Digital note taking

Since about 2003 when I got my first PDA (remember these) I've gone all in on paperless (with the exception of proof reading and doing Maths). Mobile computing has been the key to me being organised and able to take legible notes. I've gone through many gadgets. With my iPad and Galaxy Nexus, I've never had it better when it comes to paperless productivity.

One of the most important uses I have for my iPad, phone and laptop is note taking. Depending on the situation, I'll use one or the other (sometimes two at the same time) to take notes in a meeting, or just when I'm out and about and have a thought I want to capture.

I've experimented with many different services and apps for note taking. Over time I've come up with the following criteria that I need in a note taking app:

• Platform agnostic: It's not locked in to any particular operating system and is available on any device I want to use. In my case, it needs be on iOS, Android and the web.
• Syncs to the cloud: If I make changes on one device it'll show up on another without any effort on my part.
• Data portable: It's my information so I should have complete control over it, and be able to leave the service easily.
• Simple (plain text - at most basic formatting): I've used note taking apps with a fair bit of formatting. What I've found is they tend to be slower and you end up spending too much time mucking about with the formatting. If I need a formatted document, I'll use a word processor or a markdown text editor.
• "Photo notes": Taking a photo of some information and having it in your notebook is really handy. In the last month I've taken photo notes for the following reasons:
  
  • where I parked at a multistory car park at the airport
  • my hotel room number
  • the odometer reading on a car for recording in a log book
  • record of receipts
  • whiteboard diagrams
  • someone else's hand written meeting notes (my favourite use...).
• "Voice notes": Sometimes you can't type a note. Just click the little microphone icon and speak the note.
• Fast: If you have to pause before capturing an idea, the idea might be gone before you're typing the note in the app. It's essential that whatever app you use, it's as fast as the main competitor - pen and paper.
• Searchable and easy to organise: Here's one thing that digital is indisputably better at than analogue - categorising and organising information. Search by keyword, tag, title, folder, date, the list goes on... Finding relevant notes is very simple and accurate.
• Reliable: All of the above is moot if you can't trust your note taking system. It shouldn't ever cause sync conflicts and you definitely do not ever want to lose a note.
• Looks good: This might seem somewhat trivial, but you're in the app using it all the time. If it's not decent looking the experience won't be enjoyable and you won't take as many notes. I can't stand the faux analogue Apple seems to employ (skeuomorphic design). I prefer my digital apps to look "authentically digital". Each to their own, but this is something to consider.

On reading the above, it should be pretty clear I don't use the default note app on my iPad.

The note taking app/service I use is Catch Notes. It fulfills all the above criteria. There are excellent apps for Android and iOS, and a web app too. It doesn't lock you in. They haven't yet implemented a way of exporting all your notes in one go, but it is in development. You can export them one at a time.

I can be taking notes in a meeting on my iPad, snap a picture of the whiteboard on my Galaxy Nexus, append the picture to the same note using Catch Notes on my phone, have that re-sync and the note on my iPad now includes the picture. I can then go back to my laptop and open up the Catch Notes web app, and have it all there. It's seamless.

Other note taking apps/services I've used and liked are Simple Note and Evernote:

• Simple Note is great for plain text. It's very quick to open, runs smoothly, the search function is excellent. Catch Notes I'd argue is just as fast and seamless in its syncing, but it also allows you to make audio notes and photo notes.
• Evernote also does images and audio. However, you can't have complete offline access to your notes on your mobile device with the Evernote free account. Being a cheapskate, I don't want to pay for my note taking solution. Catch Notes also has a paid plan, but you're fine on the free account unless you need to sync 70 MB a month or attach PDFs to a note. One thing Evernote has going for it over Catch is it will OCR images that you upload. I rarely need this, and on the occasion I do, I just use Google Googles.

There are a bunch of other note taking apps/services out there. Microsoft OneNote has a powerful set of features, is now cross-platform and syncs with SkyDrive. It's worth a look too.

My advice is to play around with a few of them for month or two before settling. There will be nuances in the different ways in which they work that won't be immediately obvious. Once you have found something that works, try to stick with it and not do what I've done over the last two years (change between about 6 different methods/apps/services).

Factoid propagation

Other Terms and/or Related Concepts

Truisms; enshrined myths; false assumptions; taken-for-granted propositions.

Description

The advocate advances or states a mere proposition as though it is either: (a) an objectively established fact; or (b) so taken-for-granted by "reasonable people" that it is "beyond question". A key characteristic of a factoid is that it is so commonly assumed to be true, that it becomes "the Truth", when it is not actually established as true. The OED defines a "factoid" as: "Unreliable information which is repeated so often that it becomes accepted as fact."

Example

Dorothy Compost and Sheree Coachbolt are sitting companionably over coffee at a cafe on a Sunday morning. Dorothy reads aloud from a newspaper article: "Teams of trauma counsellors are volunteering to leave immediately for the Antarctic to counsel survivors of yesterday's rabid penguin attack which resulted in the deaths of 12 patrons of a "See @Sea!" cruise. The government has not yet agreed to fund the necessary charter flight."

Sheree says in response: "I'm not surprised they won't fund the charter, wouldn't it be better to spend the money on re-uniting survivors with their families?"

Dorothy bridles and retorts: "That's so insensitive. Everyone knows that post-traumatic stress disorder will be much worse and much more prolonged if victims aren't counselled immediately after the event by trained professionals."

Comment

The assumption that victims should be encouraged to talk about their feelings after a distressing event is a clear example of a "runaway factoid". The practice and belief has become widespread and commonly accepted in the absence of compelling evidence. There is evidence both for and against the practice, but the preponderance of recent evidence suggests that for many individuals, post-trauma counselling may be exactly the wrong thing to do.

In the example given, Dorothy could point out to Sheree that the notion of re-living trauma through dwelling on the event and talking about it seems counter-intuitive. She might venture an opinion that the idea of "bringing out" repressed trauma is based on discredited psycho-analytic dogma rather than evidence. Dorothy could further point out that, unless someone is diagnosed with a specific anxiety disorder such as post-traumatic stress, mental health is more likely to be underpinned by resilience – the capacity to "bounce back" and move on from trauma, rather than dwelling on it. Dorothy's claim that "everyone knows" is the element of her claim that invites a direct challenge and enthusiastic debunking.

The skeptic with iconoclastic tendencies is particularly attracted to factoids. Myths masquerading as facts often assume iconic or even sacrosanct status, and debunking enshrined myths can be an exhilarating blood-sport. A highly entertaining activity in itself, whatever the topic or subject area. Some domains of activity or types of publications are a treasure-trove of factoids ripe for debunking. These can include: desperately oversold curriculum innovations or educational practices; best-selling books on health or wellbeing; books by crusading historians, anthropologists or cultural gurus; any book by or about a LAME (Look At Me Everybody) public figure, and of course, newspapers.

Other examples

• That water goes down drains clockwise in the northern hemisphere and anti clockwise in the southern. (It doesn't.)
• That a person learns best when learning in their stated preferred learning style, such as visual, auditory or kinesthetic.

 

Straw man

Other Terms and/or Related Concepts

False positioning; false target; aiming off; caricaturing a position; misrepresenting a position.

Description

The advocate attacks a weakened, exaggerated, over-simplified or otherwise false or distorted form of the opponent's argument rather than the real one. Commonly, the devious advocate presents a simplified caricature of his or her opponent's argument, then demolishes this "straw man", which is nothing more than an invention of the advocate.

Example

Harry Cackleberry has just taken the floor during a public debate on the teaching of evolution in schools. "These evolutionists would have us believe that our great-great-great grandparents were nothing more than monkeys. They say that one day, hundreds of thousands of years ago, a monkey gave birth to a human. Now I ask you ladies and gentlemen, how can a monkey give birth to a human?"

Jim Flakehammer, an evolutionary biologist from a research institute challenges Harry from the floor and says: "You are giving a false account of the evolutionary explanation of human origins. The way you put it, evolution is an easy target to be knocked down – the idea of a monkey giving birth to a human is quite ludicrous. However the real account given by evolutionary theorists is far harder to dismiss. What science actually says is that humans, monkeys and apes are related through a common ancestor from which all have evolved gradually by a process of natural selection."

Comment

Harry may genuinely believe that his simplistic version of evolution is the one held by evolutionary scientists. In which case he is committing the straw man error in ignorance. However it is often the case that the straw man error is a deliberate rhetorical device used by a dishonest advocate to "wrong-foot" an opponent.

For the purposes of analysis, we will assume that in the present case, Harry is being deliberately disingenuous. He is fully aware of the actual claims of evolutionary scientists. However he is uncertain of the strengths of his argument against the real theory of evolution. He therefore conceals his knowledge and advances a hackneyed caricature of the theory of evolution in order to create an easy target for scornful comments. His motives are to win the argument on the day, rather than to genuinely explore the issue.

A genuine seeker after truth does not resort to the construction of a straw man. If an opponent's argument is actually weak or incorrect, then there is no need for the advocate to misrepresent it in order to win. In the present example, Jim (the opponent) responds to Harry's subterfuge by pointing it out. Even if others in the room are unable to fully understand the actual account of human evolution given by science, they should at least be alerted to the fact that Harry (the advocate) is painting a false picture.

Note that the term "straw man" is at times used to mean something quite different to false positioning. This can sometimes lead to confusion. The alternate meaning is roughly equivalent to "bogeyman". That is, a scary apparition which is apparent rather than real – some imagined problem or consequence of an action which is conjured up by a party in a dispute to stop a proposed action. This usage is similar to the expression "paper tiger". The implication is that although a consequence of an action looks fierce (or difficult), in reality it is nothing to be concerned about.

Stacking the Deck

Other Terms and/or Related Concepts

Concealing counter-arguments, Stacking the Panel, False Balance

Description

The advocate deliberately conceals or avoids counter arguments to his or her own position in order to defeat the opponent. In such circumstances, the motive of the deck stacking advocate is to win the argument at all costs. He or she is not interested in arriving at a solution to a problem or the truth of the matter under discussion. Even when the deck stacker is aware of compelling information which would be of significant assistance to the opponent, his or her attitude is that it is up to the opponent to make the opposing case.

Example

Homner Stimson is arguing with his neighbour Nod Flinders about gun control. "People should be allowed to protect themselves. What if someone breaking into my house has a weapon? With a gun I'll be able to keep my family secure."

Nod replies: "I just think it would be too diddly-dangerous. If everyone had a gun there would be more and more shootings."

Homner changes tactics and attempts to shift the focus of the conversation: "Well we could say the same about swimming pools. About 500 children a year drown in the US, whereas under 200 are killed by guns. And, there are far less pools than guns. Why aren't you calling for swimming pools to be banned?"

Comment

In this example, Nod points out a potential problem with Homner's initial argument. With more people owning guns, it seems likely that there would be more shootings. Homner thinks about this and sees that Nod may have a point. His tactic is to move the goalposts and make an analogy with swimming pools. He then stacks the deck by only referring to data related to children.

The total number of (non-suicidal) gun related deaths in the US is over 12000 a year. Homner knows full well that Nod's argument applies to gun control in all areas of society, not just where children might have access to guns. He deliberately limits the discussion to an area where he feels his argument has a chance. He "stacks the deck" in his favour.

His comparison also starts to shift the focus of conversation away from guns. Swimming pools have now become a distractor. The number of deaths from swimming pools is completely irrelevant from he number of deaths from guns. All this really does, if anything, is establish the argument for much stricter regulations on swimming pool safety, and teaching children to swim from the earliest age possible.

In the present example, and if Nod were a reasonable person, he would find many weak points in Homner's position, despite the deck stacking. However it is also important to address the deck stacking per se. The seeker after truth in such a situation would make explicit reference to stacking the deck and would repudiate the use of such a tactic whenever it is used in argument.

Other examples

False balance is a related concept to stacking the deck. It is an accepted truism that there are "two sides to every story". As a consequence, TV reports often feel the need to find an individual who holds the opposite view of the main topic of the report. They do this in the name of "balance". In many cases this is legitimate and fair minded. However, in a report on (say) childhood immunisation rates, the cranks are often given equal or even more time than is representative of their view, thus providing the report a false balance. It gives the appearance of a real controversy where there is none. Giving the actual balanced view would result in the expert being given (say) two minutes of screen time, and the anti-vaxer a one second clip of an outtake in which they didn't realize they were being recorded and are scratching themselves somewhere inappropriate.

It should be noted that the term stacking the deck is sometimes misapplied to situations where the composition of a discussion panel is biased in favour of one side of a controversial issue. Producers and presenters of radio and television discussion programs rarely take the trouble to ensure that panel members or interviewees are numerically equal, or equal in terms of their ability to present a cogent argument. While the expression "stacking the deck" seems like an appropriate description for such practices, its use might lead to confusion with the standard usage. A better expression might be "stacking the panel" or "panel selection bias".

We regard "stacking the panel" as a reprehensible and pernicious practice which leads to ungovernable bias in television and radio current affairs journalism. In our view, the only corrective to this bias would be to give us our own program and to let us have a free hand in choosing the on-air talent.

Special Pleading

Other Terms and/or Related Concepts

Claiming to have special insights or superior sensitivity; asserting connoisseurship; Immunised Hypothesis

Description

This fallacy occurs when an advocate claims that he or she has a special insight into the topic under discussion. Further, (by implication or explicit claim) the opponent cannot possibly comprehend the subtleties or complexities of the issue because he or she is unable to attain the level of insight available to the advocate. Underlying such special pleading or claims to deep insight or empathy is a presumption that the views of the advocate cannot be evaluated because the opponent lacks the capacity to make any valid judgement. All such claims should be treated with deep skepticism.

Another variant of the fallacy Special Pleading occurs when an advocate, faced with contradictory evidence, introduces caveats, double standards and exceptions to the rule, in order to maintain (and redefine) their position. See Immunised Hypothesis for a detailed explanation.

Example

Toby Nightlight is writing a letter to the local newspaper. He is incensed at a column in the paper written by a local medical practitioner, Dr Sally Sodfreud. The basic theme of Sally's article is that violence associated with alcohol abuse in the local indigenous community has increased enormously over the last year. She attributes this to the construction of a "wet canteen" at the community centre just over a year ago.

Toby's first sentence reads as follows: "As an aboriginal man, I know what damage has been done by paternalism towards aborigines in the past. Dr Sodfreud might be well meaning, but she doesn't have a clue... [if she were to] walk a mile in my shoes, she would understand just how insulting her suggestion is."

Comment

In the example given, the wording of Toby's opening sentence appears to be attempting to establish from the outset that his views on the issue of alcohol use are unchallengeable. Seekers after truth would place little weight on such a claim per se. They would examine the rest of the letter and consider any of Toby's claimed insights on their own merits. Reasoned justification of views would be needed before they could be considered to be credible. After all, Sally could herself claim special insights not available to Toby. As a local GP she would no doubt be attending to injuries inflicted by alcohol-fuelled violence and she would be talking to the victims.

Special pleading is a commonplace feature of newspaper opinion columns, political speeches, television panel discussions and the like. People who seek to air their convictions in such public forums are usually attempting to influence public policy. Often there is also an attempt at self-aggrandizement through moral and intellectual posturing. In such circumstances, and when the "public advocates" fail to mount a well-researched, intelligent argument in favour of their convictions, they often fall back on a range of shallow rhetorical devices, including special pleading.

Statements along the following lines are examples of special pleading: "You don't understand because you are: a man, a woman, an aborigine, a whitefella; or you are ignorant, a philistine, insensitive, lack cultural awareness or intellectual ability, spirituality etc. If you were like me or had my fine sensibilities you could not help but agree with me."

Special pleading can take many forms and can be employed in a wide variety of contexts. If for example, the judge at an art show is unable to convincingly explain her choice of a prize-winner, she may fall back on transparent and self-serving special pleading by way of justification. We here quote verbatim some examples of the genre from an actual judge at an exhibition (attended by Jef). The judge is commenting on the first prize-winner: "It speaks to me... it is perhaps... I sense that the artist is challenging and inviting self-examination... the viewer needs to be attuned to minimalism... only seems like a four-year old could do it... that is perhaps a figure.... perhaps looking down... perhaps in torment." Perhaps the judge is an arts wanker?

A variant of special pleading is synonymous with immunised hypothesis. That is, the advocate makes a claim that in practice (or even in theory) cannot be falsified. When evidence is brought to their attention which contradicts their claim, they continue to add on ad hoc explanations; generally refusing to even entertain the idea that their original claim may actually be false.

Slippery Slope

Other Terms and/or Related Concepts

Thin end of the wedge; Trojan horse.

Description

The slippery slope fallacy assumes without evidence that if we take a particular step which in itself doesn’t cause a problem, it is nevertheless the first in a series of steps that will lead inevitably to some undesired outcome. This fallacy in reasoning is often called the “thin end of the wedge” argument. An example might be the view that if marijuana is decriminalized, then this will inevitably lead to decriminalization of harder drugs. Or: “If we allow simulated depictions of sex on TV after 9.30pm, it won’t be long before such things are depicted early in the evening when young children are watching.”

While this view is technically flawed (not based on direct evidence), dismissing such concerns as necessarily without foundation would be problematic, as experience suggests that communities, nation-states or civilizations may sometimes be incapable of recognizing and responding in a timely way to incremental, adverse change.

Example

Gene Toadstrangler is a spokesperson on public affairs for the Church of Chastisement. He has been asked by the editor of The Daily Drumbeat, a small regional newspaper, to write an article on a Bill before state Parliament on the Rights of the Child (Safety and Security). Among his remarks is the following statement:

At the moment, the proposed legislation states that parents are not allowed to assault their children with a heavy object… this is something we would all agree with. But the problem with such legislation is that it won’t stop there… once this is passed, it will give impetus to ‘do-gooders’ who will be encouraged to remove all rights to parents to discipline their children.

Comment

Gene is in the paradoxical position here of seeking to argue against a proposition that he actually believes in. He believes that parents should not be allowed to belabour children with a solid object, but he doesn’t want the legislation because legislation which might follow might go too far.

Gene would be well advised to clearly define for himself just what level of punishment should be available to parents in chastising children. He should then develop as clear a case as possible for reserving the right to punish at that level. Following this, he could then point out that although the current legislation is acceptable to him, there is a widely recognised tendency for “crossing lines drawn in the sand”. He could argue that the community as a whole should be alert to possible further shifts in the levels of correction available to parents. When such a shift occurs, he can then vigorously oppose that further shift from a credible standpoint.

The slippery slope is a widely recognised and documented fallacy in informal logic. However, it is often the case that accusations by an opponent that the advocate is employing the slippery slope fallacy are unwarranted.

Sometimes individuals who simply wish to halt an incremental change at a particular point will present a rational case for their position. For example, an advocate may argue against cloning as a solution for human infertility on the grounds that cloning is itself undesirable for various reasons. Further, that once the technology for safe and effective human cloning is developed, elective cloning is likely to follow. An accusation that the advocate has made unjustified use of the slippery slope argument in the latter proposition may not be warranted. If (for example) the advocate can illustrate and support his or her case with parallel examples where technological developments have outpaced ethical controls, then he or she is likely to be a seeker after truth rather than an emotionally driven alarmist.

On the other hand, when people who lack the mature judgement of the authors venture onto a slippery slope, they will inevitably wallow in ever-more bizarre misconceptions and fallacious reasoning until we end up with nothing but gibberish – and finally, the complete destruction of civilization as we know it.

Single Cause

Other Terms and/or Related Concepts

Reductive fallacy; over-simplification; Over-generalisation

Description

Single cause fallacies occur when a person assumes that there is only one cause of a complex problem. For example, an advocate might solely attribute youth homelessness to child abuse within dysfunctional families. Other advocates might attribute it to unemployment. Still others might attribute it to lack of discipline in schools and the home. It is unlikely that only one of these factors is involved, and the solution of such a complex problem requires looking beyond simple causes, no matter how dear to the heart of the particular advocate a particular cause may be.

Example

Nelly Impacted-Molar is giving a lecture to adult students enrolled in a community-based self-development program on substance abuse. She answers a question from Jake Loosely. Jake has just asked her why some drinkers become alcoholics or problem drinkers and some don’t. She states: “The only reason a social drinker progresses from occasional drinking to full-blown alcoholism is low self esteem. This is why alcohol is such a problem in remote rural communities. These communities suffer from collective low self esteem brought about by poverty and isolation.”

Comment

It may or may not be the case that low self-esteem increases the likelihood of problem drinking, but Nelly is claiming it is the sole reason for the problem. This is unlikely since alcoholics are present in all strata of society and exhibit all levels of personal achievement. She doesn’t cite research to back her claim and her audience is likely to have anecdotal knowledge about cases of alcoholism that don’t fit her sweeping claim of a single cause.

In such circumstances, the audience is entitled to be skeptical, to challenge her statement and to insist on hearing evidence that supports her view. Note the particular words she uses in her statement — “the only reason” — indicate clearly that her error is the single cause fallacy, or over-simplification. However, in this example the single cause fallacy is likely to be further compounded with yet another fallacy – false cause; correlation error. It may well be possible for example, that low self-esteem is a consequence of alcoholism rather than one of the causes.

Nelly’s error is not a trivial one. If she were to undertake a community based program to address alcoholism in an isolated and impoverished rural setting, and if she makes the wrong assumption about the cause of alcoholism, her remedial program might compound the problem, rather than address it effectively.

The single cause fallacy is widespread and commonplace. The single cause of this is due to a tendency of people to latch on to relatively straightforward solutions to problems, even if the problem is complex.

On further consideration, other factors may be at work. Over generalisation, in particular, extrapolating one’s own personal experience as a universal experience, can lead to making a single cause fallacy. It is also easier to fool ourselves into believing that we comprehend a complex problem if it is artificially stripped of its complexities. Unfortunately, to pretend a complex problem is simple is delusional – a retreat from reality rather than an engagement with reality. Seekers after truth will seek the truth, in all its messy complexity. They will metaphorically roll up their sleeves and do what is necessary to address the problem, no matter how complex or difficult it may be.