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.

Thoughts about MRAs on the internet and accurately employing fallacies - NECSS and Richard Dawkins

Over-sized brain leads to over-sized hubris  

Recently the skeptical part of the internet went into yet another meltdown about women. In short, the Northeast Conference on Science and Skepticism (NECSS) withdrew their invitation to Richard Dawkins to be a featured speaker at their conference, because he, yet again, was a twitter tool. See the details here. (If you don't know why it's "yet another" and "yet again" count your blessings or google "elevatorgate", or "used to be nearly everyone's favourite big brained science dude, but now... not".)

I'm not going to discuss this in any specific detail. This is just a thought I had when reading some comments about it. (Note to self, for the millionth time: Stop. Reading. Comments!)

Normally I try to avoid using fallacies when I make a point, but in this case, stuff it, I'll make an exception because I'll still be right.

What's the deal with all the middle aged white dudes (overgeneralisation) who seem to continually be upset at the idea that women should be afforded the respect they ask for, as opposed to the respect the we think they want or deserve (straw man, but not really)? So much energy and vitriol wasted on something that should just be a no-brainer, when there are actually important issues to get upset and worked up about (false dilemma, but again, not really).

Seriously, calm down. I'm a (nearly) middle aged white dude and guess what, I won the fucking lotto and I know it. I don't want to "give up" this accident of birth luck I've had, but I wouldn't mind everyone else having my luck too. It's not a zero sum game.

Big pharma shill defends more than 90% of drugs being contaminated

A recent study in Nature has found that 92% of 26 medicines tested were found to have some form of contamination and/or substitution, because they included toxic metals, non-listed substituted pharmaceuticals and stimulants, and a variety of DNA, none of which were listed on the product's label.

These researchers used highly sensitive DNA sequencing, toxicology and heavy metal testing to assess the composition of 26 widely available drugs (they were purchased in Adelaide and are available for sale in retailers and markets nationally). The Venn diagram below, taken from their study, shows that only two of the 26 drugs tested were clean.

One results worth highlighting: some of the drugs also included ephedrine, which gives many people a buzz, making them feel good immediately (ergo, the medicine feels great and they should keep taking it). Also worth noting that nearly all were non-compliant for heavy metals and other dangerous substances, including more than the safe limit of arsenic, cadmium, lead and strychnine.

This is appalling. Big pharma is a multi-billion-dollar industry and this lack of quality control is inexcusable. What is just as shocking and inexcusable as the results, is the reaction from National President of the Federation of Pharmacists of Australia, Professor Linda Child. She does not believe such findings would be widespread across the industry, saying: "It will be one or two individual companies. It may be one or two cases [that have] happened, but not many. The current regulatory regime is perfect."

Ah, what? 24 out of 26 would suggest it's the norm and the opposite of perfect. For her to say this, instead of being outraged, shows she is simply the chief big pharma shill, bought and paid for by the multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical industry. This is an industry that clearly puts profits before patients. What anyone who cares about patients getting the actual ingredients of the prescribed medicines would say (I'd have thought) is that this needs to be properly investigated and someone needs to go to jail.

This is a multi-billion dollar industry. If they chose they could ensure rigorous quality control of ingredients at a minimum. And I'll go further — they should undertake proper, rigorous and open trials that test for the efficacy and safety of medicines. Not the dodgy process they currently go through, with sympathetic proponents rubber stamping every new drug any company wants and protecting them from real regulation and testing.

Second Edition of Humbug! Price drop - only $2

The Second (eBook) Edition of Humbug! is now US$2 from:

• Amazon (Kindle)
• Google Play 
• Apple iBooks
• LULU (DRM free ePub)

Essentially it's as cheap as I can make it through Amazon without enrolling it in Kindle Direct Publishing Select, which you can only do if the book is exclusively on Amazon (which I'd never be prepared to do).

Mike Huckabee's arse backwards analogy

One of the main problems with arguments from analogy is that it's often quite easy to reverse them. From The Guardian:

The Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee on Sunday said... forcing people opposed to same-sex marriage to accept it was the same as telling Jews they had to serve “bacon-wrapped shrimp in their deli”.

No Mike, no. Saying gay people are not allowed to marry would be like Jews telling non-Jews they can't eat bacon.

You've actually just made an argument for gay marriage. We live in pluralist democratic societies with governments that (should) say: "You're free to follow your own beliefs and ways of living so long as you don't force those beliefs on others."

The correct analogy: "Jews are free to not eat and serve bacon-wrapped shrimp, but others are. You are free to not be gay and married, but others are."

Appeal to Authority

Other Terms and/or Related Concepts

Appeal to eminence; appeal to "the great and the good".

Description

This fallacy in reasoning occurs when an advocate appeals to an "authoritative" person or agency in support of his or her own viewpoint, based solely on that person's authority. The authoritative source may have some prominence in the field under consideration or the person/agency may be prominent in an unrelated field. In the latter case, the gullible advocate is relying on the generalized "eminence" of the authority in an attempt to sway the opponent, rather than the presumed expertise of the authority.

Example

Bryan Bladderpocket is an academic with an interest in social policy. He is giving a seminar on multiculturalism to a small group of postgraduate students. One of the students, Mark Gonzo, says: "You claim you're an advocate of multiculturalism, but you're not really - any immigrant group which doesn't conform to liberal middle-class values is anathema to you. Many values of many different cultures conflict with Western conceptions of human rights."

Bryan (the advocate) replies: "I don't accept your point – just last Wednesday, Sir Ernest Willynillly wrote in his opinion column in the East Coast Thunderer that the norms of all known cultures are consistent with universal human rights – and I shouldn't have to remind you that Sir Ernest is a Nobel Prizewinner."

Comment

Bryan has cited Sir Ernest Willynilly's views on human rights in support of his own position. What he hasn't said is that the Nobel Prize Sir Ernest won was for Physics. In such a case, there is no reason for presuming Sir Ernest's views on any social issues have any more weight than anyone else's views.

The seeker after truth is in principle unimpressed by the prominence of the person expressing a viewpoint on an issue. Even if Sir Ernest did have qualifications in relevant social research, Mark would be entitled to be skeptical about his opinions. Without explaining why an authority holds a particular viewpoint, an advocate's argument is weak. Further to this, there are many historical examples where the consensus views of experts in a field of inquiry have been completely overturned in the light of later investigation.

Deceitful advocates often appeal to authority in order to bolster their position. The appeal to authority fallacy is a significant problem in contemporary debate on social issues.

Journalists and editorial staff in the news media often seek the views of "eminent persons" for no better reason than their availability and visibility. Journalists are under pressure of remorseless deadlines. Television, Print and online media proprietors are naturally concerned with ratings, circulation figures and page views respectively. Under such circumstances, it is not surprising that the lazy option is often taken – contact one of the "usual suspects" who can be depended on to comment with affected gravitas on any subject. Preferably a public figure who is popularly seen as humble and self-effacing despite having ruthlessly collected honours, distinctions and personal wealth all his or her working life.

The skeptical viewer will realise (for example) that when Sir Dean Sillybilly, an obscenely rich former supreme court judge and retiring Governor of New South Holland is pontificating on remedies for the plight of the poor during a valedictory television interview, he is more likely to have been part of the problem than part of the solution.

Similarly, the skeptic will realise that when the recently and widely acclaimed Father of the Year – Justice Gustav Flatus OAM, presumes to lecture the rest of us on child-rearing practices, he may not be doing so from credible standpoint. Despite his recent honour, he may not in fact be an exemplary parent. He is in a position to pontificate on parenting because he has managed to achieve a high level of visibility in the community through his "non-fathering" activities. Perhaps he has actually been a workaholic absent father whose long-suffering wife has had to be both mother and father to their children. There is no way of knowing for sure. But we do know that some past recipients of the "Father of the Year" award have put their own careers before the needs of their children.

The prominence of a person is evidence that the person is capable of securing prominence, quite possibly through a meticulously planned, single-minded campaign of self-aggrandizement. It is not evidence that he or she speaks with genuine authority on any matter.

When an advocate appeals to an authority, they are fallacious unless they explain why and how the authority has come to their view.

Appeal to Celebrity

Other Terms and/or Related Concepts

Appeal to Authority; Celebrity Endorsement

Description

The advocate argues that their argument, position, product, world view, political agenda/candidate, proposed action or cause is correct because a celebrity has endorsed it.

Example

James Canary has a child who was just diagnosed with "Indigo Encephalitis". James is arguing with his friend Laura Kronk about its cause. "I know it's related with the internet WiFi's I put in my house. He was a perfectly normal child when I just had the cable for the internets in my computer, but when he was four years old I got a new one that had the WiFi's and all of a sudden he stopped being able to communicate with me the way he used to."

Laura replies: "That's not proof of anything. Correlation doesn't prove causation".

To which James says: "Well, the actor/model Janie McCarter says the radiation from the WiFi's is dangerous and can cause cancer and other brain related illnesses. And what's more, the government and big tech all know about it and are covering it up!"

Comment

An Appeal to Celebrity is much more bizarre than a commonplace Appeal to Authority. This subspecies is worthy of comment because it is increasingly common, and often passes unnoticed by those who should know better.

The short definition of Appeal to Authority is as follows: "The advocate makes an unwarranted appeal to an authoritative person or organization in support of a proposition". Unwarranted in this context means that the appeal is without foundation, and that the supposed "authority" does not really lend any weight to the advocate's proposition (because the authority of the authority on this particular matter is not convincing, or because the advocate is falsely claiming that the authority would agree with the advocate's position).

An appeal to a celebrity's authority takes this fallacy to its absurd extreme.

The most commonplace example is using a celebrity to endorse a product or service through advertising. This tends to be harmless or risible. Harmless examples are clearly advertisements - George Clooney selling coffee. Risible examples are when companies, say, appoint a celebrity as a "creative director".

More insidious is the use of celebrities to argue for a cause. Consider the commonplace case. The celebrity is appearing on a chat show, or a news and current affairs program. The celebrity is perhaps an actor, a model, a sportsperson or reality television "star". Whatever the claim to fame, the celebrity is not known for deep thinking. And yet the interviewer inevitably asks the celebrity about his or her profound thoughts on some deep and complex issue – multilateral defence treaties, bilateral trade agreements, reform of the United Nations, health funding, dry land salinity etc. And the celebrity is eager to pontificate at length on any of these, and presumably the more impressionable viewers will be swayed by the celebrity's half-baked opinions, just because the celebrity is a celebrity.

Just once wouldn’t it be nice to see a journalist-interviewer practice real journalism and say: "Sorry to interrupt you there Sean, but you're talking about politics now, and we're not interested; after all, you're only an actor".

The danger here goes the other way too. As enjoyable as it is to beat up on celebrities, especially when they are hypocritical egomaniacs, one must not dismiss the message a priori just because it's a celebrity giving it. There's always a small chance they might be right...

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.

Argument by Slogan

Other Terms and/or Related Concepts

Mantra argument; using emotive language; appealing to sentiment; cliché thinking; reflex thinking; mindless repetition.

Description

Argument by slogan and the family of fallacies associated with argument by slogan (see other terms above) all have in common an intent on the part of the advocate to sidestep the issue under discussion and to "wrong-foot" the opponent. Instead of logically advancing a viewpoint and dealing with any challenges to that viewpoint, the advocate seeks to wear opposition down by repeatedly asserting a simplistic view of the issue.

Example

At a rally to protest a meeting of the World Economic Forum, Brenda Dudgeon is challenged by a forum delegate from the Seychelles, who asserts that his country needs foreign investment to progress. She picks up her megaphone and begins to chant: "Global capital oppresses the poor! Global capital...". In due course, other protesters take up the chant and the delegate from the Seychelles is drowned out.

Comment

There may or may not be some validity in the assertion that "global capital oppresses the poor". Whatever the truth of the matter, the issue is far more complex than the slogan; and use of the slogan will not advance understanding. If Brenda's behaviour is extremely confrontational, she may even appear on television coverage of the event. If this is her sole aim, she has been successful. But her behaviour is most unlikely to persuade the uncommitted to her view and it is very likely to entrench opposition to her view. Arguably (and ironically), the group least likely to benefit from her sloganeering is "the poor".

If Brenda's beliefs are sincere, and if she wishes to address the causes of poverty in the third world, she needs to engage in productive debate after some thorough self-education on the issues. She needs to break out of her coterie of like-minded activists and to substitute sober reflection and hard work for the "warm inner glow" of sloganeering. If after sober reflection, Brenda has concluded that the unfettered flow of capital around the world is a primary cause of poverty, she will be able to mount a convincing argument. In advancing the argument, she will have supporting evidence for her views and practical suggestions for capital regulation. The uncommitted will seriously consider her perspective. In due course, and in her own small way, she might even advance the plight of the world's poor. It won't be as much fun as public posturing, chanting and sloganeering, but she might actually get results.

The sight of a large group of self-satisfied demonstrators marching under a banner and chanting: "What do we want?" is now a commonplace. This ritual public performance may be boring, alarming, amusing or inspirational to the onlooker - depending on his or her political beliefs, and on what answer the demonstrators give to their rhetorical question ("what do we want?"). To the critical thinker, participation in a mindless crowd of sloganeers is not an effective vehicle for productive engagement with a substantive and difficult issue. It can raise awareness or show there is popular support for the cause being protested. However, often a march under banners, accompanied by an orchestrated chant is more about socialising and group cohesion - rather than a serious attempt to right a wrong, or to initiate political or social change. In most such "demos", visceral posturing has triumphed over intellectual engagement.

It is possible for argument by slogan to manifest itself in even more mindless ways. One of the most outstandingly mindless is the mass-produced "bumper sticker". Sloganeering marches may be futile, but at least walking and chanting is a mild form of healthy exercise. Political bumper stickers really only have one message, whatever the actual words on the sticker itself. The message? "I am a clueless poseur and I apparently believe, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that an infantile declarative statement stuck on the outside of my car amounts to a persuasive argument. Further, I am so bereft of wit, imagination, initiative and literary skills that I have to purchase the sticker off the shelf, rather than creating one of my own."

We know that this might seem to some to be a harsh judgment. But truth must prevail, even if the truth offends those asinine advocates who are also sticklers for stickers.

Bad Faith

Other Terms and/or Related Concepts

Hypocrisy; Duplicity; Deception; Two faced.

Description

The advocate knowingly takes an unprincipled position or carries out an unprincipled action while disingenuously claiming to be motivated by principle.

Bad faith is similar in nature to many other types of humbug, but the key difference is that the advocate is knowingly acting in an unprincipled fashion - out of pure self-interest. Before accusing an advocate of bad faith, it is important to make a reasonable effort to ascertain that one is not merely impugning (their) motives.

Example

Daryl Mory is the spokesperson for an organisation that purports to provide education on the subject of vaccines. Mory's group is facing increased criticism and government scrutiny. He is giving an interview on a radio program in order to limit the negative press. The host, Nancy Mitchell, has just asserted that Mory's group is an anti-vaccination lobby and not interested in education. He responds by saying, "We are not, never have been, anti-vaccination. We are pro-information, pro-choice and a health safety watchdog."

Mitchell has prepared for a response like this. She responds, "I thought you might deny being a vaccine denier, so I did a bit of research. Here's what you've said in the past, and I quote:

• Better hygiene and better nutrition is the reason why we've seen this decline. It has nothing to do with vaccination.
• Vaccines don't work. Vaccines are dangerous.
• Vaccines are instruments of death. Doctors, pharma companies, government officials are murderers. Vaccines are poisons."

Mory responds, "Well, you need to see those quotes in context. And some of them are quite old. We don't advocate one way or the other. We just want more research."

Mitchell lifts up a t-shirt from under the table and says, "Well I just received this t-shirt from your online store. On it is a picture of a crying child and an exaggerated oversized needle, with the slogan, Love them. Protect them. Never inject them. You sir, are a lying hypocrite."

Discussion

Bad Faith involves the adoption of a moral posture which is false. Other more simple descriptors may be used to describe such a posture - "duplicitous scumbag" comes to mind - but bad faith is a term which is worthwhile advancing for its precision of meaning, and emotional coolness. (Calling someone a duplicitous scumbag can be provocative, whereas claiming that they are acting in bad faith may be, or ought to be more tolerable.)

In the example above, Mory initially seems to be a genuine and reasonable person, attempting to provide the public with balanced information. As Mitchell quickly demonstrates, nothing could be further from the truth. Mory is a deliberately deceiving sciolist who has already made up his mind. As the quotes and t-shirt demonstrate, he rationalises his view with straw man arguments, motive impugning, paranoid conspiracy thinking and simple-minded certitude.

When a person is engaged in a debate or argument purely to win, such as a lawyer or debater, then bad faith is not an issue, even when he or she uses a sophisticated knowledge of fallacies to wrong-foot an opponent. However, when the same person maintains that his or her motives are pure - in the service of truth alone, then bad faith is involved.

Some more examples:

• A journalist acts in bad faith when he or she claims to be reporting news - while in reality he or she creates news by provoking newsworthy incidents.
• A social researcher acts in bad faith when he or she claims to be researching a topic in order to discover underlying reality - while in reality he or she discards and doesn't report results which don't support his or her cherished hypothesis.
• A peace activist acts in bad faith when he or she expresses public anguish at the death of non-combatants while privately delighting in such casualties - as civilian deaths add weight to his or her position on armed conflict.
• A Prime Minister acts in bad faith when they appoint someone who doesn't believe on god as Archbishop of Canterbury. The atheist Archbishop preaching (with apparent sincerity) from a pulpit about the resurrection and the life everlasting would also be acting in bad faith. (Well duh!)
• An intergalactic space lord acts in bad faith when in order to catch some rebels he concocts a deal with one of their old acquaintances, who is now governor of a space colony they are due to arrive at; and then after capturing them he reneges and alters the terms of the deal. (One can only pray he doesn't alter it any further.)

Begging the Question

Other Terms and/or Related Concepts

Circular argument; assuming the premise; assuming the conclusion.

Description

The advocate uses the conclusion, or rather the point he or she is attempting to make, as the premise for his or her argument. The circularity of the claim is usually disguised, as the premise and the conclusion are stated in different ways (one is a paraphrase of the other). When advocates "beg the question", they fail to seek external support for their claims. The point under discussion is assumed, rather than demonstrated to be true.

Examples

1. Dotty Pymplebaume is President of the Major-Player Financial Syndicate. She is giving the keynote address to the Society for Currency Remuneration and Excessive Wealth Underwriting (SCREWU), at their semi-biennial conference. Her address is entitled Free-Trade: Why it's good for everyone. She closes her speech with the following summary of her position:
   

   People and organizations opposed to free trade clearly don't understand its logic. To me it's self-evident that free trade is good for everyone. The progress being made by politicians and economists towards the unrestricted flow of goods between countries will result in great benefits to this country and to the whole world.

2. Russell Farside is explaining gender issues to his friend Mitch Grinspoon: "Men need to get in touch with their feminine side."

"Why?" asks Mitch. "I'm perfectly happy being masculine. Shouldn't men and women just behave how they feel?"

"I don't think that is a healthy way of living," responds Russell. "It's good for men to gain a better balance of their masculine and feminine selves."

Comment

The fallacy of begging the question assumes as "evidence" for the argument the claim or point that is in question. Dotty's argument, when dissected, is a clear example of begging the question. She has assumed without any external evidence that her claim (free trade is good) – is correct. She attempts to justify this claim by restating this in a different form.

First she says: "...the unrestricted flow of goods between countries..." This is a long-winded reiteration of "free trade". Free trade is the unrestricted flow of goods between countries. She then follows up with the claim that this "...will result in great benefits to this country and to the whole world." This is merely a paraphrase of her original claim that "...free trade is good for everyone."

In the second example, the same kind of specious reasoning is used. Stripped of its rhetoric, Russell believes that "men need to get in touch with their feminine side" because it is good for them. He gives no actual evidence for this claim; he merely asserts an opinion.

Begging the question is an easily identified fallacy once an argument has been dissected. The conclusion and the premise are identical in all but their expression. Reasonably adroit proponents are able to disguise this reiteration well. But this deception is readily exposed when the skeptic points out that the advocate is simply restating the premise as the conclusion.

It should be noted that the expression "begging the question" is routinely misused by journalists. When a journalist, or interviewee or commentator says (for example) that: "This begs the question that..." they often actually mean "This raises the question...". This corrupted usage should be resisted - unless the original meaning of useful words and phrases is preserved, we lose precision in language. Lack of precision in language is often symptomatic of a parallel lack of precision in thinking. Without being too pedantic, when the phrase "begging the question" is used incorrectly in our presence, it is worthwhile pointing this out. At the same time, it might be useful to point out that careless word usage often signifies careless reasoning.

Browbeating

Other Terms and/or Related Concepts

Overtalking; vituperation; bullying; polemics.

Description

This fallacy usually occurs in face-to-face discussion. A discussion in which this fallacy occurs is likely to be heated and aggressive in tone. The advocate is loud, threatening and voluble. He or she does not allow the opponent an opportunity to make his or her case. When the opponent seeks to make a point, he or she is cut off abruptly and not allowed to finish. The speech rate of the browbeating advocate is rapid with minimal pauses. The fallacy of browbeating can also occur in print, but the histrionics characteristic of browbeating are limited by the mode of communication. Browbeating expressed in print or writing is better described as polemics.

Example

Gertrude Grimace is an ageing cultural icon and professional expatriate. She is also a needy exhibitionist who seeks every opportunity to hold forth on any subject. A compliant and fawning media can always be relied upon to afford her plenty of opportunities to pontificate during any of her fleeting visits to the country of her birth.

On this occasion she is taking part in a panel discussion on youth. She calls for the voting age to be lowered to twelve. Another member of the panel begins his response: "But don't you think voters need a certain level of maturity to exercise a responsible vote, after all..." This is as far as he gets. From this point on Gertrude overtalks him, all the other panellists and the moderator. She is loud, obnoxious, strident and rapid-fire in her delivery.

Comment

Most interactions would be improved if participants engaged in more attentive listening. After all, everyone is entitled to express his or her own point of view. But this minimal entitlement is not enough - when a point of view is expressed, the person expressing the idea is entitled to a genuine hearing. This is common courtesy. It is also an essential requirement for the amicable resolution of conflict.

When confronted with browbeating, the detached doubter will make a firm claim for the right to be heard. If this claim proves fruitless and the pontificating browbeater continues to be intransigent, the opponent should terminate the interaction and explain why this proved to be necessary. Attempting to match the browbeater is almost always the wrong approach, especially when a discussion or debate is happening in front of an audience. Even a hostile audience can be trusted to see what is going on.

In the example given, the moderator of the hijacked discussion could turn off Gertrude's microphone after a minute or two of her tirade and calmly point out that he will not accept such hostility in response to honest opinions freely expressed by other members of the panel. Gertrude's pattern of behaviour suggests that she is suffering from LAME disease (Look At Me Everybody). Like most browbeaters, she has an overwhelming need to "win" an argument through physical suppression of her opponents' arguments. To the superficial observer, she may come across as confident and self-assured, but her browbeating suggests that she has very little faith in the soundness of her position. The skeptical observer will draw the obvious conclusion - Gertrude is all hot air, and her browbeating is a substitute for intelligent analysis and truth seeking.

Browbeating is a common feature of political interviews on television news and current affairs programs, and talkback radio. Sometimes the interviewer is the aggressor, sometimes the politician is the aggressor, and sometimes both are aggressive.

Consider the more common case where the interviewer is aggressive. He or she will ask a loaded question and interrupt the answer with a supplementary question. The interruption will be cynical and aggressive in tone. More interruptions will follow and the interviewee will not be permitted to finish an answer. The interview will conclude without extracting substantive information. The interviewer will thank the interviewee for appearing. The thanks will be insincere.

Politicians are often characterized as evasive by the browbeating commentariat (political journalists and commentators). This is ironic. Politicians are circumspect and guarded in their speech because the commentariat is forever on the lookout for the unguarded moment. They seize upon and distort trivial lapses. They quote out of context, "beat up" and manufacture stories. The ego and career considerations of the commentariat often outweigh any commitment to conveying valid information to an informed electorate.

Immunised Hypothesis

Other Terms and/or Related Concepts

Special Pleading; double standard; Moving the Goalposts.

Description

The advocate forwards a claim that in practice (or even in theory) cannot be falsified. That is, the proponent might forward a testable hypothesis initially, but then, when evidence is brought to their attention which contradicts their claim, they continue to add on ad hoc explanations; generally refusing to even entertain the idea that their original claim may actually be false (thus exhibiting Simple-Minded Certitude).

Example

Reilly Liebe-Mann is a "emotional healing dream counsellor". He believes that he can interpret dreams to find hidden meanings in a patient's subconscious. He is in the middle of a session with one if his "patients", Turner Knott, who only sees Reilly to humour his parents. They are discussing one of Turner's recent dreams.

Turner continues: “…and the snake was slithering around the floor of my car.”

Reilly offers his interpretation: “Snakes represent transformation, knowledge and wisdom. A snake in a dream is indicative of self-renewal and positive changes.”

Turner points out: “Well things are really stable at the moment. And me? Knowledge? Wisdom? I’m hardly the sharpest knife in the cutlery draw. I don't buy this interpretation.”

Reilly: “Well you didn’t let me finish. The snake also represents hidden fears and worries that are threatening you. Your dream may be alerting you to something in your waking life that you are not aware of or that has not yet surfaced.”

Turner replies: “That really doesn’t sound right at all. Things couldn’t be any better at work, I'm super relaxed…”

Reilly: “Your not thinking along the same lines that I am…, It’s so obvious to me know. Snakes are phallic and symbolise dangerous and forbidden sexuality...”

Turner interrupts: "Can you please get your hand off my thigh?"

Reilly: “Uh, sorry. I was lost for a moment thinking about your dream."

Turner: "Well I actually own a python as a pet. Maybe I was just dreaming about Monty?"

Reilly: "No, I’m sure I’m right about your dream. It’s just that I haven’t yet taken into account the car…”

At this point Reilly continues with ad hoc interpretations. He says excitedly: “Don’t you see! The snake and the car are actually in the dream as red herrings, to throw us off the real message. Herrings are a type of fish, and I had a dream about ice fishing the day before last. But ice fishing represents breaking through a hardened emotional barrier, which is definitely not you. However, fish swim in water, and water is the first part of ‘watermelon’. Pregnant women or women on the verge of their menstrual cycle often dream of such fruits. It all makes sense; your dream is a subconscious cry for help; that you really want to be a young and fertile woman and bare children!”

Turner: "Seriously, how many times do I have to ask you to keep your hands to yourself? And can you please put your shirt back on?”

Discussion

Reilly has continued to interpret the dream in a way that favours his initial hypothesis; Turner is in denial about his true self. No matter what evidence Turner produces to counter this claim, Reilly spins explanation after explanation until his hypothesis is so convoluted that it should be treated with utter disdain. He is in a win-win situation. If Turner never agrees or is never "healed", Reilly can claim Turner is living in denial. His dream interpretations are always correct. It's just that not all patients are open to accepting who they "really are".

However, if it does turn out that Turner is in denial, and he eventually does change we have no reason to assume that the dream he had, and Reilly’s interpretation, was actually correct. It could just be a coincidence, or more upsettingly, with enough "therapy" Turner might be convinced to change, a victim of folie à deux.

It could be argued that the above rejection of dream interpretation - that it is nothing but a waste of time and doesn’t reveal underlying psychological issues - is itself an example of an immunised hypothesis. That no matter what the evidence for dream analysis, we would rejected it as pseudoscientific bunk. But any resemblance between this rejection of dream interpretation, even when it seems to work, and the fallacy Immunised Hypothesis, is a coincidence.

Impugning Motives

Other Terms and/or Related Concepts

Accusation that the opponent is: insincere; running a hidden agenda; "in denial".

Description

The advocate claims that the opponent has devious motives for making his or her case, or has unconscious motives which have led to a biased position on the issue under discussion. If the advocate claims that the opponent has devious motives, then the opponent stands accused of concealing the truth in order to win an argument. If the advocate claims unconscious motives on the part of the opponent, then the opponent is characterized as prey to his or her own emotions and unworthy of engaging in discussion.

Example

There is a staff meeting being held in a high school maths department. Jill Flypaper (the advocate) says: "I know the real reason why you are arguing the merits of voice recognition computer software Barry, you just want everyone to know that you are the expert and that you have more technical knowledge than the rest of us."

Comment

In this example, Jill is attempting to cast doubt on Barry's argument in favour of voice recognition software by claiming that Barry is just "showing off" his computer knowledge and doesn't really have good reasons for advocating voice recognition software per se. It is likely that Jill's deliberate intention is to convey the impression that Barry is insincere.

But it's also possible to interpret the comment as implying that Barry is sincere, but simply unaware of his "real" motives. While the accusation of insincerity or delusion may in fact be true, there is no way of knowing whether it is or isn't. Even if true, it is not a compelling reason for rejecting the purchase of voice-recognition software. At the most, it is a reason to be cautious about Barry's argument and for examining it carefully. In the final analysis, the case for purchasing the software needs to be decided on its merits, rather than dismissed out of hand because of supposed suspect motives.

The problem with the tactic of casting doubt on motives is that discussion between antagonists can degenerate into a spiral of accusation and counter-accusation. While witnesses to such arguments may form conclusions about the motives of the protagonists, and weigh one against another, they could be totally wrong. The most credible and apparently forthright people might be devious in the extreme. While a "shifty-looking" person might in fact be very honest.

The seeker after truth will be alert to, and recognise the use of, the fallacy of impugning motives and will draw attention to any attempt by an advocate to use it. They will point out that all behaviour and opinions are by definition motivated. Motives for any point of view can be assumed, but not the nature of those motives. Further, idle speculation about motives may be completely incorrect, and even if such speculation is correct, it does not usually clarify a debate or help determine the actual merits of a point of view.

In our view, anyone who engages in gratuitous speculation about motives is motivated by malice. Except the authors of this book. When we speculate about motives, we do so in a spirit of disinterested enquiry, and our speculations have proven in the past to be almost invariably correct.

LAME (Look At Me Everybody)

Other Terms and/or Related Concepts

Self aggrandisement; Disingenuous posturing

Description

The advocate makes a disingenuous claim or statement that is clearly intended to focus attention on the advocate rather than the issue under discussion. LAMEness is a state of mind that can be identified by the pointlessness of an advocate's statements, and more often than not, the pointlessness of the advocate. A LAME claim is a suspect assertion which seems on closer examination to be made not to solve a problem, or to get closer to the truth, but as an exercise in self-promotion.

Example

david doyle is a well respected researcher in the Strategic Heuristics and Insight Technologies unit at large social media company. The lower case spelling of his name is not a typographical error. david had his name legally changed to remove the capitalisation. He also writes "i" (lower case) to refer to himself. In his own words:

i have always been annoyed that the english language insists we capitalise the first person singular pronoun. This is so egocentric. i thought the world wasn't meant to revolve around US! But written language puts me at the center??? And following in from this, why should we capitalise names? my name is simply one way of labelling me; i'm not it. Why does this label warrant more significance than all others? i say no, which is why i write 'i' in lower case and have legally changed my name to all lower case - david doyle.

Discussion

While doyle has made many excellent contributions to the world of social media with his research and thought provoking writing, this disingenuous attempt to justify his name change is LAME. doyle claims that capitalisation gives a name too much value given the world doesn’t revolve around "US". Yet, he goes out of his way to draw attention to himself by being the only person in the English speaking world to not capitalise his name or the first person pronoun “i”. That is, he is making “US” revolve around him by having to remember to write his name using different convention. Whenever we read his writing, we are forced to think about him and his "political stance". LAME...

The issue here is not the name change itself. By all means, have whatever name you want for yourself. Go crazy. Have your name changed to a symbol even. The issue is the supposed reason for the name change. david makes a LAME claim by constructing an artifice of an argument in order to rationalise his attention seeking act to himself and others. Without wishing to impugn his motives, his attempted ratiocination is contrived and hypocritical. It demonstrates his real motivation - deep down inside he wants to be special. David should be honest with us. He just wants everybody to look at him.

I am going to have my name legally changed to “THEO CLARK?”. Note that the all caps, question mark and quotations marks are also a part of my new name. Everyone will be required to shout my name (the all caps) and end it at a higher pitch than when they started saying it (the question mark). They will also be required to do the “air quote” gesture with their hands whenever they say my name.

GIGO (Garbage In Gospel Out)

Other terms and/or related concepts

False premise; hidden premise; circular reasoning; begging the question; simple-minded certitude

Description

The advocate is certain their belief is true, even though the data, evidence or underlying theory or assumption on which the belief is based is demonstrably flawed or unsubstantiated. Or rather, the advocate treats conclusions leading from some flawed data, unsubstantiated evidence, unfounded assumption or baseless theory, as gospel.

Example

Roz Well is having an online discussion at www.locoinel_coco.com, explaining to her friend Joan Mack why she knows there is “life out there”.

She says:

The Drake equation proves it. It states that: N = R* fp ne fl fi fc L, where N is the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which we might hope to be able to communicate; and R* is the average rate of star formation in our galaxy, fp is the fraction of those stars that have planets, ne is the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets, fl is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point, fi is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life, fc is the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space, L is the length of time such civilizations release detectable signals into space.

When you substitute all the right values into it, you get an answer of 5000! That means there are at least 5000 civilisations in our galaxy that we can communicate with. Imagine how many more there are in the entire universe!

Joan Mack is a well respected psychologist and as such has an understanding of fallacies. She types back:

Look, you can get whatever answer you want with the Drake equation – so long as you pick the input values that give you the answer you want. GIGO! I am happy to accept the equation itself as valid. But this doesn't mean we can get any useful information from it.

Roz replies: "So, are you saying you don’t believe?"

“Of course not", replies Joan. "Just that the Drake equation is not a good argument." She goes on to explain:

In my practice as a psychologist I have specialised in treating patients who have been abducted and fiddled with by aliens. Now that's conclusive proof. Unfortunately the rules of doctor-patient confidentially prohibit me from backing up this claim with any specific evidence – other than the cash-money I'll no doubt make when my book comes out. I’ve also been very successful in treating my patients with my anti-alien mind control helmet. It’s made from til foil!

"Cool.” Types Roz. “Where can I order mine?"

Comment

GIGO is a reasonably well known principle: Garbage In, Garbage Out. It was originally coined in a computer science environment to point out that an algorithm will process all data, no matter the quality, and give an answer. Thus, if junk data is fed into an algorithm, a junk answer will be the result. (The quality of one’s evidence is only as good as the weakest bit).

From this principle we can derive the “GIGO fallacy”. In this case GIGO stands for: Garbage In = Gospel Out. Again, in the computer science context, it refers to the blind belief in the answer obtained from computers. The use here is intended to be broader, and refers to the blind acceptance of a result of a process being a fact because of a simple-minded belief in the process. This can be for obvious examples such as the Drake equation above (which should be viewed as a fun thought experiment) to more important processes.

In the example above, Joan is correct in her overall dismissal of any value that is determined by the Drake equation. The logic of the equation is sound enough. But if the input values are essentially guesses, the multiplication of uncertainties becomes so large that it makes any calculation worthless.

Let's consider another example. We can calculate the strength of the Earth’s gravitational field (g) at the surface, using the equation: g = GM/r2. Where G = the universal gravitational constant, M = the mass of the Earth, and r = the radius of the Earth.

If we didn’t know the actual values for G, M and r, we could just choose numbers that "feel" right (i.e., based on our best guess). If enough people have enough guesses, we might even chance upon the right answer (9.8 N/kg), because the equation works (though this would be extremely unlikely in itself). However, we’d never know, because we were just guessing at the values we assigned to the input variables. Even if the equation is right, it is useless without the correct input data.

The problem with the Drake equation, why it falls into the GIGO category, lies with the parameters. There is no way to tell if the values we assign to the input parameters are garbage or not. Given the impossibility of assigning justifiable values to them, we can treat them all as garbage (though we can argue about which values stink more). All probabilities found using the Drake equation are therefore, to some extent, invalid (even if you accidentally guessed the right values). Some are more reasonable than others, but all the answers the Drake equation spits out still suffer from GIGO.

More generally, if the data, evidence or underlying theory used as the basis of a claim is flawed, then the claim and all conclusions based on it should be treated with great skepticism. (The claim and any conclusions may or may not be true; however there is simply no reasonable evidence either way.)

Statements such as "Tried and convicted by a jury of peers", or “It’s been peer reviewed”, could potentially be GIGO. If the legal process in a court case allows for flawed evidence or biased jury selection then we might not have confidence in the jury's verdict. If the peer review was by "peers" in a journal whose editorial standards poor, we might not have confidence in the conclusions of the papers in the journal (c.f. the Sokal affair and the journal Social Text).

Whilst we should be alert for GIGO, we need to also note the potential for a Red Flag Faux Pas. Using the examples in the preceding paragraph again, as a rule of thumb the criminal justice system and peer review can be trusted. Therefore if one wants to claim GIGO legitimately, one needs to provide evidence for it. Otherwise a claim of GIGO might simply be a "conversation ender".

Gibberish

Other Terms and/or Related Concepts

Obfuscation; gobbledegook; nonsense; drivel; academic English; jargon.

Description

Gibberish is an argument or assertion that is so flawed in its presentation that it is essentially meaningless. When the advocate has not advanced an intelligible argument, a considered response from the opponent is a waste of time.

Gibberish is quite common in academic literature. Stephen Murray-Smith, in his book Right Words: A Guide to English Usage in Australia is scathing in his definition of this particular form of gibberish:

Academic English is a horrible corrupt dialect of the English language, used by teachers in tertiary institutions in order to sound cleverer than they really are and thus to win promotion, power and money.

Example

The prevalence of gibberish in academic literature was also a major concern of Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont. In their book Intellectual Impostures, they give many examples from the social sciences in particular. One is quoted here by way of illustration:

The time of this instant without duration is 'exposure time', be it over or under exposure. Its photographic and cinematographic technologies already predicted the existence and the time of a continuum stripped of all physical dimensions, in which the quantum of energetic action and the punctum of cinematic observation have suddenly become the last vestiges of a vanished morphological reality.

Comment

Advocates who use gibberish may be unaware of just how unintelligible their language is to the listener or reader. Or they may be deliberately using gibberish to obscure the issue and to avoid any possible challenge. Whether gibberish is the result of stupidity or duplicity, skeptics and critical thinkers will not be cowed by their own lack of comprehension. They are entitled to ask for clarification, and if appropriate, to draw attention to the flawed use of language.

The seeker after truth's initial response to gibberish in a verbal exchange will be courteous and pragmatic, viz: "What are you saying?...Could you explain what you mean?... Could you give an example?...You need to put your argument with greater clarity."

If mild and courteous requests for clarification are ignored, more emphatic requests might be necessary, viz: "Could you please come to the point?...I can't tell whether your position has any merit because I have no idea what you are saying... Complex ideas need to be expressed in simple, direct language... I think what you just said is essentially meaningless, but I can't tell for sure because your explanation was so garbled..."

If this still has no effect, perhaps a more confrontational approach is in order: "How can I tell the difference between what you are saying and complete horse manure?"

Note that it is critically important to distinguish between unnecessary gibberish and the use of uncommon words to convey complex ideas with precision. There is nothing wrong with an advocate using an advanced vocabulary when this is necessary to communicate an exact meaning.

The problem of obfuscation arises when an esoteric vocabulary is used in ignorance, with little or no regard for meaning, or for the effect on the listener or reader. The expansion of vocabulary to enhance the quality and precision of written expression or speech is laudable. However when an advocate engages in the indiscriminate use of meaningless words, or uses meaningful words meaninglessly, the practice should be treated with the scorn, mockery and censure it deserves.

False Dilemma

Other Terms and/or Related Concepts

False linkage (of choices); concocted dilemma.

Podcast with further examples and extended commentary: Hunting Humbug 101: Episode 0012: False dichotomy and false dilemma (original episode).

Description

This is the error of portraying one choice as necessarily excluding another, even though there is no necessary connection. For example, an advocate might make the following statement: "They should solve world poverty before they try to put humans on Mars." While this may sound superficially plausible, the unstated and bizarre implication is that the advocate believes that if money were not expended on a Mars expedition, it would be diverted to the alleviation of poverty. This is clearly false.

Example

Dr Harry Oversteer is an epidemiologist with an interest in health statistics. He is having a conversation over dinner with Sally Butt, an old school friend. He remarks that men's health in general is in a much poorer state than the health of women in general. He points out that on almost all measures of mortality and morbidity - from suicide to heart disease - men fare significantly worse than women. He speculates on whether there should be more health promotion programs targeted specifically at men to address this anomaly.


Sally bristles and forcefully states the following: "It's taken the better part of a century to have women's health taken seriously by a male-dominated medical profession and public policymakers. If we embark on the course you suggest, women's health will take giant strides backwards."

Comment

What Sally is saying, without any evidence or compelling logical reason, is that a focus on men's health will necessarily lead to reduction of health services to women. This is clearly not a sound coupling of events. It is even possible that an increased focus on men's health will lead to better targeted health programs across the board. In the example given, a more reasonable response from Sally might be: "I can see the anomaly you've pointed out. The issue that needs to be addressed is how men's health outcomes can be improved, while at the same time ensuring that there aren't any adverse effects on women's health. We need a response which is acceptable to the whole community."


Sally's error arises from the supposition that there is a fixed health budget and that an increase in disbursement of funds to one group (i.e. men) necessarily results in less resources going to another group. Sally is right to alert Harry to the possibility that increased health promotion targeting men may lead to diminution of emphasis on women's programs. Her error is in asserting that it definitely will lead to this outcome.


Note that increases or decreases in the expenditure of scarce budgetary resources on government programs is a legitimate topic for political debate and social commentary. It is also true that the total "cake" available for allocations to programs is necessarily limited. At times, increasing budgetary allocations to program "X" may have a clear link to a decrease in budgetary allocations to program "Y". If this is the case, a genuine dilemma may be argued and the benefits of one program can be directly compared and contrasted to the other program. The seeker after truth will be able to distinguish a false dilemma from a genuine dilemma, and will make his or her case accordingly.

False Dichotomy

Other Terms and/or Related Concepts

Excluded middle; black-and-white reasoning; false dilemma; polarization of debate; forced choice.

Description

The advocate presents an issue as "black and white" when it is in reality "shades of grey". The reasoning put forward is unjustifiably "all or nothing" rather than subtle and measured. Debates about emotive issues such as euthanasia, GM foods, criminal justice, race relations etc., are often polarised in this way.

Example

During an election campaign, the incumbent Attorney-General, Frances Payne appears on television and makes his case for a review of current censorship laws affecting television broadcasting. She states that the review of the laws will be informed by broad community consultation. The interviewer (Barbra Twining) asks Mitchell Blarneypickle (President of the lobby group Smashing Hegemony In Television) to comment. He states: "There cannot be any censorship imposed by the State... anyone should be able to hear or see anything they like... any level of censorship is oppressive."

Comment

Mitchell is portraying the issue as censorship versus freedom of speech. He is attempting to put one issue up against the other and is hoping that his version of the issue prevails in the "contest". The flawed belief at the core of this strategy is that censorship is "all or nothing". In fact, the degree and nature of censorship which might be exercised in any society is subject to multiple variables. It is perfectly reasonable for example, for standards of what constitutes obscene or violent material to change over time along a continuum. The debate should be about how far along the continuum and in which direction the standards should shift - not on whether standards should be abandoned or raised to a level of complete repression.


In the present example, and if Barbra were an effective interviewer, she would challenge Mitchell on his "all-or-nothing" stance and either dismiss it as an unworthy contribution to the debate, or probe his position with examples which would be problematic. For example, she could ask her whether he would be in favour of live broadcasts of executions on free-to-air television, or the removal of doors and screens from public toilets. Such challenging examples would be an appropriate use of reductio ad absurdum by Barbra to point out that it would be ludicrous to apply Mitchell's views without qualification. Such a challenge might provoke Mitchell and lead to his indignant exit from the debate. But it's also possible that it would function as a reality check and cause him to modify his position and engage more effectively in the discussion. Either way, whether he leaves or moderates his position, the debate would be more fruitful.


Many LAME commentators (LAME - Look At Me Everybody are unhappy with ambiguity and complexity. Such individuals prefer to characterize an issue as "black or white", as they find dealing with nuanced shades of grey difficult and confusing, and more often than not, a threat to their position. The seeker after truth on the other hand, should not attempt to over-simplify any issue in order to bring it to a premature or unjustified resolution. It is much more acceptable in principle to decide that an issue has to remain unresolved, rather than oversimplifying and drawing the wrong conclusion.

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...