Our brains have evolved in such a way that thinking around corners is something we do naturally. We are by nature problem solvers and we are always trying to spot the patterns in the world around us - in fact we are happier with a pattern than without one even if we have to make it up because no such pattern exists. We can fall into the trap of making false arguments which don’t make sense - we will literally think around corners sometimes.
Source: Bertrand Russell
“Logical errors are, I think, of greater practical importance than many people believe; they enable their perpetrators to hold the comfortable opinion on every subject in turn.”
“There's a mighty big difference between good, sound reasons and reasons that sound good.”Source: Burton Hillis
Please keep in mind that throughout this piece I am talking about thoughts and arguments relating to factual claims, not subjective feelings or value judgements. You may prefer Mozart to Beethoven, but no matter how straight you think and talk you can’t prove you are right or wrong. It is therefore very helpful in life to be able to identify when we are thinking and talking about facts and logic as opposed to aesthetic opinion or a moral choice. Such a thought is a way of coming to a conclusion or making a case or outlining an argument.
Structure of a Logical Argument.
Whether we are consciously aware of it or not, thoughts of this type all follow a certain basic structure.
Premise 1: If A = B,
Premise 2: and B = C
Logical connection: Then (apply principle of equivalence)
Conclusion: A = C - This is my idea of thinking straight.
In order for a conclusion to be considered valid all the premises of an argument must be true, and the logical connection must be valid.
By “valid” we specifically refer to such conclusions, because a conclusion may still be “true” even if it is not valid. This is because it is possible to use wrong information, or faulty logic to reach a conclusion that happens to be true. You can do the math wrong but still get the right answer sometimes. An invalid argument does not necessarily prove the conclusion false. Demonstrating that an argument is not valid, however, removes it as support for the truth of the conclusion.
A key skill for thinking straight is therefore being able to correctly identify the components of the argument. This enables us to examine both our own arguments and those of others and critically analyse them for validity. This is an excellent way of sharpening one’s thinking, avoiding biases, and making effective arguments.
Examine your Premises
As stated above, in order for an argument to be valid all of its premises must be true. Often, different people come to different conclusions because they are starting with different premises. So examining all the premises of each argument is a good place to start.
There are three types of potential problems with premises. The first, and most obvious, is that a premise can be wrong. If one argues, for example, that evolutionary theory is false because there are no transitional fossils, that argument is invalid because the premise – no transitional fossils – is false. In fact there are actually tons (in every sense of the word) of transitional fossils.
A second type of premise error occurs when one or more premise is an unwarranted assumption. The premise may or may not be true, but it has not been established sufficiently to serve as a premise for an argument. Identifying all the assumptions upon which an argument is dependent is often the most critical step in analysing an argument. Frequently, different conclusions are arrived at because of differing assumptions.
Often people will choose the assumptions that best fit the conclusion they prefer. In fact, psychological experiments show that most people start with conclusions they desire, then reverse engineer arguments to support them – a process called rationalisation.
One way to resolve the problem of using assumptions as premises is to carefully identify and disclose those assumptions up front. Such arguments are often called “hypothetical,” or prefaced with the statement “Let’s assume for the sake of argument.” Also, if two people examine their arguments and realise they are using different assumptions as premises, then at least they can “agree to disagree.” They will realise that their disagreement cannot be resolved until more information is available to clarify which assumptions are more likely to be correct.
The third type of premise difficulty is the most insidious: the hidden premise. Obviously, if a disagreement is based upon a hidden premise, then the disagreement will be irresolvable. So when coming to an impasse in resolving differences, it is a good idea to go back and see if there are any implied premises that have not been addressed.
When a palaeontologist speaks of “transitional” fossils, they are referring to species that occupy a space morphologically between two known species. This may be a common ancestor, in which case the transitional fossil will be more ancient than both descendent species; or it can be temporally between two species, the descendent of one and the ancestor of the other. But in reality we often do not know if the transitional species is an actual ancestor or just closely related to the true ancestor. Because evolution is a bushy process, and not linear, most of the specimens we find will lie on an evolutionary side branch. But if they fill a morphological gap in known species, they provide evidence of an evolutionary connection, and therefore qualify as transitional.
Original article by Steven Novella, MD, (http://www.theness.com/articles.asp?id=38)
Posted by the New England Skeptical Society, 5/8/2006 (http://www.theness.com/)
Wikipedia bans Church of Scientology
In an unprecedented effort to crack down on self-serving edits, the Wikipedia supreme court has banned contributions from all IP addresses owned or operated by the Church of Scientology and its associates.
Closing out the longest-running court case in Wikiland history, the site’s Arbitration Committee voted 10 to 0 (with one abstention) in favor of the move, which takes effect immediately.
The eighth most popular site on the web, Wikipedia bills itself as "the free encyclopedia anyone can edit." Administrators frequently ban individual Wikifiddlers for their individual Wikisins. And the site's UK press officer/resident goth once silenced an entire Utah mountain in a bizarre attempt to protect a sockpuppeting ex-BusinessWeek reporter. But according to multiple administrators speaking with The Reg, the muzzling of Scientology IPs marks the first time Wikipedia has officially barred edits from such a high-profile organization for allegedly pushing its own agenda on the site.
The Church of Scientology has not responded to our request for comment.
The Dragon In My Garage
by Carl Sagan
"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"
Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!
"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle -- but no dragon.
"Where's the dragon?" you ask.
"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."
You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.
"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."
Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.
"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."
You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.
"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick." And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.
Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so. The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I've seriously underestimated human fallibility. Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don't outright reject the notion that there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it's unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative -- merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of "not proved."
Imagine that things had gone otherwise. The dragon is invisible, all right, but footprints are being made in the flour as you watch. Your infrared detector reads off-scale. The spray paint reveals a jagged crest bobbing in the air before you. No matter how skeptical you might have been about the existence of dragons -- to say nothing about invisible ones -- you must now acknowledge that there's something here, and that in a preliminary way it's consistent with an invisible, fire-breathing dragon.
Now another scenario: Suppose it's not just me. Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you're pretty sure don't know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages -- but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive. All of us admit we're disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence. None of us is a lunatic. We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on. I'd rather it not be true, I tell you. But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren't myths at all.
Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they're never made when a skeptic is looking. An alternative explanation presents itself. On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked. Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon's fiery breath. But again, other possibilities exist. We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons. Such "evidence" -- no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it -- is far from compelling. Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.
Shermer really is a hero, I wish I could always be as nice as him.
Posts
All Comments
