On January 11th, 2016, I started a daily practice of writing a joke meditation of the day called Cracked Pot Meditations. I was still recovering from the treatment of cancer, and I was having very challenging cognitive issues, so I chose just to put something simple and easy to write every day. Posting it to the blog allowed me to have some accountability. Some of those meditations were poorly written and unedited. I have gone back and begun editing these and adding an illustration, starting with the April 27th meditation. I hope you enjoy.
Meditation for June 20th
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. If logic is used correctly, the argument is made and can’t be refuted other than by feelings or faith, which are illogical.
In the age of online communication, 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 having a reasonable, logical debate about a topic, pictures, videos, and words are combined to stir feelings and force people to question their faith or strengthen it.
When logic is used incorrectly, it is referred to as a logical fallacy. This means logic is not being used. 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 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. People from one group are like this because a few have done 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 sacred holy books, but Christians have been commercialized and secularized, so they have less piety. If Christians were religious, then it would also mean that all Christians are trying to kill you. Where are you getting your sample? If you 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 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 can 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 that happened, which means this other thing happened and 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 back up that claim with any evidence.
You will have to prove that one thing has strong evidence and a tangible impact on the second thing.
Slippery Slope
This is another favorite. It 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 will.
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. However, usually, people are playing the ‘what if’ game, and there are too many variables in the ‘what if’ game.
Besides, since this blog was posted, the CIA used ISIS to overthrow the government of Syria and install a pro-US and Israel government.
Weak Analogy
If we removed this false fallacy from social media discourse, we would be eliminating 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 innocents?
My logical answer to a 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 precisely what the gun was made to do.
Also, the government heavily regulates cars, so…
Most are weak if you use any analogy; ensure the two items share enough properties to be used in a logical argument.
Appeal to Authority
This is just the old Professor X believes something to be true, so you should too.
Is the authority figure acting on the subject? This argument is usually made to side with people. 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 use an authority figure, don’t just say that 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 a part of society, but does McDonald’s 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!
A large number of people believing in something has been society’s downfall for millennia, so be okay being an individual when this argument is offered to you.
Ad Hominem
This is just putting down people who disagree. It 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 specific lists are fucking hippies.
This does not help the argument at all. 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 too stupid to argue, so that you will 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. Do 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; 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 if another person with a gun had been 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 downright weak to do so. Sporting etiquette dictates that if you are going to argue, make sure you have the opposing argument adequately represented. So, I am not online but with someone opposing the argument.
Red Herring
This is my favorite one. You go on a tangent about something totally unrelated and confuse the opponents and audience.
To answer the question about how many deaths by guns there have been this year is to show you this list that starts with how many abortions there have been to get you focused on that, rather than on the number of gun deaths. They are protecting instruments of death with a pro-life red herring.
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 merit. Sometimes, looking at all the options, even ones we immediately don’t feel right about, helps us make logical choices.
Begging the Question
This is just saying the conclusion and does not have any evidence 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 told confidently and is being accepted.
Here are some tips on making sure the argument you are making is 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 than 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!