Hunting Humbug 101: Episode 0005: Factoid propagation - brain claims:: This episode is partially based on my presentation at Brisbane SkeptiCamp 2014 Clips and information from this episode can be found here:...
Showing posts with label Factoid Propagation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Factoid Propagation. Show all posts
Saturday, July 19, 2014
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
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.
Monday, December 12, 2011
Three ways of examining brain claims Part Three - learning styles
In Parts One and Two I examined the 10 percent brain myth and the educational program 'Brain Gym'. I applied the LMGTFY test and the Plausibility test to these claims (which they respectively failed). In this final post I will look at learning styles.
There are many variants of learning styles, for the sake of this examination I'll look at the most popular model, Visual-Auditory-Kinasthetic (VAK).
Let's consider this model and its claims a bit more closely. From http://www.ldpride.net/learningstyles.MI.htm:
I first came across VAK learning styles when I was doing my undergraduate degree in Education. I was immediately skeptical. Perhaps it was because I found I liked to learn with all three styles, and I generalized my own experience to be a universal one.... Or more likely, it relates to that expression, “If it smells like bullsh*t, it probably is bullsh*t”.
The claim was that optimal teaching and learning required diagnoses of my students' learning styles and tailoring my lessons to those individuals accordingly. I had no interest in teaching the same content in three different ways to my three different types of students based on this. When I was teaching, say, Newton's laws of motion, I varied my approaches anyway, to keep the lessons interesting and to give students every opportunity to understand a reasonably difficult concept. There were notes on the whiteboard, diagrams that I'd explain, they would conduct experiments, practice questions etc. I.e., all the students would learn about Newton's laws using all three learning styles. The mode of instruction depended on the content.
This is not to say differentiation for individual students isn't appropriate. It's the method by which we 'diagnose' who is having difficulty and why, that is important. I would diagnose which students were having difficulty and differentiate accordingly. I would do this by observation, collecting work, asking questions etc. I'd also take into account any medically diagnosed learning difficulties and act on them as appropriate.
That being said, so long as one doesn't make the claim that visual learners, for example, can only learn visually, at first glance, these claims seem plausible. People, when asked, do have preferred ways of learning. Moreover, people may be better at retaining visual, auditory or kinesthetic information. E.g. some people are natural musicians, or 3-D designers, or better at tennis.
This is the reason I think VAK seems plausible. We can all relate to being better at one style of of these or another. However, being more natural at one of the VAKs, is not the same as learning any kind of information through one of the VAKs. Conflating these two ideas is where proponents have gone wrong.
Be that as it may, let's take it as a given that the claims of VAK proponents are plausible. We now need to apply the Empirical Evidence test.
In 2009, Psychological Science in the Public Interest published an analysis of learning styles practices, evaluating their claims and reviewing the academic literature. From their summary:
I.e. we need to see the results of a randomised controlled trial. If learning something in one's preferred learning style leads to improved learning, we should see that in the results. A valid learning styles hypothesis would mean students who learn with their preferred learning style should, on average, out perform students who do not.
Their literature review found that:
Here's a good short YouTube video about learning styles.
The term ‘‘learning styles'' refers to the concept that individuals differ in regard to what mode of instruction or study is most effective for them. of learning style typically ask people to evaluate what sort of information presentation they prefer (e.g., words versus pictures versus speech) and/or what kind of mental activity they find most engaging or congenial (e.g., analysis versus listening), although assessment instruments are extremely diverse. The most common—but not the only—hypothesis about the instructional relevance of learning styles is the meshing hypothesis, according to which instruction is best provided in a format that matches the preferences of the learner (e.g., for a ‘‘visual learner,'' emphasizing visual presentation of information). (Pashler, H. et al. 2009 - pdf)As with Brain Gym, when you google learning styles, it is not immediately dismissed or accepted. Moreover, at first glance its claims seem more than reasonable.
There are many variants of learning styles, for the sake of this examination I'll look at the most popular model, Visual-Auditory-Kinasthetic (VAK).
Let's consider this model and its claims a bit more closely. From http://www.ldpride.net/learningstyles.MI.htm:
Visual Learners:
These learners need to see the teacher's body language and facial expression to fully understand the content of a lesson. They tend to prefer sitting at the front of the classroom to avoid visual obstructions (e.g. people's heads). They may think in pictures and learn best from visual displays including: diagrams, illustrated text books, overhead transparencies, videos, flipcharts and hand-outs. During a lecture or classroom discussion, visual learners often prefer to take detailed notes to absorb the information.
Auditory Learners:They learn best through verbal lectures, discussions, talking things through and listening to what others have to say. Auditory learners interpret the underlying meanings of speech through listening to tone of voice, pitch, speed and other nuances. Written information may have little meaning until it is heard. These learners often benefit from reading text aloud and using a tape recorder.
Tactile/Kinesthetic Learners:Tactile/Kinesthetic persons learn best through a hands-on approach, actively exploring the physical world around them. They may find it hard to sit still for long periods and may become distracted by their need for activity and exploration.
I first came across VAK learning styles when I was doing my undergraduate degree in Education. I was immediately skeptical. Perhaps it was because I found I liked to learn with all three styles, and I generalized my own experience to be a universal one.... Or more likely, it relates to that expression, “If it smells like bullsh*t, it probably is bullsh*t”.
The claim was that optimal teaching and learning required diagnoses of my students' learning styles and tailoring my lessons to those individuals accordingly. I had no interest in teaching the same content in three different ways to my three different types of students based on this. When I was teaching, say, Newton's laws of motion, I varied my approaches anyway, to keep the lessons interesting and to give students every opportunity to understand a reasonably difficult concept. There were notes on the whiteboard, diagrams that I'd explain, they would conduct experiments, practice questions etc. I.e., all the students would learn about Newton's laws using all three learning styles. The mode of instruction depended on the content.
This is not to say differentiation for individual students isn't appropriate. It's the method by which we 'diagnose' who is having difficulty and why, that is important. I would diagnose which students were having difficulty and differentiate accordingly. I would do this by observation, collecting work, asking questions etc. I'd also take into account any medically diagnosed learning difficulties and act on them as appropriate.
That being said, so long as one doesn't make the claim that visual learners, for example, can only learn visually, at first glance, these claims seem plausible. People, when asked, do have preferred ways of learning. Moreover, people may be better at retaining visual, auditory or kinesthetic information. E.g. some people are natural musicians, or 3-D designers, or better at tennis.
This is the reason I think VAK seems plausible. We can all relate to being better at one style of of these or another. However, being more natural at one of the VAKs, is not the same as learning any kind of information through one of the VAKs. Conflating these two ideas is where proponents have gone wrong.
Be that as it may, let's take it as a given that the claims of VAK proponents are plausible. We now need to apply the Empirical Evidence test.
In 2009, Psychological Science in the Public Interest published an analysis of learning styles practices, evaluating their claims and reviewing the academic literature. From their summary:
A credible validation of learning-styles-based instruction requires a very particular type of experimental finding:
- Students must be divided into groups on the basis of their learning styles.
- Students from each group must be randomly assigned to receive one of multiple instructional methods.
- Students must sit for a final test that is the same for all.
- Children and adults will, if asked, express preferences about how they prefer information to be presented to them.
- People differ in the degree to which they have some fairly specific aptitudes for different kinds of thinking and for processing different types of information.
Although the literature on learning styles is enormous, very few studies have even used an experimental methodology capable of testing the validity of learning styles applied to education. Moreover, of those that did use an appropriate method, several found results that flatly contradict the popular meshing hypothesis.
We conclude therefore, that at present, there is no adequate evidence base to justify incorporating learning-styles assessments into general educational practice. Thus, limited education resources would better be devoted to adopting other educational practices that have a strong evidence base, of which there are an increasing number. However, given the lack of methodologically sound studies of learning styles, it would be an error to conclude that all possible versions of learning styles have been tested and found wanting; many have simply not been tested at all.The paper, "Learning Styles - Concepts and Evidence", 2009. Association for Psychological Science. can be found here: http://www.psychologicalscience.org/journals/pspi/PSPI_9_3.pdf
Here's a good short YouTube video about learning styles.
Friday, November 18, 2011
Three ways of examining brain (or any other) claims - Part One
Over the years, I've been exposed to many claims about how the brain works and how this knowledge can be applied in education. This is clearly true. Learning occurs in the brain. However, this fundamental premise does not lead to the conclusion that all claims about the brain and how it applies to education are true.
How are we to decide what to believe?
I'm only a layperson when it comes to neuroscience, but one of the good things about learning to think skeptically is being able to apply a few simple tests in order to decide whether a claim is worth believing or not. The three broad tests I apply are:
The third test only comes in to action when the first two tests are passed. If a quick google doesn't resolve the truth of the claim, or it sounds plausible, then deeper research is required. We need (high quality) empirical evidence.
If only there was some way of easily searching for information... here lmgtfy
I'm constantly amazed at the seeming inability, or unwillingness (if I'm being fair), of people to google. There are some claims that are checked with a 30 second google search. Take, for example, the factiod that we only use 10% of our brain.
Snopes (check), Wikipeda (check), Scientific American (check), and boom, myth busted. No need to move on.
I know a bit about brains, biology and evolution
As the Snopes article and the Wikipedia entry explain, the claim that we only use 10% of our brain is a biologically implausible. If I had a background in biology, I’d have already known, for example, that brain imaging shows all the brain is active, brain injuries lead to a loss of function, and evolution by natural selection is a merciless process that would eliminate such a wasteful inefficiency.
Thus my background knowledge allows me to dismiss this claim as implausible without heading to google.
These two ways of evaluating a claim are very simple, and work well for claims that have a black and white answer. Of course, many claims aren't so black and white.
In two more posts I’ll apply the same logic to claims about the brain and learning that are not as easily dismissed. Part two will look at “Brain Gym”, which lacks plausibility, but isn't immediately dismissed when doing a quick google. In Part three I will look at “Learning styles”, which again, isn't resolved with a quick google, but compared to Brain Gym, seems very plausible.
Update. Here's an example of what can happen to you if you don't check your facts...
How are we to decide what to believe?
I'm only a layperson when it comes to neuroscience, but one of the good things about learning to think skeptically is being able to apply a few simple tests in order to decide whether a claim is worth believing or not. The three broad tests I apply are:
- LMGTFY (let me google that for you)
- The Plausibility Test (is it really even plausible?)
- Empirical evidence (Okay, google wasn't definitive, and it sounds plausible, so what does the evidence say?)
The third test only comes in to action when the first two tests are passed. If a quick google doesn't resolve the truth of the claim, or it sounds plausible, then deeper research is required. We need (high quality) empirical evidence.
If only there was some way of easily searching for information... here lmgtfy
I'm constantly amazed at the seeming inability, or unwillingness (if I'm being fair), of people to google. There are some claims that are checked with a 30 second google search. Take, for example, the factiod that we only use 10% of our brain.
Snopes (check), Wikipeda (check), Scientific American (check), and boom, myth busted. No need to move on.I know a bit about brains, biology and evolution
As the Snopes article and the Wikipedia entry explain, the claim that we only use 10% of our brain is a biologically implausible. If I had a background in biology, I’d have already known, for example, that brain imaging shows all the brain is active, brain injuries lead to a loss of function, and evolution by natural selection is a merciless process that would eliminate such a wasteful inefficiency.
Thus my background knowledge allows me to dismiss this claim as implausible without heading to google.
These two ways of evaluating a claim are very simple, and work well for claims that have a black and white answer. Of course, many claims aren't so black and white.
In two more posts I’ll apply the same logic to claims about the brain and learning that are not as easily dismissed. Part two will look at “Brain Gym”, which lacks plausibility, but isn't immediately dismissed when doing a quick google. In Part three I will look at “Learning styles”, which again, isn't resolved with a quick google, but compared to Brain Gym, seems very plausible.
Update. Here's an example of what can happen to you if you don't check your facts...
(face, meet palm)
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Podcast: Tutorial 21 - Factoid Propagation
Factoid propagations can be harmless (like the Stella awards) and harmful (like the MMR Autism fraud/hoax).
The harmful factoid is the now discredited Wakefield study. The media very much to blame for the initial and continued scare, though at least there's now been some coverage of the correction. Keith Olbermann's Worst Person in the World is my number one example...
Download this mp3 here: 
Subscribe via the links to the left or listen below
Notes:
- Example - McDonnald's Hot Coffee and other "frivolous" law suits . The "Stella" awards. The fact - youtube "Legal Minute: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImaG1ugF5FM
- Spot that fallacy with Jeni Barnett
1. The notion that we’re all the same – “Straw man” and “factoid propagation” – who says this?
2. Drug company making money – impugning motives (as opposed to the vitamin company...)
3. Having it both ways, carp, rise in asthma, obesity etc., outright falsehoods, non-sequiturs and red herrings.
4. Back in the day, when children got Measles, mumps etc. “she’s not advocating that” she says, yet later on does exactly that. Internally inconsistent (note - this is one obvious case of this, there are others...)
5. If as a human being, you decide, etc. In a democracy you should have the right to say no. This is where you can use the technique of Substitution.
6. We have evidence – no we don’t – demonstrably false. Factoid propagation of Wakefield's infamous and now utterly discredited MMR autism
7. Not part of the herd. Sanctimony and weasel words
8. Information being withheld. etc. Paranoid conspiracy mongering. Other things withheld... Rotashield as an example of how evidence is not withheld - it's dealt with openly.
9. The whole thing is Browbeating
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
Double blind wins again
...but will it make a difference? No.
Are some people sensitive to mobile phone signals? (BMJ. 2006 April 15; 332(7546): 886–891.). Short answer, "No".
Long answer from the abstract:
Back to my first point. Does this fairly conclusive and simple study make a difference?
It's not as if the evidence isn't two words away. The paper I linked to is the first peer reviewed double blind trial I found using google scholar which looked at "electromagnetic sensitivity". One hopes if it gets to court, the lawyers will give google a crack.
Here's an even better solution. The city of Santa Fe could label all their WiFi points as "natural" and "organic". That'd do the trick. Or they could offer all the sensitive people "tin-foil deflector beanies". They combat mind control too! (Although there is evidence these might amplify some signals.)
_________
Hat tip SGU for the Santa Fe story.
Are some people sensitive to mobile phone signals? (BMJ. 2006 April 15; 332(7546): 886–891.). Short answer, "No".
Long answer from the abstract:
Objective: To test whether people who report being sensitive to mobile phone signals have more symptoms when exposed to a pulsing mobile signal than when exposed to a sham signal or a non-pulsing signal.I.e., once they thought they were being exposed to electromagnetic waves, they got a headache. QED for psychosomatic symptoms and the nocebo effect.
Participants: 60 “sensitive” people who reported often getting headache-like symptoms within 20 minutes of using a global system for mobile communication (GSM) mobile phone and 60 “control” participants who did not report any such symptoms.
Intervention: Participants were exposed to three conditions: a 900 MHz GSM mobile phone signal, a non-pulsing carrier wave signal, and a sham condition with no signal present. Each exposure lasted for 50 minutes.
Results: Headache severity increased during exposure and decreased immediately afterwards. However, no strong evidence was found of any difference between the conditions in terms of symptom severity. Nor did evidence of any differential effect of condition between the two groups exist. The proportion of sensitive participants who believed a signal was present during GSM exposure (60%) was similar to the proportion who believed one was present during sham exposure (63%).
Conclusions: No evidence was found to indicate that people with self reported sensitivity to mobile phone signals are able to detect such signals or that they react to them with increased symptom severity. As sham exposure was sufficient to trigger severe symptoms in some participants, psychological factors may have an important role in causing this condition.
Back to my first point. Does this fairly conclusive and simple study make a difference?
A group in Santa Fe says the city is discriminating against them because they say that they're allergic to the wireless Internet signal. And now they want Wi-Fi banned from public buildings. Arthur Firstenberg says he is highly sensitive to certain types of electric fields, including wireless Internet and cell phones.What is the journalistic and legalistic take on this?
The city attorney is now checking to see if putting up Wi-Fi could be considered discrimination.Here's an idea. What about checking to see if there's any evidence for this "disability", beyond a psychosomatic response? If it's not a real physiological problem, then legally, there is no problem. Moreover, we might get to the truth of the matter. (I guess I can't expect this to be the motivation of a journalist of lawyer, can I...) Given the credulous reporting of this story, and similar stories, I won't be at all surprised if electrical sensitivity becomes a factoid.
It's not as if the evidence isn't two words away. The paper I linked to is the first peer reviewed double blind trial I found using google scholar which looked at "electromagnetic sensitivity". One hopes if it gets to court, the lawyers will give google a crack.
Here's an even better solution. The city of Santa Fe could label all their WiFi points as "natural" and "organic". That'd do the trick. Or they could offer all the sensitive people "tin-foil deflector beanies". They combat mind control too! (Although there is evidence these might amplify some signals.)
_________
Hat tip SGU for the Santa Fe story.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
More proof Bush is dumb – youtube factoid
This hardly needs any explanation. Bush said this the other day:
Now he's not the most articulate guy in the world, but come on, it's obvious he didn't literally mean Nelson Mandela is dead; killed by Saddam Hussein.
Anyone who thought this, like most of the enlightened commentators on youtube, ought to ask themselves how biased they are. Of course, that won't happen.
For example, Phil, at Larvatus Prodeo decided to Propagate this Factoid:
No Phil, what really doesn't cut it is your arse clown backpedalling from this:
To this:
Phil and co's attempted rationalisations remind me of a conversation I heard involving people stuck down a deep hole they'd dug. Instead of digging up, perhaps you could have just said: "Doh!"
Still. The comments from people who get their news from a comedy take it to another (lower) level.
Now he's not the most articulate guy in the world, but come on, it's obvious he didn't literally mean Nelson Mandela is dead; killed by Saddam Hussein.
Anyone who thought this, like most of the enlightened commentators on youtube, ought to ask themselves how biased they are. Of course, that won't happen.
For example, Phil, at Larvatus Prodeo decided to Propagate this Factoid:
Phil was told Bush doesn't literally believe Saddam Hussein had Nelson Mandela killed:Usually he’s just too easy a target to bother posting on his many gaffes, and after almost two full terms you’d think you’d get used to this president, but unfortunately George Bush still conspires to surprise with another incredible dose of the stupid.
You do understand that “Mandela” in this case doesn’t literally mean Nelson Mandela? Instead of acknowledging the error, he (and the Bush bashing commentators) Move the Goalposts. Now it's about it being a "bad analogy", not a "Bushism":This isn’t stupid. Hussein DID kill anyone capable of establishing a Mandela-like profile against Hussein’s dictatorship.
And that’s supposed to make it sound better Tim? Oh, and I thought Chalabi and the exile de jour was supposed to be Iraq’s “Mandela”? Sorry buddy, that don’t cut it."That don't cut it"? Touche.
No Phil, what really doesn't cut it is your arse clown backpedalling from this:
Of course it’s already on heavy rotation on You Tube where the WTF! impact strikes even harder.
Maybe he’s been using Miss Teen South Carolinas [sic] map of the Iraq as a guide.
To this:
BTW, I’m astounded that the flying monkeys have read a quick and simple post about Bush’s poor public speaking and mangled and inarticulate use of language (hence the Miss Teen Sth Carolina linkage) as they have, it should have been pretty obvious that I fully understood what Bush was on about in my response to Tim.And this:
Of course more interesting to me was how inarticulately (?) he made his point, but it looks like that got lost in translation.No. You were perfectly clear. You said Bush was stupid in the original post. Then, on finding out you were stupid, you claimed you actually meant he is inarticulate. Now you are not only stupid, but a liar as well.
Phil and co's attempted rationalisations remind me of a conversation I heard involving people stuck down a deep hole they'd dug. Instead of digging up, perhaps you could have just said: "Doh!"
Still. The comments from people who get their news from a comedy take it to another (lower) level.
Monday, January 01, 2007
Xenophobic electorate elects PM responsible for 130000 migrants a year
Clive Hamilton in the Sydney Morning Herald:Rarely in our history has a federal government pursued such a high level of immigration as the Howard Government. Each year about 130,000 new migrants arrive on our shores… the Government plans to increase the numbers.
The fact that John Howard, who has gained re-election by exploiting Hansonite xenophobia, has presided over a record inflow of foreigners is an irony little remarked, not least because the Government tries to keep the figures quiet.
There are two types of humbug I wish to examine here. First is a Self Defeating Argument - with the statement that the government exploits xenophobia in the electorate yet is responsible for mass immigration. These two claims from Hamilton are inconsistent, and given one of them is a fact (130000 immigrants), the other (xenophobic electorate) would seem to be false. However, it could be true if it was also a fact that the government tries to keep these figures quiet (as he claims). Well, I found the figures in about 2 minutes of browsing. Perhaps it's just an uninterested media?
The second bit of humbug actually voids the first in a way. Technically, Hamilton doesn't offer up a Self Defeating Argument, as he hasn’t actually linked the immigration numbers to the claim of xenophobia. As a matter of fact, he hasn't provided any evidence for this claim. He is simply Propagating a Factoid.
Now, I could be wrong about all this. The Howard government might try to keep the immigration figures quiet to keep onside with a xenophobic electorate. But Hamilton hasn't provided one shred of evidence for these claims.
____________________
Source: It's life, but certainly not as we want it - Clive Hamilton - Sydney Morning Herald - December 30, 2006.
Technorati Tagged - Fallacy, Self Defeating Argument, Factoid Propagation.
Sunday, January 01, 2006
What's the point in Jim Soorley?
He's like a car accident, I know I shouldn't look (read him) because I'll regret it (in fending off the inanity of his "thoughts" I will be forced to bite off my own tongue), yet I invariably do (when I buy the Sunday Paper).His inconsistencies and invincible ignorance drive me to distraction. For example, he gave us (this Sunday) some "awards" for the year (Packer good, Rumsfeld bad):
SECURITY
The Packer Award to the federal and state agencies who got ahead of the terrorist planners in Sydney and Melbourne and made preventive arrests.
The Rumsfeld Award to John Howard who could not help but grandstand on the issue just days before the arrests, putting at risk the whole operation.
In one sentence he Impugns the Motives of the PM (without any rationale), and delivers a Factoid Propagation (putting the operation at risk). (That's only two fallacies in one sentence, so it'll be a while before he catches Phillip Adams.) And Jimbo conveniently ignores the fact that he [the PM] had to rush the terror laws through parliament for the arrests to be effected - and perhaps people would like some kind of justification for that? (But if you were to actually do any research, Jim, I guess it would take more than the normal 15 minutes it takes to write your waste of ink, sorry, column. And what's more, why let the truth stand in the way of some more pointlessness?)
And now for a few Jimbo inconsistencies: Hey Jim, funny that you give the good "award" to those federal and state agencies - one of them wouldn't be ASIO would it? I thought you thought (in your paranoia - where's the evidence?) ASIO was bad: "…we now have ASIO running the country, giving secret briefings behind closed doors, which will alter forever our whole social and civic fabric."
And in the same column (How we have let the terrorists win - 2/10/2005) you said:
We have been regarded as one of the great liberal democracies where civil liberties would never be betrayed. Well, the terrorists have won the battle in Australia – our national leadership team met and imposed draconian legislation on us all on the basis of fear.
Yet a little over a month later (20/11/2005) you give us Terror response was a disgrace:
So should we or shouldn't we have ads alerting us to the dangers of terrorism? I would have thought, given your tone and previous column, you'd say "no". But, we should remove lockers for fear of bombs… wouldn't mean the terrorists had won? Don't think about it too hard (i.e., just give it your usual consideration) because I wouldn't want you to suffer cognitive dissonance.Remember the Queensland Government's campaign telling us to look for suspicious bags on railway platforms and trains? It cost us $800,000. One of Australia's security risk experts pointed out to me this week that both Central Station and Roma St Station still have lockers for bags. I would have thought that if suspicious bags on trains were cause for a terror alert, we would remove any place where terrorists could place bags with explosives. I will not tell you the words the expert used, but "incompetent", "stupid" and "a joke" are mild versions of what he had to say.
Ps. You probably actually misunderstood the security expert. Most likely he had read your previous columns and was actually referring to you.
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
All Hail the Fallacy Meister
In today's Australian Phillip Adams manages to pack seven fallacies into a single short sentence. The sentence: My generation grew up believing we wouldn't grow up (see link above for full article).If we play "spot the fallacy" with this sentence, we can make the case that is contains (in context) Factoid Propagation, Observational Selection, Popular Opinion, Simple-Minded Certitude, Special Pleading, Stacking the Deck and Unfounded Generalization.
Phillip seems to be getting more adept and skilled at generating fallacies as he ages. In decades past, a tally of seven fallacies on a "spot the fallacies" bingo card would not be reached until towards the end of one of his columns, and even a few years ago, at least a paragraph of the Master's text would be required. The question arises: "How is it possible for a single person to be so prolific in generating fallacies, and further, how can he become even better with advancing age?"
The answer I think lies in Phillip's increasing self-obsession and ego centrism. To Phillip, his own experience is the experience of all others, and his own views about anything and everything are the only views which could possibly be held by any right-thinking person. So he feels that he merely has to assert a belief, and that is the end of argument. By definition he is right. His beliefs are truths. So if he says that his generation grew up believing that they wouldn't grow up, then it is so. Others of his generation who don't have such a recollection are deluded, or they are liars. Phillip has written, and it is so.
Sunday, April 17, 2005
What about Sony walkmans (then discmans)?
Scourge – "A source of widespread dreadful affliction and devastation such as that caused by pestilence or war."
Not really the first word that springs to mind when describing the impact of iPods:
Education commentator Christopher Bantick, who branded iPods a "scourge", warned that kids who took them to school could be distracted from learning.
When I think of iPods, the word that springs to mind is "overrated" (compared to my brilliant Pocket PC). The use of the word scourge, however, is a clear example of a weasel word –an emotionally loaded label used to bolster one's position. But one fallacy is not enough:
"If they are playing them throughout the day they are definitely leading to social isolation and a very clear distraction from instruction," Mr Bantick said.
"Definitely". Could this be an example of a factoid propogation? What evidence does Bantick base this claim on? Why just iPods? People have been using portable music players for decades. My own (admittedly anecdotal) evidence would suggest this is not true. More often that not students share headphones to listen to music. The music then becomes a topic of conversation: "I really like the new Britney Spears song, do you want to hear it?" I'm no teen psychologist, but this doesn't seem to be particularly isolating.
As to iPods being a "...clear distraction from instruction" - not in any class I teach. I find it difficult to believe that any other teachers allow students to listen to portable music players when they are "instructing" students, as Bantick is implying.
Not really the first word that springs to mind when describing the impact of iPods:
Education commentator Christopher Bantick, who branded iPods a "scourge", warned that kids who took them to school could be distracted from learning.
When I think of iPods, the word that springs to mind is "overrated" (compared to my brilliant Pocket PC). The use of the word scourge, however, is a clear example of a weasel word –an emotionally loaded label used to bolster one's position. But one fallacy is not enough:
"If they are playing them throughout the day they are definitely leading to social isolation and a very clear distraction from instruction," Mr Bantick said.
"Definitely". Could this be an example of a factoid propogation? What evidence does Bantick base this claim on? Why just iPods? People have been using portable music players for decades. My own (admittedly anecdotal) evidence would suggest this is not true. More often that not students share headphones to listen to music. The music then becomes a topic of conversation: "I really like the new Britney Spears song, do you want to hear it?" I'm no teen psychologist, but this doesn't seem to be particularly isolating.
As to iPods being a "...clear distraction from instruction" - not in any class I teach. I find it difficult to believe that any other teachers allow students to listen to portable music players when they are "instructing" students, as Bantick is implying.
Monday, March 21, 2005
Race doesn't exist, because if it did, that'd be bad!
The following is a Letter to the Editor of the New York Times:
To the Editor: Race is not a fact rooted in nature, but an ideology that justifies treating people differently based on the meanings we attribute to physical differences. When people are subjected to poor treatment, diagnostic delay and unhealthy environments because of the color of their skin, "race" impairs their health. The ideology of race can have real biological consequences.
Lynn M. Morgan
South Hadley, Mass.
March 15, 2005
(The writer is an anthropology professor at Mount Holyoke College.)
This is a clear case of an Argument to Consequences. In fact, she herself says so: "Race is not a fact rooted in nature, but an ideology… The ideology of race can have real biological consequences." Maybe it can have biological consequences, but this is evidence of bigotry, not evidence against race as a 'fact' rooted in nature. If people attempt to use any 'fact' to justify racism - they are making the Naturalistic Fallacy - attempting to derive ought (as in 'we should') from is - and should be vehemently rebutted on this ground. But the perceived risk of bigotry 'justified' by scientific discovery is not reason for arguing that the discovery is false.
She also has engaged in a few more fallacies in this letter. She makes an anthropological Factoid Propagation with race is: "…an ideology". And shows her Simple Minded Certitude with the statement: "Race is not a fact rooted in nature…".
Here are some extracts from the article she was responding to:
…a 2002 study by scientists at the University of Southern California and Stanford showed that if a sample of people from around the world are sorted by computer into five groups on the basis of genetic similarity, the groups that emerge are native to Europe, East Asia, Africa, America and Australasia - more or less the major races of traditional anthropology.
Ironically, the acceptance of the genetic basis of race will have, if anything, positive consequences. It's not racist to individualize the treatment and prevention of disease based on race, if there are clear differences in the efficacy of these treatments and prevention techniques between racial groups. To do anything but would be sheer folly:
…the recognition of race may improve medical care. Different races are prone to different diseases. The risk that an African-American man will be afflicted with hypertensive heart disease or prostate cancer is nearly three times greater than that for a European-American man. On the other hand, the former's risk of multiple sclerosis is only half as great. Such differences could be due to socioeconomic factors. Even so, geneticists have started searching for racial differences in the frequencies of genetic variants that cause diseases. They seem to be finding them.
Race can also affect treatment. African-Americans respond poorly to some of the main drugs used to treat heart conditions - notably beta blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. Pharmaceutical corporations are paying attention. Many new drugs now come labeled with warnings that they may not work in some ethnic or racial groups.
The author of this article is careful to qualify all of the above with the following caveat, thus avoiding any Unfounded Generalizations:
Such differences are, of course, just differences in average. Everyone agrees that race is a crude way of predicting who gets some disease or responds to some treatment. Ideally, we would all have our genomes sequenced before swallowing so much as an aspirin. Yet until that is technically feasible, we can expect racial classifications to play an increasing part in health care.
Ignoring scientific discoveries to (falsely) feel morally superior does no-one any favours. We need to deal with reality, not fantasy.
To the Editor: Race is not a fact rooted in nature, but an ideology that justifies treating people differently based on the meanings we attribute to physical differences. When people are subjected to poor treatment, diagnostic delay and unhealthy environments because of the color of their skin, "race" impairs their health. The ideology of race can have real biological consequences.
Lynn M. Morgan
South Hadley, Mass.
March 15, 2005
(The writer is an anthropology professor at Mount Holyoke College.)
This is a clear case of an Argument to Consequences. In fact, she herself says so: "Race is not a fact rooted in nature, but an ideology… The ideology of race can have real biological consequences." Maybe it can have biological consequences, but this is evidence of bigotry, not evidence against race as a 'fact' rooted in nature. If people attempt to use any 'fact' to justify racism - they are making the Naturalistic Fallacy - attempting to derive ought (as in 'we should') from is - and should be vehemently rebutted on this ground. But the perceived risk of bigotry 'justified' by scientific discovery is not reason for arguing that the discovery is false.
She also has engaged in a few more fallacies in this letter. She makes an anthropological Factoid Propagation with race is: "…an ideology". And shows her Simple Minded Certitude with the statement: "Race is not a fact rooted in nature…".
Here are some extracts from the article she was responding to:
…a 2002 study by scientists at the University of Southern California and Stanford showed that if a sample of people from around the world are sorted by computer into five groups on the basis of genetic similarity, the groups that emerge are native to Europe, East Asia, Africa, America and Australasia - more or less the major races of traditional anthropology.
Ironically, the acceptance of the genetic basis of race will have, if anything, positive consequences. It's not racist to individualize the treatment and prevention of disease based on race, if there are clear differences in the efficacy of these treatments and prevention techniques between racial groups. To do anything but would be sheer folly:
…the recognition of race may improve medical care. Different races are prone to different diseases. The risk that an African-American man will be afflicted with hypertensive heart disease or prostate cancer is nearly three times greater than that for a European-American man. On the other hand, the former's risk of multiple sclerosis is only half as great. Such differences could be due to socioeconomic factors. Even so, geneticists have started searching for racial differences in the frequencies of genetic variants that cause diseases. They seem to be finding them.
Race can also affect treatment. African-Americans respond poorly to some of the main drugs used to treat heart conditions - notably beta blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. Pharmaceutical corporations are paying attention. Many new drugs now come labeled with warnings that they may not work in some ethnic or racial groups.
The author of this article is careful to qualify all of the above with the following caveat, thus avoiding any Unfounded Generalizations:
Such differences are, of course, just differences in average. Everyone agrees that race is a crude way of predicting who gets some disease or responds to some treatment. Ideally, we would all have our genomes sequenced before swallowing so much as an aspirin. Yet until that is technically feasible, we can expect racial classifications to play an increasing part in health care.
Ignoring scientific discoveries to (falsely) feel morally superior does no-one any favours. We need to deal with reality, not fantasy.
Saturday, January 15, 2005
Examples of Factoid Propagation
The advocate asserts the truth of a proposition that is commonly assumed to be true, when it is not in fact established as true.
- Double blind wins again
- Xenophobic electorate elects PM responsible for 130000 migrants a year
- More moronic memes
- Email memes
- Say something enough times and people will believe it - factoids propagate
- What about Sony walkmans (then discmans)?
- Race doesn't exist, because if it did, that'd be bad!
For a comprehensive and considered written commentary on Factoid Propagation (and other fallacies) - see The skeptic's field guide to spotting fallacies in thinking - Humbug!
___________
Check out our podcast on Factoid Propagations
Download this mp3 here:
Subscribe via the links to the left or listen below
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
The Skeptic's Field Guide by Theo Clark and Jef Clark is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.