Does Not Compute or Logical Fallacies R Us…

 

So… yesterday, I was killing some time on Facebook when a friend asked about logical fallacies. I am only too happy to oblige (Facebook friends are, after all, better than real ones as you never have to help them move) and here is a few ones to begin with:

lorem ipsum, motherfarkers!

Straw-man fallacy:

Sometime; it’s just plain too much work to actually go and debate the actual opposite position. In such a case, there is an easy solution: the straw-man fallacy.

In this fallacy, therefore you build up one silly argument and proceed to demolish it rather than dealing with the actual argument that is being held by people.

An example of this fallacy can fit in a peanut jar and is used by Chuck Missler (that also apparently confuses evolutionary and abiogenetic theories). Obviously, this is fallacious because neither theories actually make such predictions.

It is worth noting that this fallacy can go hand in hand with the false dichotomy.

lorem ipsum, motherfarkers!

False dichotomy:

The false dichotomy is the idea of over-simplifying reality (often complex) in a stark black and white contrast, often between two rather extremes alternative. Of course, the alternative to the one the one committing this fallacy actually favors will often be especially extreme and unpalatable.

As mentioned, the false dichotomy is often used in conjunction with the straw-man fallacy. After all, in the later, you force the audience into an artificial choice between yours and another, less appealing, position. Presumably, in a debate, this position is often not the one actually supported by your opponent, so you are mis-representing his position and attacking a straw-man instead…

A good recent example, in my opinion, is the statement that you were supposed to either be “with [the U.S and supporting their invasion of Iraq] or with the terrorists. This was particularly fallacious, not to mention insulting, because many of the opposition to the invasion were also opposed to terrorism (France, for example, had participated to the invasion of Afghanistan just a few months prior) and were simply of the opinion that this invasion was not an efficient way, and maybe even counter-productive, way of dealing with terrorism.

Another interesting example is actually a false trichotomy and comes to us from Christian apologist and wardrobe fetishist, C. S. Lewis in “Mere Christianity”: “I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: ‘I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.’ That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to”.

Of course, the problem with Lewis argument is that it is entirely possible, and even very likely, that Jesus only said part of what is attributed to him. Myths tend to accrete around such charismatic figures and legends tend to grow in the telling. This argument is also fallacious because there is no reason why a madman (or otherwise unbalanced character) could not have interesting things to say. This is another fallacy, the ad hominem:

lorem ipsum, motherfarkers!

Ad hominem and poisoning the well:

Ad hominem (latin for to the man) might be one of the most often misunderstood fallacy around. It is characterized attempt attacking the credibility of the person making the argument rather than the argument itself. It is what Laverne Knight calls the ‘You smell funny argument’. The reason why this is wrong lies in the proverbial broken clock that can still be right twice a day. Even an imbecile or a liar can make a valid point and if you don’t see any flaw in the argument, well, it should not matter who it originated from.

The ‘poisoning the well’ fallacy is quite similar. With the caveat that it is done preventively to raise the audience suspicion about the opposing argument before it is even introduced.

A good example of this is exemplified by the creationists’ reletneless attacks on the person of Charles Darwin, for example in the recent book ‘The Dark Side of Charles Darwin’ by Jerry Bergman who puport to help its reader: “Discern this darkly troubled man, struggling with physical and mental health issues” and “Uncover his views on eugenics and racism, and his belief that women were less evolved “. The problem with these attacks, in addition of being most likely wrong as Darwin, is that it does not matter as the science and the facts are unaltered regardless of who came up with them. Phillip Lenard or Johannes Stark’s work did not, after all, suddenly become invalid when they founded the Deutsche Physik movement in the 1930ies.

It must be noted that this is only a fallacy if the attack ‘to the man’ constitute the only refutation of the argument, otherwise, it is just a plain old insult. Indeed, it is not uncommon to see people crying ‘ad hominem’ when they have been insulted. To be a logical fallacy, the ad hominem must pretend to be an argument or, to put it anoter way: “You are wrong because you are ugly” is a fallacy but “you are wrong AND you are ugly” is not.

A good example of that distinction is offered, in his good days, by the famous internet blogger PZ Myers for example here and even more so here: He does not just call Moritz and Comfort idiot or stupid, he also explain why they are wrong (in quite excruciating details as far as Comfort is concerned). His point would be just as valid without the insult.

On the other hand, it is worth noting that questioning an argumenter’s motive is not necessarily an ad hominem attack. For example, disgraceful as they are, the anti-vaccer’s attack on Paul Offit ‘Paul Offit’ do not necessarily constitute ad hominems (neither, for that matter, is Paul Deer’s demonstration of Wakefield’s interest). Conflicts of interest do exist and there is good evidence that these can influence the outcome of research. It is therefore worth keeping in mind such potential influence when evaluating the credibility of a source.

lorem ipsum, motherfarkers!

Appeal to fallacious authority:

Appeal to authority can be considered the other side from the ad hominem attacks. It consists in enlisting the voice of a seemingly authoritative figure to support one’s claims. This practice becomes fallacious because it is not the actual argument or knowledge that this person brings that are considered relevant but rather his reputation.

A good example would be somebody claiming that the overwhelming number of Christians among U.S president somehow constituted evidence for the veracity of the New Testament.

The problem with such an argument is that U.S presidents do not have any special insight about history of Biblical scholarship and so their opinion is not any more relevant than anyone else. Indeed, otherwise very intelligent person can sometime err especially when straying outside of their areas of specialty such as illustrated by the tale of chemist Linus Pauling and vitamin C.

The one major caveat with this fallacy lies in the third, often omitted, word of its name. After all, if you are not familiar with the subject, it is not wrong to listen to the experts or follow the accepted consensus. Of course, the reason why these experts’ opinions are consider more valid is that it is based on the deepened knowledge of the facts and theories surrounding the issue that mark them as expert. Therefore you should, ideally, investigate their reasoning and the reasons behind it rather than blindly parroting it. Still, in the real world, such extensive research is beyond the realm of practicality. As such, quoting the academic consensus is an acceptable compromise.

lorem ipsum, motherfarkers!

Special pleading:

Special pleading consists in stating a rule, just before introducing an exception. For example, it is a common enough that theists attempt to imitate Thomas of Aquinas and use the cosmological argument. Basically, they argue, everything must have a cause. Therefore, the universe itself, must have a cause and we can call this cause ‘God’. Of course, skeptics then ask: ‘what caused God?’ But, God, the theist counter, is different; it is the one ‘uncaused cause’. Of course, this convenient exception is a perfect illustration of special pleading.

Special pleading is often the response of many people confronted with facts contradicting dearly held beliefs. For example, in this video a great example of special pleading is offered within the very first minute, then another series of them is fired at 5 minutes.

lorem ipsum, motherfarkers!

Slippery slope:

In this fallacy, the argument is that one particular measure would lead to the adoption of another, distantly related one. For example, many conservative have opposed gay rights by arguing that it would lead to the adoption of rights to pedophiles or zoophilia (I like the little touch of the song at the end). And while I am on the particular subject of Pat Robertson and zoophilia (ducks, as Robertson will later precise), I can’t help but mention the wonderful piece of musical art that the pastor’s obsession with small feathery creatures inspired.

lorem ipsum, motherfarkers!

Argumentum ad ignorantiam:

The argument from ignorance is a way to shift the burden of proof. Basically, it can be summarized as ‘Tides go in; tides go out’. It basically consists in saying that unless a position can be disproven it can be accepted as true even in the absence of supporting evidence.

The reason why this is fraud should be obvious. The tides are caused by the moon so there is nothing magical about them. Similarly, there is no need for Zeus to sit on a cloud to throw lightning bolts around.

And sure, this is true now that we have naturalistic explanations for these phenomena but these phenomena had similar causes before, when we were lacking such evidence.

Arguments from ignorance are at the heart of creationism. That’s why most creationist efforts consist in trying to sap evolution (or to “teach the [non existent as far as science is concerned] controversy”) in order to build up a little bubble of ignorance for them to argue from… But let’s go back to O’Reilly for a minute…

lorem ipsum, motherfarkers!

Moving the goalposts:

Moving the goalposts consist in raising the bar of required evidence in face of the rising tide. We mentioned O’Reilly’s “tides goes in”. The sheer stupidity of the comment apparently led to many people filling his embarrassing gap in basic scientific knowledge. “It’s the moon, dumbass” to which, O’Reilly responded by moving the goalposts “How did the moon get there?”

Obviously, you can be certain than when people start explaining the giant impact hypothesis, O’Reilly will answer by asking where Theia came from…

Creationists are also fond of this. For example, in front of the ever-rising tide of evidence for evolution, many creationists have retreated a bit. They picked up a dusted of the term ‘micro-evolution’ and decided that it was the only one that was observed and voile, in no time at all they were asking for proof of macro-evolution. A little bit of sleight of hand and none is the wiser.

lorem ipsum, motherfarkers!

No true Scotsman argument:

The “no true Scotsman” argument has little to do with kilts or what true Scotsmen wear under them but is rather a particular type of “moving the goalposts”.

The term comes from Antony Flew that describes the fallacy as follow:

“Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the “Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again.” Hamish is shocked and declares that “No Scotsman would do such a thing.” The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again and this time finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, “No true Scotsman would do such a thing.”

It’s a common answer for people confronted with disquieting claims. For example, of “Circle of light.com” when faced with the question “Why are psychics giving me conflicting answers?” is quick to suggest that “The person is not a true psychic”.

lorem ipsum, motherfarkers!

Naturalistic fallacy:

This may not be the most commonly used fallacy in logical debate, but it’s so freaking common outside, especially in advertising, that it definitively deserved a mention.

It’s so common that I don’t really think that I need to explain need further. Indeed, advertising has long decided that putting the mention ‘all natural’ (or concept such as ‘green’ or ‘bio’ that serve to illustrate a similar idea) on their products, especially food and body care or cosmetic was a sure way of getting our money because, you know, man, nature is like, awesome, man. Or something.

More pernicious, the anti-vaccine movement has made use of this rethoric in the past.

As I said, it is less commonly used outside of advertising or public image with a notable exception: it is a common (and deeply mistaken) argument from some bigots that homosexuality is ‘unnatural’ (and therefore wrong).

Why is it fallacious, you ask? Well, meet Clostridium botulinum: A wonderful, normal and all natural inhabitant of our soils and a lovely producer of toxin, a teaspoon of which can kill an estimated 1.2 billion people. Or do you want to hear about cyanide? It can be found in a variety of organisms, including algae and a handful of seeds… Strychnine, is also quite popular especially among fas of Agatha Christie, it is isolated from Strychnos ignatia, a tree in the Philippines… Basically, you got it: Nature wants to kill us! So, this implication that natural is automatically good for us is silly; the kind of vacuous musing that one can only conceive while sitting quietly on the comfort granted by 6000 years of civilization…

lorem ipsum, motherfarkers!

Argumentum ad antiquitam:

The appeal to antiquity, or to tradition is actually somewhat similar to the naturalistic fallacy as “the ancients” are often assumed to have held an existence “closer from nature” and there are some overlap regarding the use of both fallacies.

The Argumentum ad antiquitam is indeed often used to promote the use of traditional medicine, acupuncture in particular, that are also vaunted as being ‘natural’. This overlap goes further as opponents to gay marriage often seek shelter behind the “traditional” (occasionally “Biblical”) definition of marriage.

The problem with such reasoning is that it relies on two unproven assumptions: that whatever solution the “ancients” choose was the good one and that the situation is still identical enough for their solution to still be viable. For example, the appeal to “traditional Biblical definition of marriage” has lead to hilarious and sarcasm-filled answers and the whole inadequacy of the argument is perfectly resumed in one quote (from Terry Pratchett’s Fifth Elephant): “You did something because it had always been done, and the explanation was “but we’ve always done it this way.” A million dead people can’t have been wrong, can they?”

lorem ipsum, motherfarkers!

Cum/Post hoc ergo propter hoc:

These two are actually less logical fallacies than cognitive biases, deeply anchored within our pattern seeking brains. Indeed, we have this tendency, if two things happen at the same time, to assume they are related or if one thing follows the other, to assume that it is caused by it.

This kind of reasoning is, for example, at the heart of many anti-vaccers arguments. It has also be used to promote prayer in public school. Even when the figures quoted can be trusted (an issue all onto its own) the fact that a phenomenon occurs in conjunction or after another one does not mean that it is caused by it. After all, many things happen in the in the decades targeted by either example and there is no reason to think that the one particular factor they choose to focus on is the cause of the perceived change. In fact, when confronted with an vaccine opponents that trots the purported rise in autism rates since the 80ies, I often like to point out that this period saw not only an increase in the vaccination schedule but also the start of Jim Carrey’s career and that, of the two, vaccines were the only one that had been scientifically investigated and cleared of link with autism…

Another illustration, this time of the fallacy of cum hoc ergo propter hoc resides in the tale of the gram negative bacterium haemophilus influenzae. At this point, astute reader, you probably have notice the oddness of a bacterium sporting the name of “influenza”, that is, as you know, a viral disease. It is because the German physician Richard Pfeiffer isolated the bacterium in question during an influenza outbreak from infected patients. At the time, the discovery of viruses was still six years in the future, and so it was normal to assume that the bacterium was actually causing the disease. Now we know that the bacterium is mainly acting as an opportunistic infection, taking advantage of the weakened state of the patients and providing us with a much needed reminder: association is not causation.

lorem ipsum, motherfarkers!

Non sequitur:

A non sequitur is a series of proposition seemingly joined in a syllogical argument (If A=B and C=B then A=C) but where the actual connection between the argument is no actually logical. The wonderful ‘Witch Scene’ from the Monty Python’s movie “Monty Python and the holy grail” is but one long series of non sequitur.

lorem ipsum, motherfarkers!

Circular reasoning:

Circular reasoning maybe best illustrated in the novel ‘catch 22’. Here, the protagonist, John Yossarian is informed that, in order to escape the particular insanity of war, he has to apply for a military discharge based on insanity ground. However, the doctor further explaining, applying for such a discharge would certainly be the reasonable thing to do, hence proving his sanity.

Such a circular reasoning is presented by some tenants of Biblical inherency. These apologists sometime first argue that the Bible is the word of God and then, when challenged with proving this statement, will pointing at passages like psalms 119. But the problem is, of course, that if the Bible was doubtful in the first place, what it as to say about its own reliability would be equally unreliable.

This fallacy also constitutes the core of intelligent design: “If we assume that certain evolutionary features can only be explained through the intervention of God, sorry, an “Intelligent designer”, then pointing at these features will be proof for this hypothetical designer… Of course, the introductory element is still unproven.

lorem ipsum, motherfarkers!

These, of course, are only a few of the many examples logical fallacies have their own long and sometime tortuous cladistic and there would is simply no way to do the subject any kind of justice… Still, if you are curious and want to investigate it further, the Nizkor poject, a website dedicated to countering holocaust denialism, has a rather extensive series of articles on the subject. Another resource of interest is offered by the Skeptic guides to the universe that, in addition, have dedicated some of their SGU 5×5 episodes to specific fallacies. Finally, the website skeptics field guide is a great ressource specializing in special pleading and even offers a book (and a downloadable ebook version) on the subject.