False Attribution

Other Terms and/or Related Concepts

Unreliable source; fabricated source (c.f. appeal to authority).

Description

This deceptive tactic involves an advocate appealing to a marginally relevant, irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or even non-existent source to support a claim. The advocate may in some cases have a "half-hearted" degree of faith in the alleged source (they may have a dim recollection of having read something somewhere about the topic), or the advocate may deliberately fake knowledge of a source which they know does not exist.

Example

Simon Murmurgut and Jenny Peristalsis are selling home-made herbal extracts at the local market. They have a sign at their stall advertising a "special slimming mixture". The main ingredient is paspalum juice. They are challenged by Kevin Jaded, a skeptical bystander. He says: "How do you know it works?"

Simon immediately responds: "There has been a recent study published in the Medical Journal of Patagonia which shows that eating four grams or more of paspalum each day results in the loss of up to 500 grams of body fat per fortnight."

Comment

If Simon did in fact read such an article, and if he is truthfully reporting the findings, he is not guilty of false attribution. However, if he only thinks that Jenny may have mentioned about a month or two ago that she had read somewhere in a South American journal that eating some paspalum each day results in the loss of some body fat, then he is guilty of false attribution. In this case, he is deliberately misleading Kevin about his own degree of certainty about the supposed "facts". If however, Simon is just inventing the reference, then he is guilty of the most reprehensible form of false attribution – deliberate deception through the citation of a fake source.

The deliberate or inadvertent fabrication of source information is a common feature of vigorous discussion. It is a tactic often used in desperation by advocates when they feel that the argument is about to be lost. The seeker after truth will often be assured by advocates that they have read some compelling facts about the topic under discussion – facts which unequivocally support the advocate’s position. The initial response of a seeker after truth to apparent dissembling of this kind should be a courteous request for a specific citation. This request should not be in the form of a provocative challenge, if the skeptic wishes to maintain a positive emotional climate as the discussion proceeds. In making the request, the point should be made that "going directly to the source" is always more reliable than a second-hand report.

Skeptical seekers after truth will not reject claims a priori. Nor will they accept claims a priori. They will reserve judgment on an issue and ask advocates for details of the source – with a view for reading it for themselves. Note that this request for a citation so that the skeptic can read the alleged information for themselves will not usually resolve the question on the spot, so the question may remain open. However, the more dedicated debunker may decide to pursue the issue beyond the particular discussion as a matter of principle. If the skeptical opponent subsequently finds out that false attribution has taken place, they could take the trouble to contact the evasive advocate (perhaps even several months after the initial discussion) and point out that the source cited doesn't exist, or the advocate's interpretation was in error.

In the day and age of internet enabled mobile devices such as mobile phones and tablets, made up on the spot false attributions will likely be easier to detect and a less effective form of humbug. As such, false attributions will likely become more elaborate. As the Wikipedia entry on false attribution now notes, devious and immoral frauds may even go as far as to create fake sources in order to cite them to support a claim.

(Note: if you are thorough you will no doubt attempt to verify the above reference to the Wikipedia entry on false attribution. It will almost certainly bear no resemblance to the citation above because of subsequent capricious editing. Check the revision history for 07:14, 28 April 2010 UTC to verify that this reference was valid at almost the exact time this updated section to the book was written - 07:37, 28 April 2010 UTC.)

 

Re-burdening the solution

Someone on the internet asked me this excellent question:

Hi, A search for a certain kind of fallacy led me and a friend to the Skeptic's Field Guide, and so I though I'd ask if you have any input on our question: You mention Burden of Solution as a fallacy in which "[t]he Advocate denigrates a suggested solution to a problem but fails to propose a viable alternative."

My friend had been wondering if the opposite could also be considered a fallacy: invalidating all criticism of a suggested solution because the one offering the criticisms can't offer a better one... or rather, "Oh, yeah? Well, I'd like to see YOU come up with something better", in response to valid criticisms of a solution. It seems like such a position would be fallacious (or at least bad debate form), but neither of us can find a name or definition for it. Can you offer any advice?

The scenario outlined above most closely relates to the Tu Quoque (you too) fallacy. It's essentially saying, I can ignore your criticisms because you haven't come up with a solution. More broadly it is a Red Herring, and even more broadly, a Non-sequitur. (Sadly, this is all "good debate form" if you're only interested in winning.)

This is a tough one in terms of getting the balance between the Burden of Solution and valid criticism right. Arguably, it's not a critic's job to find solutions. They're a critic. A good critic, however, offers constructive criticism and tries to find ways forward.

The Tu Quoque aspect of this is how the advocate maneuvers the conversation. They don't dismiss the criticism per se, but change the focus from the criticism to the lack of a solution from the critic. Hence the Red Herring. The critic in this case should say, "Let's stay on topic. I never claimed to have an alternative solution for you. It's not my job to find the solution. I'm drawing attention to the specific issues I have with your proposed actions."

If both parties are acting in good faith and are genuine seekers of a solution, the critic should not only point out flaws, they should try to offer a solution or at least admit they don't have one either. And on receiving criticism, the advocate would not dismiss it out of hand because the critic didn't offer any solutions. Of course, this would require rational and disinterested discourse... a common experience of the world at large and the internet in particular.

 

False analogy

Other Terms and/or Related Concepts

Misuse of analogy; metaphor as argument; cliché thinking.

Description

A false analogy occurs when an advocate presents an example of a phenomenon and implies that the example either proves or compellingly illustrates something about another phenomenon. An example might be an argument that access to firearms should not be severely restricted, as access to kitchen knives is not severely restricted and yet, like firearms, they are sometimes used to kill innocent people. This analogy deliberately ignores critical differences between guns and kitchen knives. Such an example might have some value as a figurative analogy (the purpose of a figurative analogy is illustrative and metaphorical) but it is obviously flawed if it is intended as a literal analogy (advanced as a proof).

Example

Glenn Tropicana is an investment adviser and he is giving a sales pitch to a couple of prospective clients, Sheila and Dennis. Glenn is trying to persuade them to sign up for a regular monthly contribution to an investment scheme. The scheme may or may not be suspect – that is not the issue here.

During his spiel, Glenn states: "You know what happens with a steady drip of water into a bucket... before you know it the bucket's full. If you invest only $200 a month, in no time you will have a great nest-egg."

Dennis replies: "That's all very well, but what if there's a hole in the bucket that we don't know about?"

Comment

Glenn has met his match in Dennis. Glenn attempted to use his analogy of water dripping into a bucket as a compelling illustration of the wisdom of making a regular contribution to the scheme he is promoting. However Dennis is clearly a critical thinker and a skeptic. He recognised the fallacy in the analogy. When he recognised the fallacy he could simply have said: "Investments are a lot more complex than water dripping into a bucket – you'll need to present me with a better argument." However he chose to use Glenn's analogy against him by extending it, and introducing a confounding variable – the possibility of a leak in the bucket.

A common problem with the use of analogy to support an argument is that another analogy can usually be found to support the opposite position. For example, there are many metaphors, proverbs, clichés, traditional homespun sayings etc., which seemingly contradict each other. Consider a situation where someone may try to make a case for increasing the number of workers in a project team by citing the venerable proverb "many hands make light work". The proverb seems to be self-evidently true, and supports the notion that an increase in the size of the team would be a reasonable position to take. However someone else could use a plausible counter-proverb to support the opposite point of view, viz: "too many cooks spoil the broth". The latter proverb invokes a common experience of some large teams – separate agendas, miscommunication and a lack of coordination.

The fact that many proverbs are directly contradicted by other proverbs is an indication that reliance on proverbs or analogies in decision-making or resolution of issues is fraught with danger. We might (for example) be presented with an exciting once-in-a-lifetime business opportunity. We mull over the decision. A series of proverbs come to mind – opportunity only knocks once; make hay while the sun shines; seize the day; strike while the iron is hot. We invest. We go broke. Reflecting on out financial disaster, another set of proverbs comes to mind – look before you leap; act in haste, repent at leisure; haste makes waste; there's many a slip twixt the cup and the lip; don't count your chickens before they hatch.

All this isn't to say analogies are not of any use. Analogies work best when they are used to illustrate a more complex or abstract point. In particular if it can be related to something the audience is already familiar with. Analogies are frequently used in teaching, in science in particular. See for example:

• The Use of Analogy in Physics Learning and Instruction
(PDF)
• Analogies as Tools for Meaning Making in Elementary Science Education: How Do They Work in Classroom Settings
(PDF)

Other examples

Educationalist David Ruenzel makes a good analogy (Gold Star Junkies. February 2000):

As critics have noted, it seems gratuitous to provide someone incentive to do what they already enjoy; in the parlance of behavioral studies, it's a case of "overjustification". Rewarding children who draw with markers, after all, is like rewarding kids with ice cream sundaes for watching television.

And a bad one:

To judge the necessarily variegated skills of students and teachers with an endless series of tests is as absurd as it is unfair-like putting huge scoreboards in classrooms and expecting adults and children to teach and learn under their imposing glare.

Neuroscientist Susan Greenfield seems to enjoy making public comments about social media without really engaging the organ she studies (Social networking sites "changing children's brains". The Telegraph. 24 February 2009):

I often wonder whether real conversation in real time may eventually give way to these sanitised and easier screen dialogues, in much the same way as killing, skinning and butchering an animal to eat has been replaced by the convenience of packages of meat on the supermarket shelf.

 

Online security and password management

This post is a bit off topic from what I usually write about. I want to take look at a something that is increasingly becoming an issue - being secure online. The internet is an essential utility that one cannot avoid. As such it’s more important than ever to have good security hygiene.

Background

Wired journalist Mat Honan was recently hacked hard. Hackers gained access to his Apple iCloud, Twitter and Google accounts. They posted some vile comments via his Twitter, deleted his Google account, and wiped his iPhone, iPad and MacBook Air. His MacBook air was the only place he had more than a year’s worth of photos, covering the entire lifespan of his daughter. (He's since recovered his data, at a cost of about $1500.) Really, he was lucky in that they did this for the “lulz”, not to gain access to a bank account or steal his identity.

There is no such thing as perfect security when online, but you can take steps to be more secure. Before looking at solutions, let's consider the issues.

Authenticating yourself involves providing evidence that you are you. You can prove who you are through:

• something you are (e.g. a finger print)
• something you know (e.g. a password)
• something you have (e.g. a mobile phone).

Logging on to a website generally uses "something you know" - a password. The problem with this is that this is inherently insecure. If a hacker gains access to your password - game over.

I've spent a fair bit of time getting secure as reasonable. The main ways of doing this are:

1. Using strong passwords
2. Two factor authentication

This post will take you through some apps that make it easy to do this with hopefully not too much effort. It is more effort than not being secure, but much less effort than trying to recover a destroyed digital life, or worse, a stolen identity.

What to not do

Most people use terrible passwords. The most common passwords are:

1. password
2. 123456
3. 12345678
4. 1234
5. qwerty
6. 12345
7. dragon
8. pussy
9. baseball
10. football
11. letmein
12. monkey
13. 696969
14. abc123
15. mustang
16. michael
17. shadow
18. master
19. jennifer
20. 111111
21. 2000
22. jordan
23. superman
24. harley
25. 1234567

If one of yours is here... sheesh. (And one assumes number 8 is referring to the popular house pet.)

Some basics of things you shouldn't do. Do not use:

• personal information in your password that someone could work out
• dictionary words, or geographical or biographical names
• a password that is the same as your account information.

If you think you're okay because you use an "un-guessable" password of your own, think again. If your password isn't actually random, then it's getting worse over time. Every time a password database is leaked, hackers get a better idea of the patterns that people use, as this great article explains. Other points:

• The average Web user maintains 25 separate accounts but uses just 6.5 passwords to protect them.
• In the past year alone more than 100 million passwords have been published online.
• 8.2 billion average passwords combinations per second are able to be tried by a PC running a single AMD Radeon HD7970 GPU.

Passwords people think are secure follow patterns that hackers have cracked. E.g:

• Adding numbers or non-alphanumeric characters such as "!!!" to them, usually at the end, but sometimes at the beginning.
• "Mangling" — transforming words such as "super" or "princess" into "sup34" and "prince$$".
• Mirror imaging — "book" becomes "bookkoob" and "password" becomes "passworddrowssap".
• Appending a date of birth or similar to a name — Julia1984.

The bottom line is you're not really that clever or original. Any pattern you thought of using, someone else has probably thought of using it too, and at some stage a password database leak has enabled hackers to add that pattern to the lists of passwords they cycle through.

How to create a strong password

The fundamentals of making a password strong are:

1. A bigger set of characters: numbers only (10 characters), numbers + lowercase + uppercase letters (10 + 26 + 26 = 62 characters), all the characters on your keyboard (92).
2. The longer the better. Longer means exponentially more possible combinations an attacker has to try. A four character password would take about 0.0004 seconds to crack. A 10 character one would take about a year.
3. Increase entropy. Use random characters for your passwords.