Pharyngula

Podcast - Episode 35 - The Best of Jef

2010-04-19T03:44:00.002+10:00

This belated podcast is a ‘best of’ of sorts, that is dedicated to my co-host, coauthor and most significantly, father, Jef Clark. Dad has been fighting his second battle with cancer over the last 6 months. He passed away this weekend. He was 61. I love you mate. You’ll always be with me and all of us.

In the podcast I mention Dad’s writing for the Australian Skeptic. You can read his articles here: http://www.skeptics.com.au/publications/magazine/

See issues: 23.4 | 24.1 | 24.2 | 24.3 | 24. 4 | 25.2 | 25.3 | 25.4 | 26.1 | 26.2 | 26.4 | 27.2 | 27.3

http://www.archive.org/download/HuntingHumbug101Episode1-WhatIsHumbug/35Episode35-TheBestOfJef.mp3

Global warming deniers, skeptics or contrarians?

2009-12-03T01:58:00.004+10:00

I've noticed on some of the podcasts I listen to, blogs I read and twitter streams I follow the use of the word "denier" to refer to self identified anthropogenic global-warming / climate change "skeptics". (I've also noticed politicians using both interchangeably.)

However, I think attempting to re-label such people as "deniers" associates them with the vile deniers of the holocaust. It could just be me - but if I were to do a cloze activity like the following:

"Well known ___________ denier will be giving a talk at..."

I'd be more likely to insert "holocaust" than "global-warming".

Google "denier" (by this I mean search for the term "denier" in google - like this - not someone who denies the existence of google), look through the first 100 or so links and you'll see they are to both climate change deniers and holocaust deniers (with the majority holocaust deniers). Any variant of the word "deny" searched within google's "wonder wheel" provides a link to a holocaust denial related search. Fairly impartial evidence of the association. (I haven't bothered to search using Bing , but what's the point...?)

Splitting hairs? Maybe? But holocaust denial is pretty offensive and often motivated by xenophobia, bigotry and hate. I can't say the same about those on the other side of the majority scientific view about global warming. The use of the word "denial" is a Weasel Word that Poisons the Well . Whether you use it for this effect deliberately or not doesn’t really matter. Associating a view you don't agree with, with the holocaust, is also a tactic used by creationists - something I wouldn't like to be associated with. (An admittedly explicit association - see the Ben Stein "Expelled" clip as an example - and as such more fallacious. But at least they're relatively upfront about it.)

Moreover, labelling someone a denier is a conversation ender and it seems to me to be pretty disingenuous to say otherwise. (In the case of some people this might be a good reason to use the word denier – Mahmoud Ahmadinejad springs to mind.) I would also suggest that to claim: "It never occurred to me that using 'denier' in this way is an attempted guilt by association," would also be quite disingenuous - but I can't read your mind (if you rubbed your eye in the last 5 minutes you are one of the people whose mind I control however).

I wholeheartedly agree with the attempt to disassociate "skeptic" from those who doubt the claims of the majority consensus on climate change / global warming. These “skeptics” tend to be - at least in my experience - politically motivated ideologues, not genuine “seekers after truth”. For whatever reason, they are “contrarians”. That is, they hold the “contrary” view. By holding the contrary view it is true that they "deny" anthropogenic global warming. But to "deny" the weaselly guilt by association caused by using the term denier is humbug.

I know I'm fighting a losing battle - wikipedia says so . But I also note that Clive James would probably agree with me ... (Also (apart from this apology), sorry for all the asides and off topic tangents in parentheses.)

Bah! that's Humbug! Live from Briskepticon 2009

2009-11-27T19:43:00.001+10:00

Below is the archive of my talk on fallacies at Briskepticon - the national convention of the Australian Skeptics. It incorporates the live "back channel" tweets from people on the audience. (Disclaimer - I, in no way, endorse or condone any comments - unless they reflect positively about me.) It also has examples of fallacies that can still be viewed and it has the internet connected audience members' "votes" on the fallacy they think is being made. For the most part - they got it right!

It was a great convention. It was great to meet many of the people I've corresponded with, listened to (on various podcasts) and read their work in various places (such as the skeptic). As soon as I get the chance, I'll start putting up links for videos, podcasts and writings about the convention.

Steven Novella on moon hoax conspiracy theorists

2009-11-17T22:44:00.000+10:00

Steven Novella of SGU fame has a good post on the simple minded certitude of moon hoax conspiracy nuts and the predictability of their goalpost moving in light of the recent NASA images.

Not all Truth comes from science

2009-11-16T09:49:00.000+10:00

Often it's found in humor