Logical Fallacies and How to Spot Them

This should also be a requirement before somebody graduates from high school:
Logical Fallacies and How to Spot Them

In the Evolution vs. Creationism debate, it is important to be able to spot all the logical fallacies that Creationists tend to throw around. This essay covers many bare essentials of logical thinking, as well as ways to critically evaluate an argument. The logical fallacies listed here are the ones most often used by Creationists, although Creationists have, to date, used almost every single logical fallacy in existence to "prove" their case. Each fallacy will have its own little paragraph, describing it, why it is fallacious and how to counter it. Enjoy!

THE STRAWMAN ATTACK: The strawman is, perhaps, the most heavily-employed tactic used by Creationists. The strawman attack's name comes from the idea of setting up a strawman and knocking it down. The strawman is a false man, metaphorically representing a false argument. The strawman attack is a very dishonest one. Creationists ruthlessly use this tactic to win public support. In essence, the strawman attack is putting words in your opponent's mouth and then attacking the resulting position, while simultaenously evading the real argument.

EXAMPLE

"Evolution is a ridiculous theory! Macro-evolution says that a fish can just evolve into a bird! Clearly this is preposterous!"

This is an example of a strawman attack. Macro-evolution does not say that one species can "evolve" into another one. Macro-evolution is one species splitting into two species due to evolutionary changes. Clearly, this argument is a gross misrepresentation, at best, and a malicious lie, at worst.

HOW TO SPOT

Spotting a strawman attack isn't that hard. Just make sure that the opposition actually makes the claim that the attacker says he or she does. In evolution's case, just think to yourself: Would our foremost men and women of biology actually propose such a ridiculous concept? While you should always check to verify the attacker's statements about what the opposition is saying, you definitely do so when the attacker's statement begs such questions as, "How stupid can the opposition possibly be?" and arouses any kind of suspicion. For example, I read many web sites devoted to the Evolution vs. Creationism debate that displayed common Creationist arguments. I found it hard to believe that people were actually making the arguments I saw, because they were so easily shot down. So, I looked on Creationist websites and, lo and behold, they had, indeed, made such moronic claims as, "Evolution defies the Second Law of Thermodynamics!"

HOW TO COUNTER

Strawman attacks, once exposed for what they are, are not all that difficult to counter. SImply ask the attacker for a documented occasion in which his opposition made such a claim. If he cannot produce one, happily point out that the attacker is putting words in his opponent's mouth and attacking that position. Pointing out that this attack is a cowardly evasion might well help, depending on how high (or low)a regard you hold the attacker in.

THE FALSE DILEMMA FALLACY: The false dilemma is at the heart of the Creationist argument. The false dilemma supposes that there are only two possible solutions to a problem (his and his opponent's), ignoring anything else. The idea behind the false dilemma is to set up a system in which a disproof of the opponent's argument is automatic proof and support for the attacker's argument. Obviously, this is a completely irrational line of thinking. Just because there may be some error in my measured height doesn't make me a kilometer tall.

EXAMPLE

"There are only two solutions for the question of how the Universe was created: the Big Bang, which says that the Universe was formed out of nothing from random chance, or Biblical Creation, which gives us a loving, awesome, caring God who wants us to...[continue with mindless religious yammering ad infinitum]."

Obviously, Creationists love the false dilemma because it makes any hole they find in Evolutionary Theory an automatic proof of Biblical Creation. Of course, if we are to accept Biblical Creation as a viable view on how the Universe was created, then we must accept other religions' creation stories, as well. Creationists tend to ignore this fact, in favor of their quasi-masturbatory fantasies about a six-day creation timeframe and a Universe that is a paultry ten thousand years old.

If you look carefully, you'll also notice the strawman attack. The Big Bang Theory doesn't state that the Universe was formed from nothing. This would violate the Law of Conservation of Energy. Also, there's nothing in the Big Bang Theory that suggests random chance. It simply happened. We don't know why, but it did.

HOW TO SPOT

Whenever the attacker arbitrarily cuts the number of possible solutions down to only two, you should ask him why he does this. If there is a logical reasoning behind it (for example, there are only two solutions to x2+4x+4), then this is not a false dilemma, but a true one. If he cannot give you a logical explanation, he is setting up a false dilemma.

HOW TO COUNTER

Once you spot a false dilemma, just make it clear that the attacker is artificially narrowing the choices down the choices and trying to decieve everyone. This will go quite a ways to shatter his credibility.

THE APPEAL TO AUTHORITY: The appeal to authority is used when someone making an argument can't put any logical reasoning behind it. Instead of supporting an argument with evidence, the argument is supported by simply saying, "Because so-and-so said so." The argument may be correct, but the logic is still fallacious. For example, if someone said that the Earth's gravitational acceleration was 9.8m/s2 because physicists said so, the information would be correct, but they'd be basing it on false logic. Creationists especially love this type of fallacy because they have an authority that they can appeal to for anything that they want: God. Since God knows everything, anything they say can be "proven" correct by appealing to God. The other authority that they like to appeal to is the Bible. "Because Genesis said so, and Genesis was written by men inspired by God," it must be correct. This is known as a Biblical appeal to authority, while the former is known as a deistic appeal to authority. Either way, if there's no reasoning behind the argument, it is fradulant and illogical.

EXAMPLE

"Isaac Newton was a believer in Creation. He is one of the most legendary physicists of all time. Surely, you're not going to argue with him."

Exactly the kind of thing Creationists tend to say. Not only is this an appeal to authority, it is an appeal to an irrelevant authority. Newton was a physicist, which has nothing to do with biology, and he has been dead for a long time. He was not confronted with all the evidence for Evolution, thus his opinion is irrelevant. Even if a living biologist were cited as an authority, the argument would still be an appeal to authority and, thus, fallacious.

HOW TO SPOT

This one's not hard. When someone cites someone else as an authority and gives no argument, they are engaging in an appeal to authority.

HOW TO COUNTER

Simply point out the fallacy that the attacker is engaging in and demand that the argument be backed up by logic.

THE APPEAL TO FEAR: Creationists love this one. They like to make it seem that, if you don't accept their point of view, bad things will happen. This one is relatively simple. On a side note, this logical fallacy is, perhaps, the largest reason for the spread of Christianity. People didn't accept Christianity willfully, in the beginning. It was forced upon them, either with real threats ("If you don't convert, you'll be beheaded.") or imagined ones ("If you don't convert, you'll go to Hell."). Fear is no basis with which to accept an argument. The Catholic Church routinely engages in this fallacy by hammering the fear of God into youngsters at Sunday School and Catholic school. This becomes the driving force behind beliefs and actions, and it is a flawed one.

EXAMPLE

"To deny the truth of Creationism is to deny the Word of God Himself. If you don't accept God, you will be condemned to Hell to suffer for eternity."

No logic. No argument. No reason. No intelligence. Just bigotry and self-righteousness.

HOW TO SPOT

When someone threatens you with the dangerous consequences of not accepting their point of view, they are engaging in an appeal to fear. This is not a hard one to spot.

HOW TO COUNTER

Simply point out that your opponent is engaging in a logical fallacy, and obviously has no other recourse but to try and scare everyone into his point of view.

THE APPEAL TO THE MASSES: One is commiting this fallacy when he tries to justify a belief or action by the support base behind that action. Saying that Christianity is the right religion because it has a billion followers is an appeal to the masses. As with other logical fallacies, there is no logic behind this, just ignorance.

EXAMPLE

"There are more and more people converting to Creationism everyday. Even astrophysicists and biologists are seeing the light. This is God's work!"

Creationists often engage in an appeal to the masses in tandem with the appeal to authority, as you can see here. In this case, they use the appeal to an anonymous authority with the appeal to the masses. If all the physicists in the world suddenly said that they Earth pulled down at 1,000m/s2 without any proof, they'd still be wrong. If all the Creationists in the world jumped off a kilometer-high bridge, would you? If you said, "Yes," please proceed to the nearest bridge.

HOW TO SPOT

This is just like peer pressure. When someone mentions what everyone else thinks as evidence of his argument, he's appealing to the masses.

HOW TO COUNTER

Simply point out that the attacker is engaging in a logical fallacy. If it helps, give examples of where the masses have been wrong. Like the Spanish Inquisition, or the Crusades or the Holocaust.

THE ACHILLES' HEAL FALLACY: This is the belief that if you poke one hole in your opponent's argument, or find one thing wrong with it, that the entire argument is invalidated. Creationists love this one, because they like finding isolated incidents where, on the surface, it looks like evolution can't explain what happened. They also like to use it to invalidate carbon dating by citing isolated incidents in which carbon dating has been shown to be wrong (without pointing out the scientific explanations for these incidents). This can also be called the fallacy of hast generalization.

EXAMPLE

"They carbon-dated a snail and it turned out to be 25,000 years old! Carbon dating is totally unreliable!"

There are plenty of explanations for why this happened. Snails tend to abdorb minerals that they slide across. The snail in question probably picked up a 25,000 year-old piece of gravel. Furthermore, this doesn't address the fact that other, different dating methods (lke isochronic dating) confirm the majority of carbon-dating estimates. You can't just take one example and run with it.

HOW TO SPOT

If a widely-accepted practice is disputed by your opponent based on one or two examples, he is probably engaging in the Achilles' Heal fallacy. This may not be the case, though. It all depends on the scenario. If your someone attacks forensic evidence results by saying that the bullet tested was not the same type as the bullet used, then this is not a fallacy. Using a different type of bullet for the purpose of verification would skew the results of the tests. This is pointing out an error in the process which would affect the outcome. The Achilles' Heal fallacy is pointing out an error in merely one of many conclusions. The person would be guilty of the Achilles' Heal fallacy if he said that, because one forensic test turned out wrong, that all other tests must be wrong, as well.

HOW TO COUNTER

Once you know, for sure, that your opponent is engaging in an Achilles' Heal attack, simply demand that he explain why the majority of incidents which give correct outcomes should be ignored. For added fun, demand that he explain why, if the procedure in question is unreliable, a good deal of correct results were yielded.

THE AD HOMINEM ATTACK: The ad hominem simply means attacking the person making the argument, rather than the argument, itself. It is the last resort of Creationists whose arguments have been systematically annihilated. When used by a Creationist, these attacks will often incorporate religious bigotry and are almost always used with an appeal to fear.

EXAMPLE

"You have been blinded by Satan, and you are a creature of the devil. Neither you nor what you say can be trusted. You will rot in Hell for your ways."

Very simple. Notice the inclusion of the threat of Hell with the ad hominem. As said above, when a Creationist starts spouting crap like this, you know that you've won.

HOW TO SPOT

It is important to note the difference between an ad hominem and an insult. An ad hominem seeks to counter an argument based on the the person making it. An insult simply seeks to belittle someone. Insult can be added to a refutation, however. While impolite, the logic preceding the insult may be entirely true. Here is an example of an insult used with logical refutation:

TYPICAL CREATIONIST MORON (TCM): The Earth is only 6,500 years old.
ME: No, it's billions of years old [cites evidence]. Oh, and by the way, you smell of kitty litter, and your mother was a female dog of poor breeding.

See the difference? I cited evidence, made an argument, and then insulted the TCM. Of course, I'm not saying that insulting is right, but sometimes you just can't help calling a moron a moron.

HOW TO COUNTER

Inform any observers that your opponent is obviously at a loss to counter your arguments, and happily accept his concession on the point at hand.

SHIFTING THE ONUS OF PROOF: This is when your opponent makes a claim, provides no evidence for it, and then expects you to find evidence of it. Your opponent is making the claim, so he should logically have to provide evidence. Shifting the onus (or burden) of proof to you is a fallacy and a very low tactic to engage in. Often, a Creationist will make phantom claims and, then, act like they are common knowledge and he shouldn't have to back them up.

EXAMPLE

"The Earth was created in seven days by our loving father"
"Evidence?"
"Oh, come on! Everyone knows this, go look it up, if you don't."

That is an example of shifting the onus of proof. The opponent wrongfully forces you to do his research for him. He is obviously too lazy to do it, himself.

HOW TO SPOT

When your opponent starts treating a claim that isn't common knowledge like it is something everyone should know, and you demand proof, only to have him put that task on you, you are having the onus of proof unjustly handed off to you.

HOW TO COUNTER

Point out that your opponent is the one making the claim, not you. Demand that he provide evidence or conceed the point on the basis of zero evidence provided.

THE RED HERRING: This isn't so much a fallacy as it is an evasion tactic. The red herring is similar to a "wild goose chase." When someone leads the debate off on a red herring, they are trying to divert attention away from a particular argument, and toward some inconsequential statement that you may have made, or inventing some tangent to go off on. Creationists often use this when they attack the Big Bang Theory to try and prove evolution wrong. The Big Bang and evolution are completely separate theories, and are not mutually inclusive. The Creationist trying to debate the Big Bang is a red herring.

EXAMPLE

"Evolution is impossible because the Big Bang is a totally unacceptable theory because it defies the word of our loving Creator, He who sent His only Son, our Lord to...[continue with mindless religious yammering ad infinitum]."

The Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution. If it was proven wrong tomorrow, it wouldn't change the fact that organisms evolve to adapt to their environment, or they die.

HOW TO SPOT

This one can often be tricky to spot, because your first instinct is to correct the moron's ranting about the Big Bang. Don't let him lead you off on his tangent. Make sure that your opponent has directly addressed your point before proceeding.

HOW TO COUNTER
Demand that your opponent address your argument. Inform him and all those watching that his response is a simple red herring, meant to divert attention away from arguments that he can't counter.


Full post... Related link

Good and Real by Gary Drescher

I finally received Drescher's new book. I had written about it before in this blog entry. Here is an excerpt on ethics:

Ethical relativism is an understandable reaction to centuries of opposite excess, in which the powerful have proclaimed tha their self-serving values - entitlement to conquer vulnerable peoples, and to the subservience of slaves, women, and the poor, for instance - are moral absolutes that others are obliged to yield to and could rightly be forced to yield to. Ironically, these putatively absolute moral values have been rationalized by appeal to two quintessentially relativist sources: faith and tradition. Faith, after all, is just a strong subjective feeling as to what's true. And tradition is just an appeal to ancient peer pressure (typically intimately interwoven with faith). Deriving moral foundations from tradition leads us to conform to the beliefs and behavior of people who - though they did their best with the knowledge then available - lived long before even a high-school education existed. But as every child learns (or should), the claim that "everyone else does it," or has always done it, is a poor justification for one's conduct.

P.S. Drescher does defend an objective approach to ethics.

P.P.S. The link below is a fun story I found on Jeff Bridges' website that this excerpt reminded me of.


http://www.jeffbridges.com/because.html



Full post...

Gelenek görenek

Orijinalini http://www.jeffbridges.com/because.html'da okuduğum bir hikayeyi elimden geldiğince Türkçe'ye çevirmeye çalışacağım...


Geleneğimiz Böyledir Bizim

1. Bir kafese beş maymun yerleştirin. Kafesin içine yukarıdan bir
iplik ile bir muz sarkıtın, altına da bir merdiven koyun. Çok geçmeden
maymunlardan biri merdivene gidecek ve yukarı çıkmaya çalışacaktır.

2. Maymun merdivene dokunur dokunmaz, tüm maymunların üzerine soğuk su
dokun. Bir süre sonra bir başka maymun denemeye çalıştığında tekrar
hepsinin üzerine soğuk su boşaltın.

3. Musluğu artık kapatabilirsiniz. Bundan sonra maymunlardan biri
merdivenlere çıkmayı denerse, diğer maymunlar soğuk su gelmeden onu
durduracaklardır.

4. Şimdi kafesteki maymunlardan birini çıkarın, ve yerine yeni bir
tane koyun. Yeni maymun muzu görür görmez merdivene çıkmak
isteyecektir. Fakat bunu denediğinde diğer maymunların saldırısına
uğrayıp dehşet içinde kalır. Tekrar deneyip tekrar aynı sonuçla
karşılaşınca artık merdivene çıkmaya çalışmanın dayakla
sonuçlanacağını öğrenir.

5. Orijinal beş maymundan birini daha kafesten alıp yerine yeni bir
maymun yerleştirin. Yeni gelen merdivene gider ve saldırıya uğrar.
Saldırıda büyük bir heyecanla yer alanlar arasında geçen adımda
eklediğiniz ilk yeni maymun da vardır.

6. Üçüncü orijinal maymunu da yeni biriyle değiştirin. Yeni gelen yine
merdivene ulaşmaya çalışıp saldırıya uğrar. Saldıran dört maymundan
ikisinin bu yeni maymunu niye dövdükleri konusunda, ya da merdivene
tırmanmaya niye izin verilmediği konusunda hiç bir fikirleri yoktur.

7. Dördüncü ve beşinci orijinal maymunu da yenileriyle değiştirdikten
sonra artık üzerine soğuk su dökülen tüm maymunlar gitmiştir.

Ama kafesteki hiç bir maymun merdivene yanaşmaya cesaret edemez. Niye
mi?

Çünkü buralarda gelenek böyledir.

Full post... Related link

Tarih ve aitlik

İnsanın hayatına anlam kazandırmak için tarihsel aitliğin tek yol
olduğunu sanmıyorum. Varoluşçu felsefeler, türlü dinler,
psikoterapistler de bu amaca hizmet ediyorlar. Bazısı hayatının
anlamını hedonist zevklerde buluyor, bazısı ailede, bazısı yarattığı
eserlerde, bazısı ömür boyu üzerinde uğraşıp çözemediği sorularda.

Yine de insanların sosyal yaratıklar olarak bir ait olma ihtiyacı
içinde oldukları doğru. Ama ait olunan grupların özelliği tarih
boyunca değişiyor, şu anda da hızlı bir değişim içerisinde. Web 2.0
ve ortaya çıkan on-line gruplar bunun bir örneği. Ben amatör
sihirbazlar, evde teleskop yapanlar, ve beynin nasıl çalıştığını merak
edenler gruplarına aitim mesela. Bundan 50 yıl önce böyle bir sosyal
gruplaşma yoktu. Bundan 500 yıl önce milliyetçilik diye bir kavram
olmadığı gibi.

Diyebiliriz ki şu an yüzyüze olduğumuz problemleri çözebilme açısından
bize benzer gruplara bakmamız doğal olan. Bu açıdan bakınca
hayatımın, problemlerimin 100 yıl önce yaşamış dedemin babasından
ziyade şu an Meksika ya da Yunanistan'da yaşayan herhangi bir aileye
daha çok benzediğini düşünüyorum.

Belki de tarihin önemi şu an yaşadığımız hayat üzerindeki etkisinden
geliyor diyebiliriz. Geçmişte yaşamış insanların günümüzdeki
hayatımız üzerinde değişen miktarlarda etkileri var. Bu açıdan
bakınca bambaşka bir resim çıkıyor ortaya:

Örneğin tipik bir günümde çalar saat ile uyanıyorum (John Harrison),
ışıkları açıp (Edison), kahvaltıda süt içiyorum (Pasteur), arabama
atlayıp (Henry Ford), üniversitede (Plato) ders vermeye gidiyorum.
Bilgisayarımı açıp (Von Neumann), ınternet'e giriyorum (Berners-Lee),
ariteknokent grubuna (Memduh) mesaj yazıyorum. Gün içindeki
aktivitelerinizi kaynaklarını düşünerek gözden geçirirseniz dünya
coğrafyasını ve tarihini bir uçtan diğerine kapsayan yaratıcı bir
insan topluluğuna olan borcumuz ortaya çıkıyor. İşin ilginç tarafı
bize okutulan tarih derslerinde yukarıdaki isimlerin hemen hiç birine
yer verilmemesi. Daha çok dünya üzerindeki birkaç güçlü ailenin
birbiriyle itişip kakışmasının hikayesi ana konu. Nüfusumuzun çoğu
ileride padişahlık mesleğini seçmeyeceğine göre bana garip geliyor bu
konu seçimi. Siz ne dersiniz?

Full post... Related link

Bilim ve otorite

Türkiye'de hem de Fen Lisesinde vaktimizi büyük bilim adamları hakkında efsaneler okuyup (Gauss 5 yaşında birden yüze kadar olan sayıları toplamış, Einstein atom bölünür dediği için liseden atılmış vs gibi) onların ne insan üstü ve ulaşılamaz olduğunu düşünerek harcardik. Amerika'da Üniversiteye ilk başladığımda etrafımdaki arkadaşların nobel ödüllü hocalarımız hakkında bu işten anlamaz, öbürü bunadı, beriki zaten baştan beri yanlış yoldaydı gibi yorumlarını dolayısıyla başta garip karşıladım. Ama zamanla o hocaların da (başka konularda olmasa da) kendi uzmanlık konularında genelde alçak gönüllü olduklarını ve aşağıdan gelen bu eleştiri yağmurunu da her zaman haklı olmasa bile sistemin gerekli bir parçası olarak kabul ettiklerini gözledim.

Tarihten bir iki örnek verelim: Aristotle pek çok konuda verdiği
eserlerle batı düşüncesine 2000 yıl hakim oldu. Bu dönemde onun
savlarına itiraz etmek engizisyona kadar götürdü pek çok insanı.
Yazdıklarına bugün baktığımızda yaklaşık yarısı gerçekten deli
saçması. Örneğin kadınların dışlerinin erkeklerden az olduğu, hareket
eden cisimlerin durmaya meyıllı oldukları, düşüncelerin merkezinin
kalpte olduğu, beyninse kanı serinletmeye yaradığı gibi basit
gözlemlerle aksi kolayca ispatlanabilecek pek çok iddia. (Klasiklerin
hepsi böyle değil - örneğin Arşimet'in yazdıkları bugün fizik
dergilerinde basılabilecek kalitede. Ayrıntılı bir karşılaştırma için
Beckman'ın "A history of pi" kitabını öneririm.)

Daha yakın tarihin en medyatik fizikçisi, dehanın prototipi Einstein'ı
alalım. Hayatının son yarışını fizikçilerin çoğunun kabul ettiği
üstelik başlangıcında kendi çalışmalarının önemli rol oynadığı kuantum
kuramını çürütmek için boşu boşuna harcadı. Popüler kültürde
Einstein'ın relativity kuramını o dönemde bir elin parmakları kadar
bilim adamının anlayabildiği iddia edilir. Bu iddia da tamamiyle
yanlış - kuram basılmadan önce kimse anlamıyordu, basıldıktan sonra da
zamanın profesyonel fizikçilerinin çoğu anladılar, şu anda da
undergrad fizik okuyan herhangi biri special relativity'yi bir
dönemlik bir dersle içli dışlı öğrenebilir anlayabilir.

Benim bu deneyimlerden çıkardığım bir iki sonuç var. Bilim, insan
aktiviteleri içerisinde otoritenin etkisini kırmaya çalışmış ve en aza
indirgeyebilmiş istisnai bir örnek. Doğruya ulaşmak için insanlar ve
onların hiyerarşideki yerleri değil, fikirler ve onların mantıksal
tutarlılıkları, açıklayıcı güçleri, ve empirik gözlemlere uyumları
önemli olan. Einstein gibi karakterleri göklere çıkarma eğilimi diğer
alanlarda içimize işlemiş olan otoriteye saygı eğiliminin psikolojik
olarak bilime yansıtılması gibi görünüyor. Relativiteyi kimse anlamaz
efsanesi ise çarpık eğitim sistemimizin sonucunda insanların adeta
matematiği anlamamaktan gururla söz eder hale gelmesine benzer bir
savunma mekanizması. Sonuçta serbest tartışma yolundaki her engel gibi
bunları da yıkmamız ve kahramanlarımızın da normal insanlar olduğunu,
karmaşık konuların düzgün anlatılabildiğinde herkes tarafından
anlaşılabileceğini kabul etmemiz ve her otoriteyi kıyasıya
eleştirebilmemiz lazım.

Full post... Related link