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

iPhone - you get it or you don't

The following Samsung commercial takes the **** out of people who line up for iPhones and the like. I find it to be both highly amusing and true to life.

My favorite line: "I could never get a Samsung. I'm creative".

Last week well known Apple evangelist, and blogger at Daring Fireball, John Gruber provided a great example of special pleading when citing a quote in a review of the Samsung Galaxy Nexus in comparison to the iPhone 4S.

You either see it or you don’t. If you don’t, that’s cool, enjoy your Nexus. But I think the reason Apple Stores are so crowded, and getting so big, is that there are an awful lot of people who do see it.

An advocate generally reverts to special pleading when they have no other way of justifying their position. The beauty of special pleading as a rhetorical trick is it gives the opponent no room to maneuver. Gruber has argued that his opponents, Android users, cannot possibly comprehend the subtleties and beauty of Apple's iOS operating system. They are simply unable to attain the level of insight available to Gruber. "You either see it or you don't." He has a deep insight into and empathy with technology that cannot be evaluated by Android users who, by definition (they use Android), lack the capacity to make any valid judgement. How does one respond to that?

This excellent article at Gizmodo points out the irrationality of brand loyalty.

______________
(Note that I'm a happy iOS user - I wrote this on my iPad which I lined up to buy... For a full gadget disclosure, see my gdgt profile.)
Image source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gruber.jpg
Via The Verge: http://www.theverge.com/2011/12/15/2638611/horseshit

Writing in Public - 2nd (ebook) edition of Humbug!

I have been, very slowly, working on a second edition of Humbug! The skeptic's field guide to spotting fallacies in thinking, which I intend to release as an ebook for Kindle, iBooks and all the other relevant ebook platforms.

In an effort to spur myself onward, to make a better product, and to do something more with this site, I am going to post drafts of the second edition as I write them. This also follows a "business model" advocated by people like Cory Doctorow - free. That is, all of the second edition of the book will be available online for free. But if anyone wants it in a coherent whole, they'll be able to purchase the ebook (for a small price). The original ebook will still remain freely available. Part 1 (Purpose and usage) posted soon.

Three ways of examining brain claims Part Three - learning styles

In Parts One and Two I examined the 10 percent brain myth and the educational program 'Brain Gym'. I applied the LMGTFY test and the Plausibility test to these claims (which they respectively failed). In this final post I will look at learning styles.

The term ‘‘learning styles'' refers to the concept that individuals differ in regard to what mode of instruction or study is most effective for them. of learning style typically ask people to evaluate what sort of information presentation they prefer (e.g., words versus pictures versus speech) and/or what kind of mental activity they find most engaging or congenial (e.g., analysis versus listening), although assessment instruments are extremely diverse. The most common—but not the only—hypothesis about the instructional relevance of learning styles is the meshing hypothesis, according to which instruction is best provided in a format that matches the preferences of the learner (e.g., for a ‘‘visual learner,'' emphasizing visual presentation of information). (Pashler, H. et al. 2009 - pdf)

As with Brain Gym, when you google learning styles, it is not immediately dismissed or accepted. Moreover, at first glance its claims seem more than reasonable.

There are many variants of learning styles, for the sake of this examination I'll look at the most popular model, Visual-Auditory-Kinasthetic (VAK).

Let's consider this model and its claims a bit more closely. From http://www.ldpride.net/learningstyles.MI.htm:

Visual Learners:
These learners need to see the teacher's body language and facial expression to fully understand the content of a lesson. They tend to prefer sitting at the front of the classroom to avoid visual obstructions (e.g. people's heads). They may think in pictures and learn best from visual displays including: diagrams, illustrated text books, overhead transparencies, videos, flipcharts and hand-outs. During a lecture or classroom discussion, visual learners often prefer to take detailed notes to absorb the information. 

Auditory Learners:They learn best through verbal lectures, discussions, talking things through and listening to what others have to say. Auditory learners interpret the underlying meanings of speech through listening to tone of voice, pitch, speed and other nuances. Written information may have little meaning until it is heard. These learners often benefit from reading text aloud and using a tape recorder. 

Tactile/Kinesthetic Learners:Tactile/Kinesthetic persons learn best through a hands-on approach, actively exploring the physical world around them. They may find it hard to sit still for long periods and may become distracted by their need for activity and exploration.

I first came across VAK learning styles when I was doing my undergraduate degree in Education. I was immediately skeptical. Perhaps it was because I found I liked to learn with all three styles, and I generalized my own experience to be a universal one.... Or more likely, it relates to that expression, “If it smells like bullsh*t, it probably is bullsh*t”.

The claim was that optimal teaching and learning required diagnoses of my students' learning styles and tailoring my lessons to those individuals accordingly. I had no interest in teaching the same content in three different ways to my three different types of students based on this. When I was teaching, say, Newton's laws of motion, I varied my approaches anyway, to keep the lessons interesting and to give students every opportunity to understand a reasonably difficult concept. There were notes on the whiteboard, diagrams that I'd explain, they would conduct experiments, practice questions etc. I.e., all the students would learn about Newton's laws using all three learning styles. The mode of instruction depended on the content.

This is not to say differentiation for individual students isn't appropriate. It's the method by which we 'diagnose' who is having difficulty and why, that is important. I would diagnose which students were having difficulty and differentiate accordingly. I would do this by observation, collecting work, asking questions etc. I'd also take into account any medically diagnosed learning difficulties and act on them as appropriate.

That being said, so long as one doesn't make the claim that visual learners, for example, can only learn visually, at first glance, these claims seem plausible. People, when asked, do have preferred ways of learning. Moreover, people may be better at retaining visual, auditory or kinesthetic information. E.g. some people are natural musicians, or 3-D designers, or better at tennis.

This is the reason I think VAK seems plausible. We can all relate to being better at one style of of these or another. However, being more natural at one of the VAKs, is not the same as learning any kind of information through one of the VAKs. Conflating these two ideas is where proponents have gone wrong.

Be that as it may, let's take it as a given that the claims of VAK proponents are plausible. We now need to apply the Empirical Evidence test.

In 2009, Psychological Science in the Public Interest published an analysis of learning styles practices, evaluating their claims and reviewing the academic literature. From their summary:

A credible validation of learning-styles-based instruction requires a very particular type of experimental finding:

• Students must be divided into groups on the basis of their learning styles.
• Students from each group must be randomly assigned to receive one of multiple instructional methods.
• Students must sit for a final test that is the same for all.

I.e. we need to see the results of a randomised controlled trial. If learning something in one's preferred learning style leads to improved learning, we should see that in the results. A valid learning styles hypothesis would mean students who learn with their preferred learning style should, on average, out perform students who do not.

Their literature review found that:

• Children and adults will, if asked, express preferences about how they prefer information to be presented to them.
• People differ in the degree to which they have some fairly specific aptitudes for different kinds of thinking and for processing different types of information.

This is pretty non-controversial. People have preferred ways of doing things. However, the literature review also found virtually no evidence for the interaction pattern mentioned above, which was judged to be a precondition for validating the educational applications of learning styles:

Although the literature on learning styles is enormous, very few studies have even used an experimental methodology capable of testing the validity of learning styles applied to education. Moreover, of those that did use an appropriate method, several found results that flatly contradict the popular meshing hypothesis.

We conclude therefore, that at present, there is no adequate evidence base to justify incorporating learning-styles assessments into general educational practice. Thus, limited education resources would better be devoted to adopting other educational practices that have a strong evidence base, of which there are an increasing number. However, given the lack of methodologically sound studies of learning styles, it would be an error to conclude that all possible versions of learning styles have been tested and found wanting; many have simply not been tested at all.

The paper, "Learning Styles - Concepts and Evidence", 2009. Association for Psychological Science. can be found here: http://www.psychologicalscience.org/journals/pspi/PSPI_9_3.pdf

Here's a good short YouTube video about learning styles.