Meditation for June 22nd, 2016
Mistaken Logic
Logic is how humans understand the universe. It is the language translated from math. Logic is how a human being communicates to another human being why something works or doesn’t work. If logic is used correctly, then the argument is made and can’t be refuted other than by feelings or faith, which are both illogical.
In the age of online communication, the use of logic has taken a backseat. People rely much more heavily on how they feel about a subject or what they have faith in. Rather than have a reasonable logical debate about a subject, pictures, videos and words are combined to stir feelings and either force people to question their faith or strengthen it.
When logic is used incorrectly, it is refer to as a logical fallacy. This means the logic is not being used. The literal math does not add up in an argument. People try to figure out equations to back up their feelings or beliefs, but usually it does not.
Carl Sagan has a set of rules he suggests using when trying to find the logic in something:
“1. Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts.”
-
Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
-
Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities” have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.
-
Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among “multiple working hypotheses,” has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.
-
Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours. It’s only a way station in the pursuit of knowledge. Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don’t, others will.
-
Quantify. If whatever it is you’re explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you’ll be much better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations. Of course there are truths to be sought in the many qualitative issues we are obliged to confront, but finding them is more challenging.
-
If there’s a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) — not just most of them.
-
Occam’s Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler.
-
Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle — an electron, say — in a much bigger Cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.”
The divide in this country is because no one does any of these things to investigate their own beliefs.
What are some examples of logical fallacies that are turned into cute little memes and are shamefully used as arguments?
Hasty Generalization
This is a favorite. All people of one group are this because a few of these people did it.
As an example: all Muslims want to kill you.
Where is the math in that? The same ideas that are in the Islamic holy book are in the Christian holy books, but Christians have been commercialized and secularized so they have less pietism. Where are you getting your sample? If you are going to use this in an argument, you will need more data.
Missing the Point
Read enough arguments on a shitty political meme comment section, and you will see that most people missed the point. People who made the original post or reposted the meme usually went with it because the conclusions made them feel justified, but really the premise doesn’t back up the conclusion.
Example: all Democrats want to have the guns rounded up and taken away. No, the premise does not back up that conclusion. No one could possibly find proof of that statement unless they made it up or don’t check their favorite political blog’s validity.
Make sure your argument backs up your conclusion.
False Cause
This is when someone shoots into the dark with something happened so that means this other thing happened so therefore this thing is true.
No one at any of these shootings had a gun as well so therefore all mass shootings would be stopped if all people had guns.
There is no way a person could possible back up that claim with any evidence.
You will have to prove the one thing has strong evidence and a real impact on the second thing.
Slippery Slope
This is another favorite. This is the one that really works on people’s fears and faith. If this one thing happens then you will allow all this evil to happen as well. So don’t do this one thing or Hitler and human goat hybrids.
If we don’t let Americans get their rightful hands on guns then we will be bowing down to terrorists and then ISIS will become our government and we will all become docile slaves to a world Caliphate.
If you can show evidence for A causing B causing C causing D… then maybe you have something there, but usually people are playing the ‘what if’ game and there are too many variables in the ‘what if’ game.
Weak Analogy
If we removed this false fallacy from social media discourse, we would be removing three quarters of the arguments for anything. This is comparing one set of things with another set of things and calling it apples and apples rather than apples and oranges.
Some bad people kill people with their cars and we don’t take all people’s cars away when that happens so why would we take all guns away if only a few people are using them to kill innocence?
My logical answer to my own logical fallacy example? Cars were invented to go from point A to point B and some of the side effects of being responsible for a mass piece of metal exploding gas to go fast will sometimes go wrong. Guns are made to kill things and so when someone uses a gun to kill a bunch of people, they are using the gun for exactly what the gun was made to do.
Also, the government heavily regulates cars, so…
If you are going to use any kind of analogy, and most of them are weak at best, make sure that the two items share enough properties to be used in an argument of logic.
Appeal to Authority
This is just the old Professor X believes something to be true so therefore you should too.
Is the authority figure actually an authority on the subject? This argument is usually made to side people up. Oh! If guitar virtuoso Ted Nugent says that guns are a person’s American prerogative then he must be right because how could he be allowed to shred on a stage for people if he isn’t right all the time?
If you are going to use an authority person, don’t just say this person believes in this, but why? What was their method for coming up with that conclusion? Sometimes even the experts are wrong.
Ad Populum
This is just saying that most people think so, so it’s true. This is getting a person’s feeling of wanting to fit in and be apart of society as a whole, but really, does McDonalds selling the most cheeseburgers in America make it the best cheeseburger?
Some high percentages of Americans believe that assault rifles are protected under the second amendment. Therefore assault rifles are protected under the second amendment. Join us!
Large amount of people believing in something has been societies downfall for millennia, so be ok being an individual when this argument is offered to you.
Ad Hominum
This is just the put down of people who disagree. This is going outside the argument to attack the debater rather than keep debating the facts.
People who don’t want assault rifles in people’s hands that are on certain lists are fucking hippies.
This does not help the argument at all. In fact when you attack your opponent, you are saying you are scared and don’t have any more facts to share. Same as reverting to physical violence. This is just saying you are to stupid to argue so you are going to attack people.
Logical people don’t have those kinds of emotional responses anyway.
Appeal to Pity
This is trying to make people sorry for the argument or the arguer themselves. This is usually 100% feeling being used to make someone else feel.
America won’t be safe without guns in our hands, you want my family to be tortured and killed by invading Soviets?
I mean how emotional was the original Red Dawn movie? That makes you love to be an American!
Appeal to Ignorance
This is widely used because most people won’t research your arguments anyway so you won’t have to worry about being wrong. You’re not wrong if no one else knows what’s right.
If there is proof in the lack of evidence then maybe you can squeeze a truth out of it, but usually the lack of evidence does not prove anything.
The only way to stop a gunman is to have a gun. You can’t prove it because most of the shootings happened when people weren’t armed but the gunman.
First off, is there any evidence of this? Does this apply to every shooting, or can it be said that all shootings would have been worse by having another person with a gun there?
Why can’t I have the right to not own a gun and not fear for my life?
Strawman
This is setting up your opponent’s argument and knocking it down before your opponent has argued. Usually a person will take a watered down version of the opponent’s arguments and prove point by point why it is false.
Gun haters want to take all our guns and make us a weak unprotected society! Do you want safety or freedom!
It is easier to argue with someone who isn’t there representing the opposing view, in fact it is down right weak to do it. Sporting etiquette dictates that if you are going to argue, make sure you have the opposing argument adequately represented.
Red Herring
This is my favorite one; you just go on a tangent about something totally unrelated and confuse the opponents and audience.
To answer the question about how many death by guns there have been this year is to show you this list that starts off with how many abortions there have been to get you focused on that rather than on the number of gun deaths.
Each of your conclusions must have a matching premise.
False Dichotomy
This is making the world black and white and therefore there are only two options. Either this or that and you have to choose. Ok, pretend you have to choose.
Either we have no gun laws or we are slaves to the government.
Are those the only two choices? Really? Seems drastic.
Look at other choices and see if they have any merit. Sometimes looking at all the options, even ones we immediate don’t feel right about, helps us come up with some logical choices.
Begging the Question
This is just saying the conclusion and not having any premise or proof.
It is our second amendment right to have guns, any guns, for protection.
Well, you say the second amendment right, but you don’t say how the second amendment protects your choice of firearms.
Make sure that you have real facts and logic backing up your claim. You can’t say anything, even if it’s said with confidence, and it being accepted.
Here are some tips on how to make sure the argument you are making is actually worth making.
Pretend you disagree with yourself.
List your main points.
Learn what fallacies you might be prone to. Have other people help you spot those.
Broad claims need much more proof then narrow claims.
Double-check your assessment of your opponent. Be respectful and courteous, but stand up for yourself.
And above all else learn something and have fun!