Heaving Dead Cats » arguing

Logical Fallacy 11: God of the Gaps in Science and Faith

Neece — Fri, 02 Apr 2010 12:40:43 +0000

“I can’t understand this so God did it.”

I like what Iron Chariots says about this argument: It is a form of non sequitur, since the hand of God is posited without proof and often with complete disregard to other possible explanations. In a nutshell, this is an argument from ignorance. But ignorance is never an argument for something. It just means we don’t yet know the cause of something.

This is Part 11 in a series about Logical Fallacies. We are going through one fallacy at a time. There are many types of fallacious arguments. I’m going to try to explain them with examples then find ways to help you refute those arguments when they occur. Please comment or email if there’s a particular fallacy you want me to tackle, or if you have success with refuting an argument using a good technique you can share.

I want to share this video of a talk by Neil deGrasse Tyson from 2006 is about 38 minutes long. He talks about the god of the gaps throughout scientific history, intelligent design and then about Stupid Design. Highly recommended watching:

Neil deGrasse Tyson is an astrophysicist who brings passion to science and scientific literacy. Tyson has written several books.

I’ve shared the Stupid Design part before (where I reproduced most of his slides in the article for your convenience) , but the god of the gaps part in the beginning is also very interesting.

The God of the Gaps argument is one of those, that when confronted with it, vexes me. In my experience when someone sees their god in things they don’t understand, I have found that person to be bound by lazy acceptance of easy answers to complex questions, their minds tightly closed to critical thinking and wonder in the natural universe.

How to Refute:

I usually don’t try to argue with someone who sees god in everything they don’t understand. It’s almost always futile. To make matters worse, as I wrote about before, we naturally justify our false beliefs in any way we can, so many people fortify their belief in their god through confirmation bias or just plain resistance to any new information, just to name a few.

I might mention that science closes the gap more each day, and maybe add a few studies I’ve heard about that are amazing. You can say this, too: “I’d rather have questions that can’t be answered than answers that can’t be questioned.”

Sources used:

Logical Fallacy 10: The Slippery Slope

Neece — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 13:57:46 +0000

The logical fallacy known as The Slippery Slope wrongly assumes that one thing must lead to another, and another and before you know it you get to something awful. Therefore you can’t do the first thing. This is a very common fallacy. It’s also known as the Fallacy of the Beard.

In an argument, it is the situation where acceptance of a minor detail of the opposing position will greatly weaken your position.

This is Part 10 in a series about Logical Fallacies. We are going through one fallacy at a time. There are many types of fallacious arguments. I’m going to try to explain them with examples then find ways to help you refute those arguments when they occur. Please comment or email if there’s a particular fallacy you want me to tackle, or if you have success with refuting an argument using a good technique you can share.

Formula:

If A happens, B will happen. If B happens, C, D, E, … Z will happen! (oh noes!)
We don’t want Z to happen.
Therefore A can’t happen.

Example 1:

If I take aspirin, I’ll start taking Oxycontin for headaches. If I take Oxycontin, I’ll start buying it on the street. If I do that, I’ll start looking for heroine to shoot up. If I start shooting up heroine, I’ll get a dirty needle and get HIV, then die of AIDS….
I don’t want to do heroine and die of AIDS.
Therefore I can’t take anything for my headaches.

Of course this is not logical. For most people we have the ability to moderate and restrain ourselves to some degree. It is possible to stop after the first step and not go down the slippery slope.

Example 2:

Man: Will you have sex with me for a million dollars?
Woman: Sure!
Man: How about for ten dollars?
Woman: What kind of woman do you think I am?
Man: We’ve established that, now we’re just arguing over price.

The woman has lost her argument over what seemed like a minor concession.

The Fallacy of the Beard term comes because what constitutes a beard? If you see a man and he has a beard, if he had one less whisker would it still be a beard? Two less? A thousand whiskers less? There is no clear cut line. Just because the difference between beard and no beard is vague (or bald versus hairy, etc), doesn’t mean that there’s no difference between the two. The difference is in degree. A big enough difference in degree can amount to a difference in kind.

How to Refute the Slippery Slope Fallacy?

My first suggestion is to state the fallacy and explain it. I think that’s important in most circumstances. I think often people don’t realize they are falling into fallacious arguments.

Once you’ve briefly explained it, I would recommend talking about moderation and how people every day all over the world restrain themselves thousands of times more often than not. Maybe even bring up how the person you’re talking to has restrained themselves in some way recently, perhaps by restricting how much they ate or drank, etc (might not work if they are obese or an alcoholic, but you get my point). For instance, I really love coffee, but I only drank 2 cups for breakfast instead of the 5 I could have easily consumed.

Sources used:

Some Great Advice by Robert Gula

Neece — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 14:57:24 +0000

I belong to a book club that has been reading Nonsense: Red Herrings, Straw Men and Sacred Cows: How We Abuse Logic in Our Everyday Language by Robert J. Gula.

I really wanted to share part of chapter 17 with you. Mr. Gula lists the most important principles to be gleaned from the rest of the book. I highly recommend getting the book and reading it. It has really helped me think more logically. The other thing it’s helped me with is to realize when someone has used a logical fallacy on me. I might not remember the name, but I remember that it is nonsense. It sort of gives me a red flag when someone uses bad logic in an argument. I think that’s pretty invaluable.

So here’s the list of important principles from Robert Gula:

Be alert to anyone who speaks in absolutes: who uses words like all, none, no one, never, always, everyone, must, immediately, or who refers to a group of people as if all the members have identical characteristics, beliefs or attitudes.
Be alert to generalizations, especially ones that are unsupported or that are supported from just one or two specific, unusual or extreme examples.
Be alert to anyone who uses emotional language and evaluative words instead of objective, factual responses.
Do not confuse opinion, attitude, personal bias, speculation, personal assurance or unsupported generalization with hard, factual evidence.
Be sure that the issue under discussion is clear and precise, that its ramifications, complexities and goals have been identified, and that the words and concepts have been defined.
Be sure that the evidence is relevant to the specific topic of discussion, not to some related topic.
When an authority is referred to, do not automatically accept that authority unless their credentials are relevant to the issue under discussion.
Make sure that the conclusion follows from the evidence.
Be sure that you do not put others in a position where they have to make inferences, and that you are not put in a position where you have to make inferences. In other words, be sure that necessary steps are not omitted in argument. Avoid making assumptions.
Wherever possible, do not allow rational discussions to become heated arguments.
Make sure that the evidence is thorough, not selective.
Don’t quibble; don’t argue just for the sake of arguing.
Think critically. Never let a fallacy go by without making a mental note of it; even if you don’t say anything, say to yourself, “this is nonsense.”
Whenever you hear an argument, examine it before you accept its conclusions. As three questions:
1. Are the statements – the premises – the points being made and used as evidence – true?
2. Is the evidence complete? Or has the evidence been one-sided?
3. Does the conclusion come incontrovertibly from the evidence? Or might a different conclusion just as easily have come from the evidence?
Finally, no matter how skilled in argument you may become, never forget the opening sentence of Poe’s “The Cask of Amontillado”:
The thousand injuries of Fortunato I had borne as best I could, but when he ventured upon insult, I vowed revenge.
The world does not need another smart aleck.

Cross-posted from Morgantown Atheists

How To Argue

Neece — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 20:02:04 +0000

Almost all of us argue or have discussions. But there’s actually a right way and lots of wrong ways to go about it. As an ethical person, I don’t really want to do it wrong because that’s being dishonest and unfair. I am definitely not a debater, which is where people actually use logical fallacies on purpose to win an argument. I don’t really care for debates because they seem forced to me. It’s about winning, not about finding out the truth. I think the main reason I hate arguing is because most people fight dirty. I am sure I’ve done it too, mainly out of ignorance. Now, with the following information, we can argue more logically.

Yesterday while being domestic, I was listening to podcasts. The following one was so cool, I actually decided to transcribe it for you because it was both concise and chock full of good information.

Here is a pretty close transcript to this podcast episode. It’s not exact, so you can listen to it to get everything I left out, which was where someone started a sentence or a thought and didn’t finish it, stuff like that. I also turned it into more of an article and less of a conversation. So really, it’s a companion to listening to the podcast (which is about 6 minutes) and for your convenience.

How To Structure A Logical Argument
by the Skeptics’ Guide 5×5, Episode 62, March 19, 2009

There are two components to any argument:

Premises – the facts you base your argument on

Logic – connects your premises to the conclusion that you’re trying to draw

Some important properties of logical systems should include:

Consistency: nothing in your argument should contradict one another.

Soundness: the system rules for proof will never allow false interference from a true premise

Completeness: there are no true sentences in the system that cannot be proved in the system

It’s very important that logical arguments are only about factual claims and not value judgments. Value judgments are by definition subjective and are not amenable to logical arguments.
Another important thing to keep in mind is what logical fallacies are and to look for them not just in your opponent’s argument in order to deconstruct that, but also to get them out of your own argument. It’s very easy to fall into certain traps without realizing it. Studying common logical fallacies can really help you tone up your own logical argument.
One key is that the purpose of an argument shouldn’t be to win. It should be to figure out what is valid, what is true. If two people disagree, then one or both people is making an unsound argument. So something would be wrong with one or both arguments.

Unsound argument: not based both on true premises and valid logic.

First Goal: Decide what the common ground is. What are the points you can both agree upon? What are the premises that are rock solid? Then proceed very carefully from there, examining each premise and all of the logic every step of the way to find out who is wrong here, who is making the incorrect assumption, who is making a hidden premise, who is committing a logical fallacy or are both of you?

Don’t neglect your own arguments. Don’t assume you’re right and the other person is wrong. Proceed in a careful manner.

If two people examining the same math problem came to a different answer they wouldn’t just start yelling at each other. They’d say OK, let’s go through it step by step and see who made a mistake, or maybe both of us made a mistake and we’ll figure out what the right answer is.

An argument is the same thing. It has a structure.

One important thing to note: if you start with premises that are true, and you make a valid logic, that is what is called a Sound Argument. The conclusion of a sound argument must be true, by definition. Therefore if two people disagree they can’t both be making sound arguments. And that includes yourself.

Also, you really do need to listen to the person you’re arguing with. A large portion of the discussion is going to be reacting to the other person. You’re going to be formulating your thoughts, ideas and responses as that person is telling you what they believe. You’re preparing your next statement as you go. You really do need to take into account what they’re saying, or else you’re having a one sided discussion.

A good component of a constructive argument: It’s very helpful to try to explain your position to someone else. When you are forced to make someone else understand your position, then it really exposes some of the holes and gaps in your logic and your thinking. You’re trying to make your position unambiguously understood. You’re exposing all of your premises, you’re not hiding them. You’re exposing all of your logic, you’re explaining it to yourself and the other person at the same time, and then you’re giving them the opportunity to do the same thing.

Again, a good place to start is, what is the common ground. What are the things we can agree upon?

Some discussions are about value judgments, and if you expose that, OK we’re talking about something that is a subjective opinion here, then you can at least agree to disagree and then you’re not wasting your time that can’t be resolved with facts and logic.

Logical Fallacy 6: Argumentum Verbosium: Proof By Intimidation

Neece — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 05:33:07 +0000

Argumentum verbosium is also known as Proof by Intimidation, or Proof by Verbosity. It refers to an argument that is so complex, so long-winded and so poorly presented by the arguer that you are obliged to accept it, simply to avoid being forced to sift through its minute details.

This fallacy is epitomized by this lovely statement, “If you can’t dazzle them with your brilliance, then baffle them with your bullshit.”

This is Part 6 in a series I introduced awhile ago about Logical Fallacies, Misconceptions, False Beliefs. We are going through one fallacy at a time. There are many types of fallacies. I’m going to try to explain them with examples then find ways to help you refute those arguments when they occur. Please comment or email if there’s a particular fallacy you want me to tackle, or if you have success with refuting an argument using a good technique you can share.

This one doesn’t need examples because it’s pretty easy to spot. If someone goes on for ages, throwing out tons of obscure, random bits of information, you have yourself an argumentum verbosium. Some of the information may seem plausible, it may all sound well-researched, but there’s just no way to check all the supposed facts.

You’ll often run into this logical fallacy with con men in the pseudo-science game, and with conspiracy theorists. If you’ve experienced it elsewhere, let us know.

So how do you refute the Proof by Verbosity? Good question. Again, this is my opinion. I’ve yet to find a resource that teaches how to deal with logical fallacies.

First, how are you hearing this argument? If it’s on TV on an infomercial, your best bet is to change the channel after you realize the con man arguing by verbosity. If you are at a talk given by such a person, again, I’d probably leave.

If, on the other hand, this is someone you know and they are starting another rant filled with obscure “facts”, you could try this:

Call them on their nonsense. Tell them they are arguing with verbosity, which is a bullying technique used by con men.
When that doesn’t work, try to get a word in to say you would like to see them take 20 random facts they’ve pulled out of their hat and give you concrete scientific evidence for each one. The evidence must be peer reviewed and widely accepted. Then you might consider letting them talk about this subject again. (Change the number of facts based on their levels of BS. If you need to make it 50, go ahead!)
Threaten to walk away each time they start talking about their subject. Then follow through.

I’m not sure there is any way to get through to someone who is a conspiracy theorist. They are like fundamentalists. They truly believe what they are telling you. I also don’t think there’s any way to get through to a con artist who is trying to get you to buy his product. He will resist at all costs. So my cynical and jaded way to deal with such people is to turn them in to the Better Business Bureau or some such organization, and then to avoid them.

I’m open to suggestions though. Please feel free to comment with suggestions for how to deal with this type of argument. Also let me know if you have a specific logical fallacy that you’d like to see addressed.

For this lesson, I’m using 2 resources:

This is a series on Logic, Logical Thinking and Dealing with Logical Fallacies in an Argument. Visit the Logical Fallacies page to see them all.

Thanksgiving and Family Fundie Nonsense

Neece — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 11:53:14 +0000

Thanksgiving is just around the corner. I’m a bit bummed out that I don’t have a great outfit to wear to dinner on Thursday. Like one of the 30 or so anti-religious shirts my husband Butch I have created on Zazzle and Cafepress with maybe some nice black cargo pants. I just don’t think I could get one shipped to me in time. Maybe if I order soon, I can have something festive for baby jesus’ birthday.

Oh if I only had the nerve. Maybe it’s not nerve but respect for the people who throw the family get-togethers – Butch’s aunt and uncle. She’s a bit on the religious side, so I wouldn’t want to upset or offend her. She’s the kind of christian that I don’t mind at all. I know she’s a christian because she goes to church every Sunday, but we’ve never talked religion and she’s never tried to push her faith on me. She is a good person, one of the few christians I know that I truly respect, because she walks the walk without talking the talk, if you know what I mean.

Her mother, on the other hand, she’s nasty. The typical fundie moron that is unbearable and full of lies and hatred for anyone who actually thinks for themselves. As a schoolteacher, I just wish she wouldn’t be so ignorant about simple facts like oh, I dunno, maybe that we’re not a christian nation, and that the founding fathers created a separation of church and state very deliberately.

She hates Butch and I because we dared stand up for truth and facts last christmas regarding the founding of our country. She was so full of instant indignant rage, spouting poisonous lies about the founding fathers. When Butch corrected her it was really ugly, but she just changed the subject and skulked off. Luckily it was after dessert.

Anyway, it would be nice if she, a freaking schoolteacher, knew that the founding fathers went out of their way to make sure there was a separation of church and state. How blind is she? Doesn’t she know that it protects her as much as me, the godless heathen sitting across from her at the table?

Ugh, lucky for her I’m an ethical atheist, which means I probably will not stick my fork in her eye over the candied yams when they bow their heads in prayer. Then again, maybe it’s just my pragmatism, because no one likes bloodied candied yams.

Speaking of dealing with fundies, I noticed an arguing method that such people use to great effect. Where do they learn this common and slimy method, and how the hell can it be dealt with?

It goes like this: the narrow-minded fundie makes a statement. You refute it with logic. They slide off from that point, never acknowledging that they lost that battle, and immediately attack you with another ridiculous claim that is either A, so outlandish that you are stunned and have a hard time figuring out a rational response to such insanity, or B, it’s got just enough fact in it that makes it hard to refute outright, but easy to believe if you’re a mindless nutjob.

Once you try to refute the second point, if you are lucky and succeed in getting your whole point out, the fundie launches at you with another vicious attack, totally ignoring the previous argument again, keeping you off guard, never letting you get your head together.

Who teaches people to be so calculatingly manipulative? I knew this guy for a couple of years. He was a narrow minded, smart yet mindless idiot, but somehow we got along and I thought we were friends. Last week I mentioned that he had a narrow world view. I know, it wasn’t the most tactful statement and I apologized. He cut off all contact instantaneously.

In an email exchange over the next day or so, he used the technique I just described until it dawned on me, he was going to continue the ad hominem attacks and accuse me of being a heinous person and never ever even acknowledge that I was trying to converse with him, unless he could use it against me. Which he did in twisted ways that frankly boggled my mind.

Finally it hit me. Why the hell was I even engaging with this person? He was a fundie in his own way. I hadn’t realized until then that there is such a beast as the rare atheist fundie, full of the same ridiculous twisted logic and lack of common sense. Bizarro world, that’s what it felt like.

Anyway, I really can’t think of any way to deal with such people except to disengage and not even talk to them. Arguing logic with them is a waste of time and effort, and a source of immense aggravation. They don’t want to argue with you, they want to attack and debase you. It’s pointless, I think.

Of course, I welcome ideas on how to deal with this whole vicious technique. If you’ve had success be sure to share with the class. We all need to know.

Wow, what a meandering path that was! I think I’ll wrap things up by saying THANK YOU.

Thanks for reading, and thank you so much for when you comment. That makes my day. I’m so grateful for so many things, and you are one of them.

And look, I can be happy and thankful for my family, my dogs, my health, my home and all the good things and people that fill my life, and I can do it all without kowtowing to an invisible, angry, hateful, middle eastern, Bronze/Iron Age, childish bully in the sky.

Logical Fallacy 5: Argument From Authority

Neece — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 20:50:59 +0000

(also called Appeal to Authority) Stating a claim is true because a person or group of perceived authority says it’s true. The claimant emphasizes the many years of experience and/or formal degrees held by the person or organization making the claim.

This argument is the opposite of the Ad Hominem Argument because the arguer appeals to positive characteristics of the source to support their argument, such as its perceived authority. If an advertisement shows someone wearing a white labcoat or a stern business suit, that is an appeal to authority.

This is Part 5 in a series I introduced the other day about Logical Fallacies, Misconceptions, False Beliefs. We’re going to go through one fallacy at a time. There are about 20 main fallacies altogether. I’m going to try to explain them with examples then find ways to help you refute those arguments when they occur.

While it’s reasonable to take into account the proper background of education and credentials, or to be suspicious of someone without such expertise, it must inevitably come down to logic and evidence to support the claim, not the person promoting it.

A good authority supports a position because there is evidence or other justifiable reasons that the argument merits, not the other way around. So, good scientists do not attach significance to their own authority. The theory needs to stand on its own and be peer reviewed. There is no need for an appeal to authority.

Examples:
Chinese medicine is valid because it’s been around for centuries and is based on ancient Chinese knowledge.

Oprah says that The Secret is a powerful book, and that it really works. And we all know that Oprah is an expert on everything and only supports stuff that works perfectly.

The Pope says the basic idea of evolution is OK because that’s how God made everything, and the Pope is the supreme expert on all things that have anything to do with god.

Linus Pauling said that taking mega doses of vitamins can lead to all kinds of wonderful health benefits and prevent illness. He was awarded 2 Nobel Prizes on other subjects.

UFOs exist because airline pilots are trained observers and reliable eye witnesses, and are trained to stay calm in an emergency. and they claim to have seen them.

So how do you refute the Appeal to Authority? This one is a bit tougher. Again, this is my opinion because I haven’t found any resources on that yet.

First, I would start by telling the person that they are using the Argument From Authority and explain what that is.
Second, ask for evidence for the claim. Do they have anything to back it up? Where can you find the research and look into it?
If the person doesn’t have anything to back up the claim, and it’s a point of contention that you would really like to clear up, ask for whatever information they have and offer to do the research yourself.

Here is a real example:

My mother is on hormone replacement therapy (HRT). Her doctor is giving her a really hard time and telling her she needs to get off of it as fast as she can and that it’s really bad for her to take it. She has lowered my mother’s dose to a point where my mother has hot flashes, trouble sleeping, and is generally rather irritated and cranky. It’s unpleasant for her (and those around her).

The doctor, who represents a person of authority to my mother, is basing this drastic and uncomfortable change to my mother’s well-being on ONE study done several years ago that was widely publicized and created a huge scare. I won’t go into the details, but basically the study found that a certain demographic of women fitting very specific criteria were at risk if they were on hormone therapy.

The media ran with it, gave it full authority and dramatized the results to include all women taking any kind of HRT. Many doctors, including my mother’s, simply followed the media and the overview of the one study, gave it full authority, and never did any research into the study itself to find out the real results.

To make matters worse, my mother is looking into alternative health products and is cutting her already small dose of real HRT in half because she’s afraid of it killing her, making her even more miserable. The alternative products have no scientific basis that they work at all, are terribly expensive, and are based on the claims of movie stars and people like Oprah, who are most likely compensated. The only thing that people are given by these big name stars is anecdotal stories and pseudo-scientific claims that are carefully worded to sound like real science but still sneak past the FDA. Insidious.

But the my mother’s doctor is the voice of authority here, and that doctor is basing her authority on the authority of the study. I’m just the daughter, so my mother holds no credence in what I say even though I’ve looked into the matter and discovered that there is no reason for her to worry because she’s not in the demographic of possible risk, based on the actual study’s results and not just the media scare.

For this lesson, I’m using 3 resources:

This is a series on Logic, Logical Thinking and Dealing with Logical Fallacies in an Argument. Visit the Logical Fallacies page to see them all.

Heaving Dead Cats » arguing

Logical Fallacy 11: God of the Gaps in Science and Faith

Related posts

Logical Fallacy 10: The Slippery Slope

Related posts

Some Great Advice by Robert Gula

Related posts

How To Argue

Related posts

Logical Fallacy 6: Argumentum Verbosium: Proof By Intimidation

Related posts

Thanksgiving and Family Fundie Nonsense

Related posts

Logical Fallacy 5: Argument From Authority

Related posts