Can ChatGPT be used for teaching critical thinking and informal logical fallacies?

It's been a while since I last wrote a blog post, but with all the recent media attention (and my own interest), I thought it would be interesting to share some of my results in using ChatGPT. Specifically, using it to replicate the things that this blog, a book and podcast did regularly, back when blogs were big and podcasts were small.

What is ChatGPT and how could it assist in teaching critical thinking and analysing arguments?

Unless you've been a participant in the series 'Alone' since December last year, you've probably heard about ChatGPT, the cutting-edge language model developed by OpenAI that utilises deep learning techniques to generate human-like text. The recently media attention has highlighted its potential to revolutionise various industries and applications, including education. While there are plenty of potential challenges of AI in education, an interesting application of this technology is its potential to help teach critical thinking, informal logical fallacies, and how to analysise/improve arguments.

ChatGPT can be used to generate realistic examples of common logical fallacies and explain where the argument goes wrong. This can help students develop the skills necessary to recognize and avoid these fallacies in their own arguments and in the arguments of others. For example, it can generate a statement like "Vaccines cause autism" which is (sadly) a common logical fallacy called False Cause. 

Additionally, ChatGPT can be used to analyse and evaluate arguments by generating counterarguments and identifying any weak points in the reasoning. For example, it can be used to evaluate an argument in favor of increasing the minimum wage, by generating counterarguments such as "increase in minimum wage would lead to inflation" or "small businesses would suffer" and help students identify any weak points in the reasoning.

You can also use ChatGPT to facilitate discussions and debates by generating thought-provoking questions and prompts. For example, it can generate a question like "Should the government regulate social media to combat misinformation?" this can help students to consider different perspectives and to develop their own critical thinking skills.

Overall, ChatGPT has the potential to be a valuable tool for teaching critical thinking, informal logical fallacies and to analyse people's arguments. Despite concerns about the potential challenges of AI in education, the technology holds a lot of potential in various fields. As the technology continues to improve, it will likely become an even more powerful tool for educators and students alike.

Hopefully anyone who has played around with ChatGPT has reaslised by now that most the above is a copy and paste from ChatGPT. It's too well written to be me (and it's kind of boring and lacks my use of irony or references to TV shows). 

See below for my initial few prompts and its response.

Using ChatGPT to generate an explanation for concept, such as an informal logical fallacy.

My next step was to get it to explain a fallacy.

As Larry David would say, pretty, pretty, good. 

Using ChatGPT to analyse an argument.

I then decided to see how it would go assisting me in analysing text for fallacies, which is pretty much the entirety of this blog. So I tested ChatGPT against some text from this post: No conflict here, just scientists doing their jobs - you know - science. 

Okay, I told it to look for a particular fallacy. So how about just looking for them in general?

And then again for another bit of text from the blog post:

It's certainly not perfect, and I've found other examples when ChatGPT is completely wrong, but as an assistant and teaching tool it already has a lot of potential. Just as with Wikipedia for doing research, a good starting point for a topic or constructing (or destructing) an argument, but not an endpoint.  

We said in the introduction to Humbug!, that the book: 

...is more a tool to consult as the occasion demands, rather than a book to read in a linear fashion. You may find it to be a useful resource for those occasions when you read or hear a suspect statement or claim, and want to identify the flawed reasoning in the assertion.

If I ever do a 3rd Edition I'd probably update this point to suggest running the suspect statement or claim through ChatGPT or an equivalent AI, and then checking its output against an authoritative source. Speaking of which (and as an aside) I just realised that according to Betteridge's law and my headline, all of the above is wrong.

Valuing scientific expertise

This is the second of two posts that go hand-in-hand. The first post is a brief overview of some important concepts and well established results of psychology that help me think about my thinking. This second post is about valuing scientific expertise and why our non-expert default position should be to believe scientific consensuses, or at the very least, to be comfortable in saying, "I don't know".  

You are not an expert (and neither am I) 

As Socrates is said to have said, wisdom is knowing that you don't know. A big part of critical thinking is intellectual humility. While it is possible to become an expert at something, it takes years and years of training in a discipline. Think about something that for you this applies to. Think about all the time, hard work, practice and dedication that it took to earn that expertise. Think about all the mistakes you learned from and the pitfalls you now know how to avoid, On that one thing you're probably pretty safe talking at length about all that you know. And when you meet other experts, they can easily recognise you know what you're doing or talking about. 

Now think about non-experts and novices trying to talk to you about it. How much credit do you give their views? Well, that's you (and me) when it comes to every other field of human endeavour. It's the ultimate form of arrogant overconfidence to assume your opinion on a subject that you don’t have expertise in has much, if any, merit. And when you dismiss expert consensus out-of-hand, by definition, your dismissal of something you know nothing about is worthless. In fact, it says everything about you and nothing about the experts or their view(s). Imagine a non-expert novice dismissing your views out of hand when discussing a subject you are an expert in? 

Scientific (and expert) consensus

A scientific consensus is more than scientists within a field being surveyed for their beliefs or tallying their views in research papers. It relates to what the researchers in a field are interested in studying and why. When there is a question to be answered or a problem to be solved, they'll be researching it and arguing about it; i.e. doing science. But when a question is answered to sufficient satisfaction, e.g. anthropogenic climate change, evolution by natural selection or the second law of thermodynamics, there is little or no incentive to keep researching this question — it's done. Scientists operate within well-established paradigms for a reason — they're well established based on the convergence of theory with data.

Thinking about thinking

This is the first of a planned two posts that I've been mulling over and sporadically writing notes to myself about over the last year or so. This first post is a very brief overview of some important concepts and well established results of psychology that help me think about my thinking. The second post is about valuing scientific expertise and why our non-expert default position should be to believe scientific consensuses, or at the very least, to be comfortable in saying, "I don't know". Both include a lot of links to further reading and learning if you're so inclined.  

Why?

Since the ascendancy of Donald Trump to the White House, and now with the coronavirus pandemic, I've noticed a lot of weird beliefs and thinking take hold across social media. Common to these groups is the idea that "the media" and other non-specific all-powerful groups or people (the "deep state", Bill Gates) are manipulating us with their "fake news", false narratives and sinister motives; that scientists and so-called "experts" can't be trusted. Unlike me, this new group of free and critical thinking peoples see the truth; the scales have fallen from their eyes (not that they are being manipulated by an authoritarian dictator and a disinformation campaign). I, on the other hand, as someone who tends to take experts and journalists who have a proven track record at face value, am one of the “sheeple”.

Arguing with people who have fallen down the YouTube and Facebook rabbit hole about their specific beliefs and claims is exhausting and likely to backfire. As such, I thought I'd take a different tack and discuss how I think about critical thinking vs non-critical and pseudo-critical thinking, and the importance of valuing expertise. 

If I have sent you a link to this post, it's because I know I won't convince you about whatever it is we're disagreeing about. I'm not even going to try. Forget about whatever it was we were discussing as it’s not specific to what follows. What I hope to do is to show how I think about any claim, how I try to reflect on my own thinking (I'm not always successful), and in another post, why I think we should all value and respect expertise. 

Critical thinking vs non-critical and pseudo-critical thinking

First, I think it's important to distinguish between the three different modes of thinking that to some degree we all use to come to a point of view — critical thinking, non-critical thinking (see Kahneman's slow and fast thinking) and pseudo-critical thinking.

Education 'Cargo Cults'

Education guru (not self-proclaimed) John Hattie, along with co-author Arran Hamilton, list a number of fatal cognitive biases in the blog post How to stop cognitive biases from undermining your impact, which is well worth a read for any educator (or anyone for that matter). They point out that:

...a growing database of Cognitive Biases or glitches in our human operating system have been catalogued and confirmed through laboratory experiment and psychometric testing. The research suggests that biases afflict all of us, unless we have been trained to ward against them.

The post is a small part of the bigger white paper: Education cargo cults must die (pdf). It's a somewhat ironic paper, given the criticism levelled at Hattie's guru status and cult-like following. However, this is something Hattie and Hamilton are well aware of, noting the danger of appealing to authority:

Authority Bias: Tendency to attribute greater weight and accuracy to the opinions of an authority figure—irrespective of whether this is deserved—and to be influenced by it. 

EDUCATION: Don’t be swayed by famous titled gurus. Carefully unpick and test of all their assumptions—especially if they are making claims outside the specific area of expertise. Be particularly suspicious of anyone that writes and publishes a white paper [!!!] (p 20, emphasis added).

Some key quotes from the white paper: 

We make the case that ingrained cognitive biases make us all naturally predisposed to invest in educational products and approaches that conform with our existing worldview and to only grudgingly alter our behavior in the face of significant conflicting evidence. In section two, we argue that educators and policymakers must fight hard to overcome their cognitive biases and to become true evaluators of their own impact (p 9). 

Health warning: May ultimately make you feel as though you can trust what you see again, because you’ll have a framework for identifying evidence and being more skeptical of initiatives and resources that just don’t have sufficient backing (p 10).

We advocate an approach to education that is built on reason, rather than intuition alone. This involves systematic collection of data on students’ learning experiences in the classroom and the ways in which teachers and product developers can accelerate this learning. From data, we can inform intuitions and judgements and build theories. And, from theories, we can build structured processes—continually testing and refining these too (p 25).

While there are plenty of critics of Hattie's work (and how Hattie's work tends to be used), it's great to see educators engaged in discussion about our profession and continually improving evidence/research base of our practice. Or at the very least, minimising the chances of wasting our time on myths and errant nonsense.

Argument by Artifice

Other Terms and/or Related Concepts

Rationalization; asserting an unwarranted conclusion; argument by deception; Gibberish.

Description

The conclusion is all, and drives the argument. In order to make a case the advocate puts forward contrived, convoluted and unfounded assertions which any fair-minded and objective observer would perceive as artificially constructed. The reasoning may be specious, tendentious, flawed in logic and unjust in effect.

Example

Noel Maggot is the Director of Finance for the Faculty of Health at the University of Wooloomooloo. Noel is a bitter man, in part because no-one takes the trouble to pronounce his unfortunate surname correctly. (He insists it is French in origin, and should be pronounced "Mahjay".) Mr Maggot is writing a letter to Ivana Bugarov, formerly a lecturer in occupational health and safety in the School of Nursing at Wooloomooloo. The letter begins:

This is to inform you that the Faculty of Health will be asserting that it has a right to royalties on revenue generated by your leg-pulling device. Our legal office has determined that although you patented the so-called Bugarov Leg-Puller two years after you resigned from the University, you must have conceived the design of the device while an employee of the university. Further, it has been established that one of your lectures dealt in part with the therapeutic application of traction to sports injuries to the tibia and patella. Given this history, the university legal office has determined that you were not entitled to take out a patent on this device.

Comment

Devious and mendacious advocates such as Maggot attempt to use any number of self-serving obfuscations to achieve their ends – in this case an unearned financial benefit for the University. This is consistent with his role. As Director of Finance, he is tasked with earning an additional 1.5 million dollars for the Faculty of Health each year. If he fails, he will be sacked. So he is always driven by the bottom line, and his "arguments" are always self-serving. More often than not, they are also shonky and disingenuous. At times they are risible.

He was appointed to his position as Director of Finance not because he had a background in research and scholarship, but because he had made lots of money in all his previous positions (telemarketing of skin-care products, car sales, time-share real-estate, and pyramid marketing of magnetic underlays).

In the present case, and if his bullying is successful, he will ensure that the intellectual property produced by the creative mind and hard work of an individual is appropriated by an entity (the university) which made no contribution to the work.

The question of whether or not the university has valid legal grounds for its claim could only be tested in a court of law. Given that the legal resources of the university are apparently behind Maggot's claim, Ivana is unlikely to have her day in court. She would be wary of undertaking a legal defence of her position given the high cost of civil litigation and the uncertainty of the outcome. Whatever the legal position, it is clear that an artifice has been used to bully Ivana into submission.

More examples

Insurance companies produce documents designed to avoid paying out claims on policies based on cleverly worded definitions and exemptions, such as flooding and what constitutes the contents of a house. For example, a home and contents insurance policy advertises coverage of accidental damage, loss or theft of mobile phones. But a clause in the policy states the insurer must be provided with proof of purchase of the phone before making a claim, and that a police report and proof of purchase with the claim is insufficient.

Technology manufacturers create warranties that rule out nearly all forms of faults with their devices. A headphone manufacturer, for example, has a two year warranty on it's headphones that excludes any accessory that comes with the headphones. "Accessory" is defined as nearly all the parts that make up the headphones, the extension cable, the volume and playback controls, the rubber seals on the ear-buds etc.

False Compromise

Other Terms and/or Related Concepts

Splitting the difference.

Description

The advocate asserts that because they do not understand or accept the opponent’s views, in fairness the two should agree to "split the difference" and arrive at a middle position. Such an approach to addressing an issue is more about mollifying the parties to a disagreement, rather than arriving at the truth of the matter.

Example

Jason Typeface and Wolfgang Von Volkswagen are senior bureaucrats in the Department of Justice. They have been engaged in a protracted discussion on the wording of a sentence in their jointly authored report on police "stop, question and search" powers. Jason has come to believe that police effectiveness in drug law enforcement is dependent on an absolute power to stop, question and search at their own discretion. Wolfgang believes that any questioning or search of suspects should only take place in the presence of legal representatives. They agree to split the difference and the final sentence reads: "Police may stop and search suspects at their own discretion, but any evidence so obtained cannot be used to prosecute the suspect.”

Comment

It is a safe assumption that neither Wolfgang nor Jason is satisfied with the compromise wording of the sentence. Neither of them actually believes that the stop, question and search policy they have come up with is the best one. Yet the reader of their report might make the assumption that the view expressed is what the authors believe to be the best policy. To avoid this misperception, Wolfgang and Jason should make it clear in the wording of their report that their conclusion is a compromise rather than a consensus view of the best position. Their compromise then would be open, rather than concealed.

There is a more intellectually respectable alternative to an open compromise. Wolfgang and Jason could be quite explicit about their disagreement and make it clear that they came to different conclusions as a result of their study. They could indicate that they have ”agreed to disagree” and they could state their separate conclusions. This would then leave it up to the decision-makers who read the report to decide on a final policy. This alternative would be the one favoured by the seeker after truth.

If they adopted this approach, both Jason and Wolfgang would preserve their integrity and they would be free to argue vigorously for their own favoured position. This approach is common in public documents such as reports of parliamentary enquiries, where a ”minority report” is commonly included when consensus cannot be reached.

Part of the problem with this issue is the emotional loading associated with the term compromise. In almost all contexts where the word is used, it carries either a positive or negative connotation. In the context of peace talks, industrial negotiations and the like, to compromise is to put aside ”selfish” considerations in the interests of a "fair" outcome. In the context of principled decision-making, a person who compromises is often seen as morally deficient.

Seekers after truth are always prepared to entertain the possibility of a compromise, but in doing so, they will be candid about differences, while putting differences aside in the interests of fostering a pragmatic and workable outcome.

 

Cyber bullying Alan Jones' sponsors

Odious "Shock Jock" Alan Jones found himself in more trouble than ever before when the comments he made about Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard and her recently deceased father came to light.

Today his radio network decided to suspend all advertising on his show. Chairman Russell Tate claims the decision is due to "cyber bullying" from people on teh intertubez:

Tate branded the social media response to the comments as "21st Century censorship, via cyber bullying".

Wow. Tate's weasel word moral equivalence is an extraordinary claim. Apparently a bunch of individuals can bully giant multi-billion dollar corporations? And individuals exercising their right to free speech is causing censorship?

A "shock jock" says something shocking, and surprise, people are outraged and have decided to not support the brands that have sponsored him. This is actually capitalism and democracy working as they should.

If Alan Jones if feeling censored, he could always start a blog or get on twitter like the rest of us...

 

False Cause; Correlation Error

Other Terms and/or Related Concepts

Post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this); false association; superstitious belief.

Description

This fallacy is the result of the common human tendency to associate events which occur in sequence and to assume that there is a causal link. When an advocate claims that there is a causal relationship between two events, they need to give a plausible reason beyond simple association. If the advocate cannot do this they are probably in error. There are two possible "levels" of false association:

• The relationship may simply be apparent rather than real (e.g. coincidence). In this case the error is a false cause because there is no causal relationship.
• There may be an actual link, but the direction of cause and effect claimed by the advocate is incorrect. In this case the fallacy is correlation error because the cause and effect are reversed, or indirectly related.

Examples

1. False Cause: Trixie Trendy-Chump has just opened up her new business card business – The Business Card Business. One week after opening, her total sales amounts to one pack of fifty cards for the local gravel merchant. She is talking to her husband Bevan Chump-Trendy about how she can improve sales. "I was reading recently about how Beijing is going through an economic boom. Now, everyone in China practices Feng Shui. They don't even think about setting up a shop without consulting a Feng Shui guru to make sure the energy lines of the store are conducive to business."
   Bevan responds: "So what you're saying, is that Feng Shui has made Beijing money, so why not you? Sounds good to me!"
2. Correlation Error: Aaron Fibreglass is writing up his report on the link between self-esteem and obesity. He concludes: "There was a correlation of 0.8 between morbid obesity and low self-esteem. We need to raise the self-esteem of obese people to help them overcome their weight problem."

Comment

In the first example Trixie and Bevan assume there is a causal link between Feng Shui and economic prosperity. However, if Beijing is undergoing economic growth and its citizens happen to practice Feng Shui, it does not follow that Feng Shui is the cause of the economic growth. This relationship may simply be apparent rather than real – that is, a coincidence. To establish whether or not Feng Shui can influence economic prosperity, systematic tests would need to be conducted.

In fact at any one time, a great many cities around the world are going through economic growth. Few, if any city administrators give any consideration to Feng Shui. There are no doubt a great many other cites in China where Feng Shui is practiced. What is their economic activity like? The seeker after truth should always ask questions which go beyond mere association, and look for alternative possibilities.

In the second example, Aaron claims low self-esteem causes obesity. However on the evidence presented, causation could be in the opposite direction – obesity could be the cause of low self-esteem. Or both could be caused by a third, unidentified variable. To a skeptical scientist, such a strong correlation between obesity and low self-esteem is potentially of great interest, but a series of sophisticated follow-up studies would be needed to determine the nature of the correlation and the direction of causation.

False cause can have very serious consequences. For example, the false cause fallacy during the European dark ages led to the widespread belief that illness, famine and personal misfortune was caused by black magic and sorcery. Such beliefs led to "witch-hunts" (literally) and unfounded but widely believed accusations of sorcery. The absence of skepticism in communities wallowing in superstition led to the burning to death of innocents falsely accused of witchcraft. This still happens in the present day in societies that lack good governance and are dominated by superstition.

The false cause fallacy varies in the magnitude of the problems it causes. From the simple and harmless superstitions of sports people undertaking rituals or wearing a "lucky charm" in order to perform well, to the harm caused to seriously ill people when diverted from effective treatments to ineffective or harmful treatments by quacks or frauds.

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.

 

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.

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.

 

Simple-Minded Certitude

Other Terms and/or Related Concepts

Intransigence; studied / willful / implacable / indefatigable ignorance; "denial"; bovine complacency; defense by dogma; rationalisation; cognitive dissonance.

Description

Simple-Minded Certitude is the preferred descriptor in this book for a habit of mind which is commonly labelled intransigence. Simple-Minded Certitude is an unshakeable belief that will remain unchanged even when indisputable evidence is presented which demonstrates the belief to be false. "Simple-minded" is intended to convey the voluntary use of simplistic reasoning, rather than an "organic" limitation of intellectual capacity. (It is not uncommon for otherwise intelligent individuals to be simple-minded in their approach to a particular topic.)

It is a temptation to accuse someone of intransigence or Simple-Minded Certitude simply because they disagree with us. But this accusation should not be used lightly. If it is used too lightly, then its utility as a legitimate criticism is compromised.

True Simple-Minded Certitude occurs when an advocate has a characteristic mindset that simply refuses to entertain the possibility of being wrong on a matter of fact. Or the advocate, in effect, rules out any possibility of being persuaded to another opinion, whatever the evidence presented by the opponent. Intransigent advocates are deaf to information which might disturb their state of comfortable, implacable ignorance.

Example

Ramone Pust-Yool and Debbie Pust-Yool are getting to know each other after a whirlwind courtship and marriage. Debbie has just disclosed the fact that she would like to have three children. She also states: "…and I'll be giving them natural homeopathic vaccinations, not the poison the government wants us to jab into children."

Ramone is somewhat alarmed at this, and states: "But homeopathy is just 'magic water'? It's 'natural' because it's just water. They dilute the original mixture so many times it doesn't have even one molecule of any actual ingredients. And vaccinations are arguably the greatest and safest medical intervention in human history? We've essentially eliminated a whole host of horrible diseases. Now that people have forgotten what those deceases were like and stopped vaccinating, we risk them coming back and in fact, this has already happened."

Debbie bridles and loudly proclaims: "I don't care what the government and doctors say, they're just in the pocket of big pharma. I know that vaccines are bad and homeopathy is the way to go thanks to the work of people like Jane McCarry."

"Jane McCarry? The ex model-slash-actor? That's your source of information?"

Comment

Leaving aside the questions of whether or not government and doctors are all involved in an elaborate conspiracy on the behalf of big pharmaceutical companies to poison our children; and whether homeopathy has any efficacy as a medical intervention beyond a placebo; and whether the views of a model-slash-actor on public health should be taken seriously, let's consider Debbie's Simple-Minded Certitude. (We will leave these questions aside as the answers are, respectively, "No they aren't", "No it doesn't", and "Surely you're joking?".)

Debbie is exhibiting a defensive stance which indicates that she is preparing to enter a state of Simple-Minded Certitude. Her initial statement above is extravagant and emphatic. It seems to be intransigent. If she continues in that vein, she would clearly be exhibiting the fallacy of Simple-Minded Certitude. If, however, her statement is merely an immediate emotional over-reaction, and she then becomes more open-minded and reasonable as the discussion proceeds, she is not fundamentally intransigent.

Ramone's best strategy in the face of Debbie's apparent over-reaction would be to respond with "sweet reason". As a critical thinker, he would focus on the issue without raising the emotional temperature. His response would be mild and measured. He might think: "Uh-oh, I've married a crazed rage-aholic." But he wouldn't say it. He would say something like: "Well, I'd like to look into it... it's a decision for both of us... we should always put the health of our children first."

Pure, persistent Simple-Minded Certitude in the face of incontrovertible contrary evidence is a characteristic of the less reflective and intellectually respectable professions to be found in our community – such as clairvoyants, opinion columnists and celebrities. Consider for example, the common situation where a famous actor (who also happens to believe that they are clairvoyant) decides to write an opinion column and advocates a position in the following form: "If the government does X, then Y will surely follow." In time, the government does X, but Y does not in fact follow. In such circumstances, the more opinionated and simple-minded the advocate is, the more unlikely it is they would admit to error. They will characteristically dissemble, squirm and avoid at all costs the admission "I was wrong".

 

Self-Defeating Argument

Other terms and/or Related Concepts

Self-refuting idea; Self-refuting sentence; Self-contradiction; Tautology; Begging the Question; Circular reasoning

Description

A Self-Defeating Argument is one that is internally inconsistent (self-contradictory) and as such, by definition is false (and therefore meaningless). The proponent has inadvertently set up a paradoxical circular argument; if the conclusion is accepted as true, the premises must be false (which therefore means the conclusion must actually be false, which then could mean the premises are true... ad infinitum).

A classic example is the liar paradox. Consider the following:

The following sentence is false. The preceding sentence is true.

If we accept the first sentence, then we must conclude the second sentence is false. However, in doing this, we invalidate the "truthfulness" of the first sentence, but if that’s the case...

Example

Dani Nigher is arguing with her friend Con Senses about climate change.

"Global warming just can't happen. Think about it. They say the overall temperature of the Earth's oceans will increase. What happens to the volume of water when it gets hotter? It increases! An increase in ocean levels will mean an increase in ocean volume and as such, ocean surface area. But, if the ocean surface area increases, we'll also get, as a consequence, more evaporation.

More evaporation means heat gets taken away from the surface, and more importantly, more cloud cover, which will stop sunlight reaching the surface of the Earth. More light will be reflected into space. That is, the increase in evaporation will actually cause cooling, and cancel out global warming from the greenhouse effect!"

Comment

Ignoring all other flaws on Dani's argument, we will just focus on her logic. If we believe the conclusion, that excessive evaporation will cancel out warming by greenhouse gases, then how did the ocean surface area increase? (A prediction of global warming is the melting of polar ice caps, and thermal expansion of the oceans, will cause a rise in ocean levels.) The conclusion contradicts the premise, so is invalid. By definition the premise must be accepted as true for the conclusion to be valid. But if the conclusion contradicts the premise, we have a Self-Defeating Argument.

Now, of course, giving Dani the benefit of the doubt, we could rephrase her idea and propose a reasonable, non-contradictory hypothesis. For example, the increase in ocean surface area could damp climate change causing a lag in warming. Or, the increase in surface area could be involved in a cycle, that means periodically the temperature goes up, then goes down, then goes up.... and so on. Whatever the case, it won't be a simple cancellation.

Without having consulted any literature on climate change, or bothering to talk to even a single climate scientist, one still feels fairly safe in presuming variables, such as the increase in surface area of oceans and consequent evaporation, is something that (among thousands of other variables) scientists do account for.

 

Red Herring

Other Terms and/or Related Concepts

Moving the goalposts; the Chewbacca Defense.

Description

The advocate deliberately introduces an irrelevant topic into a discussion or debate in order to divert attention away from the topic under consideration. The Red Herring is similar to Moving the Goalposts, in that the advocate is attempting to change the focus of the conversation. What makes Red Herrings different is the employment of outright non-sequiturs.

Examples

1. Newton Mattburt was accused of assaulting his former girlfriend Sacha Wellbroke. His lawyer spoke on his behalf outside the court: "Mr. Mattburt pleaded not guilty to the charges and will defend himself vigorously. Let's get some perspective," Mattburt’s solicitor went on to say: "Ninety people died in Iraqastan today, most of them kids. This is a very minor matter."

2. In the South Park episode “Chef Aid”, Lawyer Johnnie Cochran is representing a record label who is suing the character Chef over the intellectual property of the song "Stinky Britches”. He starts talking about Chewbacca (from the Star Wars movies), referring to the fact that Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk who lives on the planet Endor (he actually doesn't). But as Cochran points out, this does not make sense:

Cochran: Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense!

And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, [approaches and softens] does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests."

(South Park 1998, Season 2, Episode 14)

Comment

The kind of Non Sequitur used by Mattburt’s lawyer in the first example is a Red Herring. It is a deliberate attempt to divert attention away from the real issue under consideration - that Mattburt (allegedly) beat his (now ex) girlfriend. Most of us would agree that 90 people dying in a war zone is, in the grand scheme of things, worse than one person being assaulted. However, this has nothing to do with the case.

In the second example we have an extreme version of the Red Herring Fallacy called the "Chewbacca Defense" - coined in the animated series South Park. South Park satirised the closing argument of the attorney (Johnnie Cochran) defending O.J. Simpson at his murder trial. The Chewbacca Defense is more extreme that a "standard" Red Herring. It is a series of bizarre non-sequiturs whose only purpose is to confuse an opponent.

 

Popular Opinion

Other Terms and/or Related Concepts

Ad populum; majority rules.

Description

The advocate asserts that because the great majority of people in general agree with his or her position on an issue, he or she must be right. A variant is where the advocate asserts that he or she must be right because a particular group (rather than the population as a whole) agrees with the advocate.

Example

Alison Granules is a "concerned mother" taking part in a televised "Hypotheticals" debate on decriminalisation of Heroin use. She asserts: "People are not stupid. The great majority of voters will not stand for the provision of free heroin to users by government authorities. Everyone knows you can't cure addiction by supplying addicts with addictive drugs."

Dr Dennis Pontificatum (the spokesperson for the Society of Physicians on drug policy) interjects: "Yes, but the great majority of drug and alcohol experts would take the opposite view. Who are you going to believe?"

Comment

In the example above, both Alison and Dennis are attempting to validate their positions by claiming support from majority opinion. In Alison's case, she is asserting the value of general, non-specialist, "democratic" opinion in the general population. Perhaps underlying her case is the assumption that "commonsense" opinion is of more value than the views of "so called" experts.

Dennis is attempting to trump her appeal by citing the opinions of a group which he presumes has more credibility and insight than the general population. His underlying assumption is that the majority views of specialists are of more value than the "ignorant masses".

Either way, Appealing to Popular Opinion does not provide any evidence for that opinion other than, "Some other people believe what I'm saying is true". If that's the best evidence for a claim, then it's probably not much of a claim. When Appeals to Popular Opinion are made in arguing a point, the seeker after truth needs to be skeptical about majority views – whether those views are from the general population or a selected, expert group with "insider knowledge".

It is understandable to place greater weight on expert opinion on any topic. This heuristic will work more often than not, but if solely relied upon, may lead the seeker after truth very badly astray. In many fields of enquiry or policy-making for example, the experts are almost always entirely self-selected. That is, they choose to seek a career in (say) child protection, drug policy, defence studies or social welfare because of a pre-existing set of strongly held values. They may use their position of influence to ensure that their views prevail in the relevant areas of social policy.

We should have a systematic bias to favour the opinion of experts over non-experts. We should also take this into account and attempt to independently verify the expert opinion where possible. At the very least we should expect experts to explain why they hold their position, rather than allowing them to assert it, relying on our deference to yield them their point. Seekers after truth will not meekly accept the validity of an expert opinion. They will demand evidence and a rational justification.

Other examples

Did you know that the supplement industry is now worth over $50 bn world wide annually? This just goes to show the importance of having a daily multivitamin.