Part 1 (d): Seekers after truth - Humbug! 2nd Edition

Truth-seeking involves both a habit of mind (a disinterested search for truth) and a set of intellectual skills (the capacity to make a distinction between clay and another substance with a similar colour and texture). Humbug-hunting is a way to foster one's critical thinking abilities in order to better seek the truth. It can be a rewarding and enjoyable pastime, but one needs to have the right attitude. Our enjoyment of hunting for humbug is founded on a well-honed sense of the ridiculous, an appreciation of unconscious irony, a readiness to engage in shameless hypocrisy, and a commitment to subverting the interests of those who manipulate people in ways detrimental to their own good. All of these foundations of our enjoyment of this have been enabled and facilitated by the book we wrote together, its associated website (www.skepticsfieldguide.net) and our podcast - Hunting Humbug 101.

More seriously, the ultimate path to skepticism is to avoid, as much as humanly possible, being invested in a particular belief or view. As a seeker after truth and critical thinker, one should be invested in the process of truth seeking - logic and reason, scientific evidence and intellectual honesty, not the "answers". Fundamentally, that is what this book is about.

The type of reasoning we advocate is in the tradition attributed to the Greek philosopher Socrates. He considered himself the "gadfly" that God had attached to the state of Athens. In his view, God had chosen him to interrogate the "pretenders to wisdom". Socrates was adept at asking questions, questions truth" in the historical record. He believed that the search for the truth was of the highest importance. The oracle of Delphi proclaimed that there were none wiser than Socrates. The self-proclaimed "wisest men" of Athens were oblivious to their own sciolism. They were in fact ignorant, but thought they knew everything there was to know. Socrates was wiser than they, not because of what he knew, but because he was aware of his own lamentable ignorance.

Part 1 (c): Skeptical Thinking (How to Apply Humbug!) - Humbug! 2nd Edition

Most knowledge is provisional, and over the course of time, many "certainties" prove to be false or misleading. Decision makers (such as bureaucrats), keepers of the "Truth" (such as academics), people who paraphrase press releases (such as journalists), and people who comment on blog posts, often have an "axe to grind", or rather, a view of the world which they hope will prevail. When such people write or speak, they often dress up mere opinions as well founded, research based certainties. Be afraid. Be very afraid of dogmatism masquerading as superior insight (see special pleading). We all need to develop our capacity to identify and challenge humbug.

Our best protection against those who attempt to shape our society and culture through their tendentious bloviation or simple-minded sloganeering is healthy skepticism. Healthy skepticism needs to be underpinned by tools of analysis. Being able to identify humbug provides these tools. The "tools" are the informal fallacies in thinking named and described in the book. Once a reader is sensitised to a range of these fallacies, he or she is able to recognise them and is less vulnerable to... (we have to write it, there's no better word, please forgive if it causes offence)... bullshit. Such intellectual skills retain their utility over the long term, and enable new content to be tested, examined critically and placed on a firm foundation.

In his 1946 book History of Western Philosophy, the philosopher Bertrand Russell makes a clear distinction between scientific beliefs and "other ways of knowing": "It is not what the man of science believes that distinguishes him, but how and why he believes it. His beliefs are tentative, not dogmatic; they are based on evidence, not on authority or intuition."

We believe that Russell's view on what characterizes the epistemology of science can be applied as a general exhortation to the seeker after truth. That is, the proper concern of the seeker after truth - the skeptic - is the soundness or otherwise of the reasoning behind an assertion, rather than the assertion per se. Thus, to be skeptical requires us to:

1. ask for evidence to support a claim before accepting it as reasonable 
2. admit to being uncertain when evidence is lacking and
3. reject a claim as unreasonable when the evidence does not support it.

The following commentary is intended to introduce the reader to some general principles behind sound reasoning that should help one to pick position 1, 2 or 3.

Two deceptively simple questions 
Whether engaged in a discussion, forum, debate, lecture, public talk, seminar, or tutorial – or in reading and writing, the seeker after truth should always keep the following deceptively simple questions in mind.

1. What are you saying?
2. Why do you believe that what you are saying is true? 

The first question – what are you saying - is about meaning. A common problem encountered when attempting to understand the reasoning behind an argument is the wording of the argument itself. In debates between antagonists, misunderstandings often lead to fruitless and unnecessary conflict. When proponents and opponents of a position are actually talking at cross-purposes, they are not addressing the same proposition. Similarly, when a reader misinterprets a writer's intention, there is no engagement with the substantive ideas in the article or book.

A necessary condition for a rational argument is therefore clarity of expression. If the proponent cannot put a clear argument, the argument does not merit serious consideration. In some cases, an argument is so badly put that the proponent may be engaging in deliberate obfuscation, or at least careless indifference (see Gibberish). Whether in a formal debate, an informal discussion, or in writing an essay, the question: "What are you saying?" (Or what am I saying?) forces the proponent to clarify an argument. Once the nature and terms of the proposition are clearly established, the second question can now be asked.

The second question – why do you believe what you are saying is true – is about justification. In response to this the proponent should now seek to justify his or her position. Justification is the essential difference between a mere opinion and a rational assertion. An opinion is a belief based on untested grounds, and the foundations of an opinion often do not stand up to careful scrutiny (that's even if they are articulated). While it is possible that a mere opinion could be true, the seeker after truth will remain skeptical so long as the opinion remains unfounded. In contrast to an opinion, a rational assertion is a view that is consistent with the known facts and based on reasoned and sound argument. In short, it is justified (and at the very least, the justifying argument should contain no obvious fallacies).

Logic and reason 
There are two kinds of reasoning processes by which we establish what we know – deductive and inductive. Deductive reasoning is a guarantee of truth, so long as the premises are true. By way of illustration, consider the following statements: "Socrates is a human" (premise) and "all humans are mortal" (premise). If we accept that these premises are true then we must agree that "Socrates is mortal" (conclusion). Deductive reasoning often leads to trivial truths of this sort.

By way of contrast, inductive reasoning leads to the generation of a general law or principle after numerous specific observations have been made. For example, it has been observed that every single time an object is dropped near the surface of the Earth, the object has fallen towards the centre of the Earth (the observation). By inductive reasoning, we conclude that all dropped objects will always fall towards the centre of the Earth (the principle). Given a large number of observations of X, and if all known instances of X lead to Y, then all (known and unknown) Xs will lead to Ys as well. In terms of "watertight" formal logic, inductive reasoning is difficult (some would argue impossible) to establish. After all, we cannot know that all objects will always fall to the centre of the earth unless we personally witness every occurrence of a falling object (and even then, how can we know with certainty?).

This essentially pragmatic book does not therefore concern itself with formal logic. Most beliefs are inductive. Believing the sun will rise tomorrow morning is inductive – but it is not, strictly speaking, logical. It is, however, rational. There is a clear difference between the concepts "logical" and "rational" even though these two words are often used interchangeably. Logical reasoning, in its strictest sense is valid because of the tautological nature of the statements considered. If you are introduced to a bachelor, it follows that he is an unmarried man. Asserting that red is not a colour is logically false, because by definition red is a colour. A rational explanation on the other hand, is one that is justified by a reasoned and plausible argument that is not logically false (self-contradictory).

Identifying unreason and making your case 
If an argument is not illogical (i.e., not internally inconsistent) it does not follow that it is rational. A rational argument should not contain any fallacies. Attacking the quality of reasoning underlying a fallacy is at times a commonsense task, given that many fallacies are obvious non-sequiturs (non sequitur is a Latin term which literally means "does not follow"). However a heightened sensitivity to fallacies can be cultivated and developed.

The short descriptions at the beginning of the book allow fallacies to be identified quickly. Once a fallacy is identified it needs to be isolated and nullified. This can be done by demonstrating the error or errors in reasoning. The fallacies which constitute the body of this book collectively provide a large number of "worked examples" for consideration by the reader. Once the reader has considered a significant number of these examples, he or she should be well equipped with an armoury of debunking techniques and skeptical strategies which can be built upon in the future.

How should you go about improving your humbug hunting skills? When you are ready to get serious about improving your hunting skills, you should find a piece of writing (say an article or blog post) which you suspect if rubbish. You should re-read it more carefully, with the Humbug! short descriptions in front of you. When you read a "dodgy" statement, see if you can find a name for it. (That is, does it appear to be one of the fallacies named and described in Humbug!?) Make preliminary notes at first, and then check your initial impressions about the nature of the fallacies you have spotted by reading the more extensive descriptions in the body of Humbug! (It is dangerous to rely on the brief descriptions only. They are necessarily brief and therefore somewhat ambiguous.)

Here is a grossly oversimplified example. Suppose an author (Bonehead, 2007) makes a statement like this: "There is only one reason a student ever comes late to class - a bad attitude".

You could critique this statement by writing: "That's just ****." While Bonehead's statement might in fact be *****, your criticism is disastrously weak. You might "beef up" your criticism by giving a reason for your view. For example, you could write: "This statement is  **** because Bonehead is a ****." Unfortunately, this is not much of an improvement on your original response (even if Bonehead is in fact a ****).

An effective critique of Bonehead's statement might be worded as follows:

Bonehead's statement is in error because he is employing the single cause fallacy. In particular, his claim that there is only one reason (my emphasis) is clearly far too extreme. In their book Humbug!, Clark and Clark (2012) describe the single cause fallacy in the following terms: 'Single cause fallacies occur when a person assumes that there is only one cause of a complex problem.' Bonehead fails to recognise that in reality, there are many possible reasons why a particular student may be late to class on a particular occasion.

Part 1 (b): Style and treatment - Humbug! 2nd Edition

The writing style of Humbug! is not disinterested and scholarly, it is deliberately assertive, "over the top" and declamatory. We frequently resort to the use of irony, overstatement and over-simplification in order to emphasize salient features of the fallacy under consideration. For this reason we will no doubt cause offence to most readers at some point. So be it. (It should be noted, besides the real examples, none of the scenarios described or characters sketched or depicted in this book are based on actual persons or real institutions.) For each fallacy, there is a cartoon which relates directly or indirectly to that fallacy. The cartoon should not be regarded as part of the substantive commentary on the fallacy. It is provided as light relief, and it may also function as an aide memoire and serve to prompt recall of the specific flaw.

The goal of the critical thinker is not to "win" an argument at all costs, but to "seek the truth". In this book, the skeptic or critical thinker is described variously as a detached enquirer, a doubter, a reasonable person, a dedicated debunker. All these labels are appropriate in the specific context described. However the commonest alternate label for critical thinker or skeptic used throughout the book is "seeker after truth". This seemingly long-winded usage is quite deliberate. A person claiming to know the Truth about any issue invites endless and unresolved controversy when engaged in argument or debate. A seeker after truth on the other hand, is one who believes that reasoned enquiry can move a debate forward towards a better understanding of an issue. While Ultimate Truth on many issues may be unknowable, we can at least move forward from egregious ignorance and error by using skilled, dispassionate, disinterested reasoning.

In this book we use the generic descriptor "the advocate" to label the proponent who engages in fallacious reasoning. This descriptor is often qualified with an appropriate adjective which captures the type of fallacy put forward by the advocate. Thus we have deceitful advocates, deluded advocates, devious advocates, ignorant advocates, superficial advocates, arrogant advocates, pompous advocates, stupid advocates and so on. Note that according to us, we should not use such terms to denigrate individuals (see Ad Hominem). However we decided to use these abusive terms anyway in order to demonstrate that we are at times capable of breathtaking hypocrisy.

Podcast related to this section: http://huntinghumbug101.blogspot.com/2011/12/very-first-episode-of-hunting-humbug.html

Part 1 (a): Purpose and usage - Humbug! 2nd Edition

The short title of this book is Humbug! Humbug" may be defined as "deceptive or false talk or behaviour" (OED). Our general aim in writing this book was to create a tool for the detection of humbug. Humbug! is intended to serve two main purposes. 1) A "ready reference" which may be consulted as required during discussions, forums, debates, lectures, public talks, seminars and tutorials, whether such events are part of a formal program of study, or open to the broader community. 2) A guide to be consulted as part of the reading and writing process – particularly by students as they research and write seminar papers or essays for assessment purposes.

Humbug! is more intended as a tool to be consulted as the occasion demands, rather than a book to be read in a linear fashion, from beginning to end. Users may find it to be a useful resource for those occasions when they read or hear a suspect statement or claim, and they want to identify the flawed reasoning in the assertion – and perhaps respond to the claim with informed skepticism. There are other such texts available to the reader that aim to do this too. As Hamblin states: "Most modern writers have their minor preferences of arrangement (of fallacies), but it is almost always the same material that is being chopped about and served up reheated." (Hamblin, 1970: 49). Our approach in chopping up and reheating fallacies is focused on pragmatism and ease of use.

The subtitle of the book is the skeptic's guide field guide to spotting deliberate deceptions and false arguments. (Skeptic: "A person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions." – OED.) The skeptical enquirer, whether a student, an academic or a member of the public is a person who has the habit of questioning assertions made by others. Skepticism is a desirable trait in any person in any walk of life and it is an essential foundation of scholarship. However skepticism is sometimes confused with cynicism, and it is important to preserve the distinction. A person who is cynical is one who believes that people are motivated purely by self-interest. The outlook of a cynic is often contemptuous and mocking. The outlook of a skeptic is by contrast positive and productive. He or she assumes nothing about motives and is focussed on deeper understanding of issues - and on real solutions to real problems.

This second edition of Humbug! has been expanded and includes sections on Skeptical Thinking Tools and Bad Faith. Skeptical Thinking Tools is a small section that provides a brief overview of some simple techniques and rules of thumb we have found useful in the analysis of arguments and in forming one's own position. Bad Faith is based on an article Jef wrote for the Australian Skeptic journal. It outlines the use of critical thinking skills in bad faith.

The core of the second edition, as with the first, does not concern itself with the structure of good arguments, or with models for enquiry. Rather, the content focuses on error. The underlying premise is that if individuals become astute at identifying and critiquing flawed arguments, they will become more skilled at identifying sound arguments presented by others and in formulating sound arguments of their own. When students, journalists, writers and participants in discussions and debates know what not to do in presenting an argument, they will develop a more sound perception of what they should do.

From our perspective, the elimination of flawed reasoning is the most important foundation of a sound argument. This book is therefore analogous to a scalpel. A surgeon uses a scalpel to remove diseased tissue – the skeptical enquirer can use this book to remove diseased arguments. A biologist uses a scalpel to remove extraneous tissue from a specimen in order to expose the essential structure of the specimen to scrutiny. In the same way Humbug! may be used to identify and remove poor reasoning from the reader's own arguments, and to allow the reader to examine and expose poor reasoning in the arguments of others.

Part 2: Deliberate deceptions and false arguments - is an expansion on the first edition. There are forty-eight specific deceptions and false arguments named and described. It should not be assumed by the reader that our list is exhaustive, or that there is a general consensus on the number and nomenclature of the types of deceptions and false arguments in the "body of literature" on fallacies in thinking, critical thinking and informal logic. These were selected because they are commonly encountered in published writings on contentious issues, topics of interest to skeptics and in student writing for assessment purposes. The expansion covers fallacies we have found further examples of since the first edition, including some "new" fallacies of our own coinage.

We use the terms fallacy, flaw, humbug and deception interchangeably. Technically a fallacy is an “argument gone wrong”. A logical fallacy is very specific – it is a deductive argument that is in an invalid form. An informal fallacy covers all the “wrong arguments” that may have a valid deductive form, but are based on erroneous premises.  Humbug covers all this but includes deliberate deceptions, such Moving the Goalposts and Stacking the Deck.

Each fallacy has a primary label (the heading). Other terms and/or related concepts are listed below the heading. The primary labels given were chosen over other possible labels for clarity of meaning. We have opted for vivid and memorable terms over less emphatic alternatives. Some of the primary labels and other terms/related concepts are very widespread and would be encountered in almost any book on critical thinking or informal reasoning. Some of the fallacies described will not be encountered in any other books as the fallacy and its label are our own coinage (e.g.Argument by Artifice, Burden of Solution, Sanctimony, Simple-Minded Certitude and WTF? Fallacy).

We decided not to organise our treatment of fallacies in thinking around a taxonomy of fallacies - as is often the case in other books and websites on fallacies (and as has been requested of us by some readers). We simply list fallacies in alphabetical order by name. Our justification at the time the decision was made was in part a function of the blurry edges between fallacies (e.g. Stacking the Deck and Observational Selection may be difficult to distinguish at times) and the fact that that there is as yet little consensus in the literature on the names of fallacies and taxonomic groupings. While there is no agreed-upon standard set of fallacies, the naming and describing of fallacies is a necessary step in the development of humbug-hunting skills.

For this edition, we gave the idea of classifying fallacies serious and scholarly consideration. For example, Hamblin states:

A fallacious argument, as almost every account from Aristotle onwards tells you, is one that seems to be valid but is not so... Of those who invent their own classifications... their most noteworthy characteristic is that they disagree not only with the Aristotelians but also extensively with one another, and have quite failed to establish any account for longer than the time it takes a book to go out of print... Despite divergences of arrangement, there is considerable overlap in raw material as between one writer and another: the individual kinds of fallacy are much the same, even down to their names. (1970: 12, 13)

As such, we decided our original decision should stand. (For a taxonomic treatment of fallacies see, for example, Gary N. Curtis site: (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/taxonomy.html)

Podcast related to this section: http://huntinghumbug101.blogspot.com/2011/12/very-first-episode-of-hunting-humbug.html

Hunting Humbug 101 v2: Hunting Humbug 101 01 - Podcast update

Hunting Humbug 101 v2: Hunting Humbug 101 01 - Podcast update: An update to what's going on with the podcast and why I'm re-publishing it.

Direct download: http://www.archive.org/download/HuntingHumbug101Episode1-WhatIsHumbug/HuntingHumbug10101-PodcastUpdate.mp3

Subscribe