In short, fallacies are defined as "a misleading or unsound argument." So a no-no when in an argument. Most people are surprised at how many fallacies they use in normal life, but many are pretty obvious.
(Many fallacies have latin names, which I have learned them by. Ones that have been coined recently have more English names)
And now, a list with examples-
My favorite fallacy- the ad hominem ("to the man") fallacy. It's defined as an attack against a person's character.
Ex. The President's policy on internet piracy is wrong, because he's black.
In no way is the legitimacy of his position lessened by his race. Now, if the position were something that actually had relevance to someone's race, this might have a ground to stand on, but most people know something is a personal attack.
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc ("with this, therefore because of this")- also known as "Correlation does not imply causation", sometimes shortened to "Correlation, not causation". It's a situation where if something happens in a way that looks like something else caused it, it doesn't mean that one caused the other.
Ex. As a lot of people know, there is an inverse correlation between pirates and global temperatures. In days long ago, there were very many pirates, and pillaging aplenty. Now, there are very few pirates, mostly those in Somalia. And for the same amount of time, global temperatures have been rising. While some people believe this to be a wrong because global warming is caused by carbon emissions accumulating over time, most people now realize that global warming is caused by the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc ("after this, therefore because of this")- Because A came before B, A caused B.
It's a lot like the previous fallacy, but with a subtle difference.
Ex. I mowed my lawn, and it rained. Therefore, me mowing causes it to rain.
We know that mowing the lawn has no effect on the probability of raining.
Non sequitur ("it does not follow")- Basically summed up by its name. An overall category for almost all fallacies.
Ex. A person has tried everything 'modern science' has to cure their aliment. This person then uses Secondary, Complementary, and Alternative Medicines (SCAMs) to try and cure themselves.
Just because you tried everything something can offer, it doesn't mean you should delve into something without any efficacy.
Now we move into the recent ones-
Straw Man- Instead of attacking the person's argument, you attack a completely different one- a straw man.
Ex. Person A believes there shouldn't be life sentences. Person B says that we would need to kill people then, and goes on to prove that killing is wrong. Person A watches in annoyance as Person B brings up points they both agree on, but not at all relevant.
Begging the question- Not at all related to the popular usage (This begs the question of...), it is a fallacy where there is an unproven assumption in your statements.
Ex. Person A asks Person B "Do you enjoy killing people?" No matter what Person B says, there is an assumption that he kills people. While not all uses of this fallacy are this blatant, they can come close.
Pragmatic Fallacy- In simple terms, it's where Person A says Process Z works for them, therefore it is true. "Works" can mean "It makes me happy," or "I like it."
Ex. Since homeopathy/astrology/acupuncture appeals to me, it is true.
Just because they like them doesn't mean they're true.
There are many more fallacies, many requiring experience in them, others sub-fallacies under some other major ones.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
How to correctly debate
By debate, I do not mean the court-style debate, where you and an opponent have to spout off as much information as you can on your own teams, and impress the judges. I mean the kind of debate where you and another person try and convince the other about a topic.
First, you need to decide if the person is able to be swayed. A lot of the time, people only argue because they think that the other person can be swayed the other way. People who believe in things that require a deep-seated belief in something (faith healing, conspiracy theories) generally can't be swayed. And some of the times, people just have mental problems (ex. Time Cube). Also, keep in mind if you're doing the arguing online or in public that you could convince observers that you are right.
First off, identify your position on the issue. If the majority of evidence for the claim falls on your side, you're in the clear so far. If the evidence falls on the other side, you need to come up with evidence of your own. It is the responsibility of the person trying to prove a point not shown by the evidence to show evidence that backs their claim. And as Carl Sagan said, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
When you're presenting evidence, be sure to make sure it comes from a decent source. For example, you don't want to go to a Vitamin C maker/distributor's website for a study on the efficacy of Vitamin C. What you want to look for is an article in a peer reviewed journal. Nature is a popular one for biology/medicine, but there are ones for nearly every kind of science.
Next, present these things in an understandable way. Don't be cryptic in unveiling these facts, do it so anyone could understand.
Now for the most important part (and the most commonly screwed up). Let the other person rebut. The most common thing I see in online debates is people giving points, waiting a couple pages/days to pass, and then bring up the points again, ignoring the rebuttal towards these the first time he gave them.
As an example of how not to debate, here's a summary of the debate above.
Person A starts the argument, saying the government blew up WTC7. Person B asks them to give evidence for this. Person A says the burden of proof is on B, and waits. Person B, bored, gives reasons why the conspiracy is impossible. Person A links from conspiracy websites for proof that his position is correct. These sites blatantly edit quotes from government agencies in the hopes that they can make people think they are correct. Person B points this out. Person A ignores this, and rebuts the other points. Several days later, A brings up these same points. B asks for sources on his claims, noting that he already demolished the argument. A says he provided sources and that he doesn't need to do so again, and says he was never proved to be wrong.
Most people aren't like that, but if you want to be respectable in a debate setting, try not to be so bad as person A.
First, you need to decide if the person is able to be swayed. A lot of the time, people only argue because they think that the other person can be swayed the other way. People who believe in things that require a deep-seated belief in something (faith healing, conspiracy theories) generally can't be swayed. And some of the times, people just have mental problems (ex. Time Cube). Also, keep in mind if you're doing the arguing online or in public that you could convince observers that you are right.
First off, identify your position on the issue. If the majority of evidence for the claim falls on your side, you're in the clear so far. If the evidence falls on the other side, you need to come up with evidence of your own. It is the responsibility of the person trying to prove a point not shown by the evidence to show evidence that backs their claim. And as Carl Sagan said, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
When you're presenting evidence, be sure to make sure it comes from a decent source. For example, you don't want to go to a Vitamin C maker/distributor's website for a study on the efficacy of Vitamin C. What you want to look for is an article in a peer reviewed journal. Nature is a popular one for biology/medicine, but there are ones for nearly every kind of science.
Next, present these things in an understandable way. Don't be cryptic in unveiling these facts, do it so anyone could understand.
Now for the most important part (and the most commonly screwed up). Let the other person rebut. The most common thing I see in online debates is people giving points, waiting a couple pages/days to pass, and then bring up the points again, ignoring the rebuttal towards these the first time he gave them.
As an example of how not to debate, here's a summary of the debate above.
Person A starts the argument, saying the government blew up WTC7. Person B asks them to give evidence for this. Person A says the burden of proof is on B, and waits. Person B, bored, gives reasons why the conspiracy is impossible. Person A links from conspiracy websites for proof that his position is correct. These sites blatantly edit quotes from government agencies in the hopes that they can make people think they are correct. Person B points this out. Person A ignores this, and rebuts the other points. Several days later, A brings up these same points. B asks for sources on his claims, noting that he already demolished the argument. A says he provided sources and that he doesn't need to do so again, and says he was never proved to be wrong.
Most people aren't like that, but if you want to be respectable in a debate setting, try not to be so bad as person A.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Ground Zero Mosque
There's a quote from Austin Powers that I can't help but think of when I hear something about this topic. "There's only two things I hate in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures and the Dutch."
From what I can tell, the public perception of these events is that some extreme terrorist Muslims with guns and armor want to build a mosque on ground zero to desecrate the lands, and make fun of the tragic deaths. But from what I gather using my skeptical eye is that there is a Muslim man who is well recognized for his community services that wants to build a community center a distance away from ground zero, with a mosque inside.
I can't help but wonder what kind of state the national psyche is in if something as minor as this gets blown so out of proportion. I've heard opinions from "Fox news isn't news",to "The republicans are mad they lost the election and want to damage the democrats' images" to "People are venting their rage towards terrorists into their view of Islam".
The part about Fox news is mostly true. They recently reported how kids spent their drug money on music that could apparently make them high. Which the scientific community knows is only because they want the music to make them high.
And on the subject of politics, I tend to try not to get involved. It is my opinion that there are plenty of people that would do anything to damage the Left's image, but I really hope that most of it can be chalked up to ignorance. Same thing with the American people.
Back when that guy in Florida was burning Qurans, word went around that the Mosque was going to get moved. Turns out that he made it all up; never even talked to the guy.
Since I don't watch Fox much anymore, my perception is that the whole event is dying down. Hopefully this is because the facts are getting circulated, instead of the people being placated.
From what I can tell, the public perception of these events is that some extreme terrorist Muslims with guns and armor want to build a mosque on ground zero to desecrate the lands, and make fun of the tragic deaths. But from what I gather using my skeptical eye is that there is a Muslim man who is well recognized for his community services that wants to build a community center a distance away from ground zero, with a mosque inside.
I can't help but wonder what kind of state the national psyche is in if something as minor as this gets blown so out of proportion. I've heard opinions from "Fox news isn't news",to "The republicans are mad they lost the election and want to damage the democrats' images" to "People are venting their rage towards terrorists into their view of Islam".
The part about Fox news is mostly true. They recently reported how kids spent their drug money on music that could apparently make them high. Which the scientific community knows is only because they want the music to make them high.
And on the subject of politics, I tend to try not to get involved. It is my opinion that there are plenty of people that would do anything to damage the Left's image, but I really hope that most of it can be chalked up to ignorance. Same thing with the American people.
Back when that guy in Florida was burning Qurans, word went around that the Mosque was going to get moved. Turns out that he made it all up; never even talked to the guy.
Since I don't watch Fox much anymore, my perception is that the whole event is dying down. Hopefully this is because the facts are getting circulated, instead of the people being placated.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Obligatory 9-11 entry
Everyone knows about 9-11, though not everyone agrees on what happened. Most people think it was caused by a plane crashing into it. Some think it was caused by aliens. More think it was by explosives smuggled in beforehand, and even more think that the government was behind it all.
My process in evaluating the cause of the falling of the towers is by looking at all the evidence. Many people ignore any lines of evidence that may be contrary to their own, and sometimes make their own assumptions based on things they think look out of place, but which can be explained away with reasoning.
The list below is comprised of things conspirary theorists point out to show that the planes did not cause the fall of the towers.
1. There were traces of thermite found at Ground Zero
2. The towers fell straight down
3. Jet fuel can't melt steel
4. People heard explosions
5. There was a 'squib'
6. The towers looked like they were in freefall
There is much more, but these cover most of what most of the vocal conspiracy theorists still think.
1. There were traces of thermite found at Ground Zero
Thermite is a chemical strong enough to burn through most things you can care to name. It burns at extremely high temperatures, and is used industrially. There are multiple combinations of metals to create thermite, but the most common is Iron oxide (rust) and Aluminium. It so happens that the supports for the towers are made from steel, and coated with Aluminium. And it also turns out that when you add oxygen to iron, it creates iron oxide. The only mystery now is how so much of it ended up at ground zero.
2. The towers fell straight down
This is an example of something that is "duh" when you think about it. Skyscrapers nowadays are built so that in case of the need to demolish the building, or if it gets weakened to the point of failure, it falls straight down. This is so that skyscrapers don't take out 5 city blocks with them. This is also an example of people saying what "should" happen, when the opposite is true. What they think should happen is that the buildings have a wedge cut from the side, causing it to fall like a tree having a wedge cut from it.
There's also the part where the towers were held up differently than most sky scrapers. Skyscrapers usually have a support every so often throughout the entire building. The towers had a single inner-support area, made with several beams, and then some minor supports on the outside face. Most skyscrapers wouldn't be hurt as badly as the towers in the event of a plane crash, as they have more diffuse supports. A plane would only have to get near the central supports in the towers to make the structure unsound.
3. Jet fuel can't melt steel
Most people have already heard this one, if anything. Jet fuel can't melt the supports. What they can do is weaken them. A good analogy/use of this principle is in a forge. This is the reason why blacksmiths put the metal in a fire before shaping it.
4. People heard explosions
Besides the part where this is entirely subjective opinion, this isn't much of a reason to suspect conspiracy. There were natural gas pipelines running to many floors. There were some restaurants in the building, so it makes sense. Other than that, heat makes things expand. When you burn something in a closed space, it's basically a firecracker. It may take longer, but if there were any sealed areas in the building that were being heated, they could have burst.
5. There was a 'squib'
The above image shows the cloud of dust and smoke, and beneath that, you can see a small puff. Some people think that this is proof of a bomb being set off on the below floor, and it just went off early. Others think that the fires and a plane crashing into the building somehow made pressures skyrocket on neighboring floors, causing it to release from a window.
6. The towers looked like they were in freefall
What most people think when they imagine a building falling floor-by-floor is something like this:
One floor falls -> Slows down while the floor beneath starts falling -> repeat
What most people realize is that something that massive isn't going to be slowed down by anything very much. The combined weight of several floors isn't going to stop for a floor that was made to design static weight.
My process in evaluating the cause of the falling of the towers is by looking at all the evidence. Many people ignore any lines of evidence that may be contrary to their own, and sometimes make their own assumptions based on things they think look out of place, but which can be explained away with reasoning.
The list below is comprised of things conspirary theorists point out to show that the planes did not cause the fall of the towers.
1. There were traces of thermite found at Ground Zero
2. The towers fell straight down
3. Jet fuel can't melt steel
4. People heard explosions
5. There was a 'squib'
6. The towers looked like they were in freefall
There is much more, but these cover most of what most of the vocal conspiracy theorists still think.
1. There were traces of thermite found at Ground Zero
Thermite is a chemical strong enough to burn through most things you can care to name. It burns at extremely high temperatures, and is used industrially. There are multiple combinations of metals to create thermite, but the most common is Iron oxide (rust) and Aluminium. It so happens that the supports for the towers are made from steel, and coated with Aluminium. And it also turns out that when you add oxygen to iron, it creates iron oxide. The only mystery now is how so much of it ended up at ground zero.
2. The towers fell straight down
This is an example of something that is "duh" when you think about it. Skyscrapers nowadays are built so that in case of the need to demolish the building, or if it gets weakened to the point of failure, it falls straight down. This is so that skyscrapers don't take out 5 city blocks with them. This is also an example of people saying what "should" happen, when the opposite is true. What they think should happen is that the buildings have a wedge cut from the side, causing it to fall like a tree having a wedge cut from it.
There's also the part where the towers were held up differently than most sky scrapers. Skyscrapers usually have a support every so often throughout the entire building. The towers had a single inner-support area, made with several beams, and then some minor supports on the outside face. Most skyscrapers wouldn't be hurt as badly as the towers in the event of a plane crash, as they have more diffuse supports. A plane would only have to get near the central supports in the towers to make the structure unsound.
3. Jet fuel can't melt steel
Most people have already heard this one, if anything. Jet fuel can't melt the supports. What they can do is weaken them. A good analogy/use of this principle is in a forge. This is the reason why blacksmiths put the metal in a fire before shaping it.
4. People heard explosions
Besides the part where this is entirely subjective opinion, this isn't much of a reason to suspect conspiracy. There were natural gas pipelines running to many floors. There were some restaurants in the building, so it makes sense. Other than that, heat makes things expand. When you burn something in a closed space, it's basically a firecracker. It may take longer, but if there were any sealed areas in the building that were being heated, they could have burst.
5. There was a 'squib'
6. The towers looked like they were in freefall
What most people think when they imagine a building falling floor-by-floor is something like this:
One floor falls -> Slows down while the floor beneath starts falling -> repeat
What most people realize is that something that massive isn't going to be slowed down by anything very much. The combined weight of several floors isn't going to stop for a floor that was made to design static weight.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)