Heaving Dead Cats » argument

Occam’s Razor: Part 1 of Our Critical Thinking Toolkit

Neece — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 01:54:47 +0000

The other day I wrote about Critical Thinking and how important it is. But knowing it’s good for you and actually using it in your daily life are two very different things. I want to put together a Critical Thinking Toolkit.

One important tool is going to be Occam’s Razor: “entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity” (entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem). That’s it in a nutshell right from William of Ockham, a Franciscan monk and English philosopher, theologian and logician in the 14th century.
Another way to put it is: The simplest explanation is usually the correct one. But don’t get confused by the term, simple. It means: The hypothesis with the fewest assumptions is usually the correct one. When giving explanatory reasons for something, don’t posit more than is necessary. Or, don’t make any more assumptions than you have to.

So let’s say you have 2 competing hypotheses that are basically equal in most respects. Then this principle would suggest that you choose the hypothesis that makes the fewest assumptions while still sufficiently answering the question. In science Occam’s Razor is used as a rule of thumb (a heuristic) to help researchers develop good models.

In your life it can help you make decisions and choose what to think and what to believe (or not believe). You can use it as a heuristic as well, a great rule of thumb in your Critical Thinking Toolkit.

Sometimes atheists use Occam’s Razor to argue against the existence of god since everything can be explained through natural means without complicating it with the supernatural.

Another example: Crop circles. There used to be 2 competing ideas for where crop circles came from. One was that flying saucers from an alien world made them. Another was that a person (or people) used some type of instrument to make the designs in the grass. Since there is no evidence for the flying saucers from outer space, and given how complicated and how many assumptions need to be made to make that argument work, Occam’s Razor would suggest that the simpler explanation would be that humans did it with instruments. That is the argument that makes less assumptions.

Of course, the second argument could be wrong, but until there was more information, it was the preferable hypothesis. Then 2 guys admitted to the crop circle hoax in the 1990′s. So that ended that debate for most people.

A quote by Carl Sagan is appropriate here: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. When it comes to the supernatural, Occam’s Razor is a very valuable tool indeed.

Sources:

Critical Thinking For Everyone

Neece — Sun, 01 Aug 2010 07:43:15 +0000

For some time now, I’ve wanted to talk to you about critical thinking. I remember the bad old days when most of my thinking was emotional and reactive and I had no idea that such a thing as critical thinking even existed. It wasn’t a happy time. Over the last few years I’ve learned to think for myself and I can’t express how liberating and empowering that is.

If there is one gift you can give to a child or anyone else, it is to teach them to think for themselves. The educational system doesn’t teach this important skill. It teaches rote memorization and focuses on test taking. Therefore it’s up to you to learn it for yourself.

Unfortunately, I’m self taught and have no formal training in this realm. Which means sharing it with you is harder. So instead of putting it off even longer, I thought maybe we could explore the subject together and develop a plan for sharing with others in our lives or on the web. First, let’s define it.

Here is a quote: [Critical thinking is a] desire to seek, patience to doubt, fondness to meditate, slowness to assert, readiness to consider, carefulness to dispose and set in order; and hatred for every kind of imposture. ~ Francis Bacon (1605)

Here is the short and sweet definition:

Critical Thinking: n: the mental process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and evaluating information to reach an answer or conclusion.

But I’ve found that there are many different interpretations for this concept. You can see a whole page of them here.

Here’s another one:
“Critical thinking is best understood as the ability of thinkers to take charge of their own thinking. This requires that they develop sound criteria and standards for analyzing and assessing their own thinking and routinely use those criteria and standards to improve its quality.” Elder , L. and Paul, R. “Critical thinking: why we must transform our teaching.” Journal of Developmental Education, Fall 1994.

What makes a critical thinker? Here are some attributes:

asks pertinent questions
assesses statements and arguments
is able to admit a lack of understanding or information
has a sense of curiosity
is interested in finding new solutions
is able to clearly define a set of criteria for analyzing ideas
is willing to examine beliefs, assumptions, and opinions and weigh them against facts
listens carefully to others and is able to give feedback
sees that critical thinking is a lifelong process of self-assessment
suspends judgment until all facts have been gathered and considered
looks for evidence to support assumption and beliefs
is able to adjust opinions when new facts are found
looks for proof
examines problems closely
is able to reject information that is incorrect or irrelevant

Just about anyone can learn to think more critically. Even more importantly, you can use it in nearly every aspect of your daily living. You already think all the time, but if you are not consciously trying to think critically, your thoughts will be more biased, distorted, partial, uninformed and prejudiced. You’ll make decisions based on your emotions and feelings, you’ll rely on your “intuition” and your gut instinct, which can sometimes be useful but can often be quite flawed.

One way that flawed thinking is noticeable is through Logical Fallacies, which we talk about here at HDC.

Here are some other resources that you might find useful:

Well, that is enough to get us started. Do you have any great resources for learning to think critically that you would like to share?

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:

A Thought Experiment With Your Religious Friends

Neece — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 02:41:49 +0000

I am reading several books right now (I have them all listed in the left sidebar). One is called The God Virus and I just started it the other day. On page 18, Darrel W. Ray describes an experiment. I think I’ve heard of it before, but I thought I’d share it with you because it shows how religion attacks the critical thinking skills of the mind. As Mr. Ray says, it leaves the skill intact for other religions but disables critical thinking about one’s own religion. It really is like a virus of the mind.

Here’s the experiment as explained in the book:

You have a serious conversation with a deeply christian friend. Your friend is intelligent, well educated and knowledgeable. You agree to record the session. The topic is islam. During the session, you discuss that mohammed was a self-appointed prophet and that he claimed he talked to allah and the angels. He wrote a book that he claimed was infallible, and he flew from Jerusalem to heaven on a horse.

During the conversation, you agree that mohammed was probably delusional to think he could talk to god. You agree that the koran was clearly written by mohammed and not allah. It is ludicrous for him to claim that he is the last prophet and that all others are false. Neither you nor your friend can believe that he flew to heaven, let alone on a horse. It all sounds too crazy, and you both agree it is difficult to see how someone could believe such a religion. At the end of the conversation, you say that muslims did not choose their religion; they were born into it. Anyone who was exposed to both christianity and islam would see that christianity is the true religion.

Over the next few days, you transcribe the recording onto paper. Then you change all references to mohammed and make them jesus. Now the document reads something like this:

During the conversation, you both agree that jesus was probably delusional to think he could talk to jehovah. The bible was clearly written by men and not jehovah. You both agree it is ludicrous for jesus to claim that he is the last prophet and that all later ones are false. Neither of you can believe that he rose from the dead, nor flew to heaven. It all sounds too crazy, and it is difficult to see how someone could believe such a religion. At the end of the conversation, you both agree that christians did not choose their religion; they were born into it. Anyone who was exposed to both christianity and islam would see that islam is the true religion.

Now, tell your friend, “I made a transcript of our conversation about islam and would like to go over it with you.” As you read it, watch her reaction. How does she respond to each statement? How soon does she get defensive? How quickly does she start making elaborate arguments that have no more factual basis than the first conversation? If you persist in this line of parallel reasoning, how long before she gets angry or breaks off the conversation? Could this conversation damage your friendship?

You can do this experiment with other prophetic religions. For example, substitute Joseph Smith for mormonism or moses for judaism.

Have you ever tried an experiment like this? Have you ever questioned your friend’s religion? Did it damage your friendship? Or a family member? Does that person still talk to you? How far did your religious friend go to make excuses and explain away his religion in the face of reality?

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:

Logical Fallacy 9: Moving the Goalpost

Neece — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:51:44 +0000

Moving the Goalpost, or Raising the Bar, is a common informal logical fallacy in which the arguer, when presented with evidence against one of his claims, redefines his claim without acknowledging the validity of the evidence and counterargument. In other words, the arguer doesn’t like what he hears so he simply changes what would satisfy the argument. In doing so, it can make any claim at all vacuously true and invulnerable to reasoned disproof.

This is Part 9 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.

Example:

Antagonist: “Evolution is clearly impossible; no life form can change”
Protagonist: “Um, livestock breeders do it all the time. Where do you think hybrid roses come from?”
Antagonist: “Well, that’s just microevolution. You breed a new rose, it’s still a rose. What you can’t do is breed a new species.”
Protagonist: “Actually, we can and have. There’s lots of examples of observed speciation.
Antagonist: “Yes, but you still just get another variation of the same kind; you never get a completely new type of animal. You can’t breed a dog and get a chicken.”

The key to understand this fallacy is to understand what a claim under discussion actually means. In most cases, the actual “claim” is a relatively broad and perhaps ill-defined one. In most cases, the person making such a claim will have an intuitive, informal idea of what he really means, but cannot necessarily articulate the exact evidence upon which he bases his idea. Some concepts are hard to articulate and even harder to demonstrate, but it may nevertheless be real.

On the other hand, “moving the goalposts” can also be a sign that the claimant has made up his mind and is impervious to evidence. If he is convinced, for example, that a pattern exists, any single counterexample can be dismissed as unrepresentative.

Exceptions to the Rule:
“Moving the goalposts” can be legitimate when used to make more explicit exactly what is meant by a given claim. When the proposed amendment to the claim is more accurate and useful than the original claim, then moving the goalposts is simply an intelligent response to valid criticism.

Also, claims of “moving the goalposts” often degenerate into mere semantic quibbles when the overall meaning of the statement is clear. For example, a claim that “all scientists today accept the theory of gravity” is probably false in detail. If you spent the next five years searching assiduously, you could probably find a single person, somewhere in the world, with training in science who holds a contrary opinion in the teeth of near-universal disdain and all standards of evidence. Focusing on the lone holdout adds legitimacy to an otherwise nonexistent controversy.

I think we can say that it’s probably best to avoid certain words like always, never, all, none, etc. These can easily be nitpicked as incorrect. In the first example, I think I stated that it’s always better to tell the truth (I can’t remember how I worded it). I really should have said, in most cases, it’s best to tell the truth.

How to Refute it:

Call them on it. Tell the person they are changing the parameters of the question. Ask for one clearly defined question to discuss. Make sure the terms are clear up front.

Sources used:

Today’s Score: Atheists 2, Churches -100

Neece — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:42:56 +0000

Hello everyone! I hope you’re having a great day!

This is one of those catch-all posts where I have several items to share with you.

Some atheist news and education which is great, and some church news that is horrible. So the score for the day is Atheists 2, churches -100.

First, the United Coalition of Reason is getting ready to post ads on the subway in New York. These are different than the ones they posted for us here in Morgantown, WV.

The bus ads say: A million New Yorkers are good without God. Are you? That’s awesome! The NYTimes wrote a long article about it, and our Morgantown billboard even gets a mention!

Next, I saw a video on The Friendly Atheist of Neil deGrasse Tyson explaining the Argument from Ignorance. Dr. Tyson really knows how to explain things. Since I wrote a logical fallacy article about that, I posted it on that page with the other information. Here is the link: Logical Fallacy 4: Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam (Argument from Ignorance)

Also, Jose Saramago, a man who won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1998, spoke at the launch of his new book, “Cain”. He said his book, which is an ironic retelling of the biblical story of Cain, wouldn’t offend catholics “because catholics do not read the bible.” He added, “It might offend jews, but that doesn’t really matter to me.”

Apparently the catholics and jews are both offended, but what else is new? They have carte blanche to say whatever they want, but when someone says something against religion, they get all pissy. That’s the hypocrisy of religion and bullies, though. So it’s not really a shock.

And last but certainly most awful, is some news from Africa. The LATimes reported today about churches involved in the torture and murder of thousands of African children denounced as witches. Apparently some pastors and people read the bible literally, especially Exodus 22:18: Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

Children are tortured or killed by pastors and family members.

For their part, the families are often extremely poor, and sometimes even relieved to have one less mouth to feed. Poverty, conflict and poor education lay the foundation for accusations, which are then triggered by the death of a relative, the loss of a job or the denunciation of a pastor on the make, said Martin Dawes, a spokesman for the United Nations Children’s Fund.

“When communities come under pressure, they look for scapegoats,” he said. “It plays into traditional beliefs that someone is responsible for a negative change … and children are defenseless.”

The idea of witchcraft is hardly new, but it has taken on new life recently partly because of a rapid growth in evangelical Christianity. Campaigners against the practice say around 15,000 children have been accused in two of Nigeria’s 36 states over the past decade and around 1,000 have been murdered. In the past month alone, three Nigerian children accused of witchcraft were killed and another three were set on fire.

Nigeria is one of the heartlands of abuse, but hardly the only one: the United Nations Children’s Fund says tens of thousands of children have been targeted throughout Africa.

… Churches outnumber schools, clinics and banks put together. Many promise to solve parishioner’s material worries as well as spiritual ones — eight out of ten Nigerians struggle by on less than $2 a day. …

“Pray your way to riches,” advises Embassy of Christ a few blocks away.

It’s hard for churches to carve out a congregation with so much competition. So some pastors establish their credentials by accusing children of witchcraft. …

That’s what Margaret Eyekang did when her 8-year-old daughter Abigail was accused by a “prophet” from the Apostolic Church, because the girl liked to sleep outside on hot nights — interpreted as meaning she might be flying off to join a coven. A series of exorcisms cost Eyekang eight months’ wages, or US$270. The payments bankrupted her.

Neighbors also attacked her daughter.

“They beat her with sticks and asked me why I was bringing them a witch child,” she said. A relative offered Eyekang floor space but Abigail was not welcome and had to sleep in the streets. …

Helen Ukpabio is one of the few evangelists publicly linked to the denunciation of child witches. She heads the enormous Liberty Gospel church in Calabar, where Nwanaokwo used to live. Ukpabio makes and distributes popular books and DVDs on witchcraft; in one film, a group of child witches pull out a man’s eyeballs. In another book, she advises that 60 percent of the inability to bear children is caused by witchcraft.

In an interview with the AP, Ukpabio is accompanied by her lawyer, church officials and personal film crew.

“Witchcraft is real,” Ukpabio insisted, before denouncing the physical abuse of children. Ukpabio says she performs non-abusive exorcisms for free and was not aware of or responsible for any misinterpretation of her materials.

“I don’t know about that,” she declared.

However, she then acknowledged that she had seen a pastor from the Apostolic Church break a girl’s jaw during an exorcism. Ukpabio said she prayed over her that night and cast out the demon. She did not respond to questions on whether she took the girl to hospital or complained about the injury to church authorities. …

Just mentioning the name of a church is enough to frighten a group of bubbly children at the home.

“Please stop the pastors who hurt us,” said Jerry quietly, touching the scars on his face. “I believe in God and God knows I am not a witch.”

How repulsive is this? All in the name of god, religion and superstition.

And what about albinos in Africa? Their body parts are considered potent for black magic rituals. They are hunted and murdered by witch doctors for their potions.

How do we get through to people who are indoctrinated into christianity then mix the bible in with their own superstitions, gods and religions? We have yet to “cure” people of religion here in America, so maybe it’s going to be awhile before there’s any hope for third world countries. Especially since churches proselytize so heavily in them.

Well, on that unhappy note, I’ll wrap this up for today. Wait, let’s have a lolcat to make us smile again, shall we?

Heaving Dead Cats » argument

Occam’s Razor: Part 1 of Our Critical Thinking Toolkit

Related posts

Critical Thinking For Everyone

Related posts

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

Related posts

A Thought Experiment With Your Religious Friends

Related posts

Logical Fallacy 10: The Slippery Slope

Related posts

Logical Fallacy 9: Moving the Goalpost

Related posts

Today’s Score: Atheists 2, Churches -100

Related posts