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."

Hunting Humbug 101: Episode 0004: False Analogy (Original Episode with...

Hunting Humbug 101: Episode 0004: False Analogy (Original Episode with...: This episode looks false analogy . This is an episode from the original run of the podcast. It also includes a newly recorded part lookin... The Second (eBook) Edition of Humbug! is available for about US$3.99 from:

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

False analogy

Other Terms and/or Related Concepts

Misuse of analogy; metaphor as argument; cliché thinking.

Description

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

Example

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

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

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

Comment

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

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

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

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

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

Other examples

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

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

And a bad one:

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

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

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

 

Too much information

Here is a poor choice of analogy:

The truth of the matter is there is nothing wrong. As I said, sometimes sex is just sex; it’s what you do when you are married. Just like cleaning the toilet is what you do to keep your house clean…and I bet you don’t have this great desire or huge emotional connection to scrubbing the porcelain! You do it because it needs to be done and that’s the way it is with married sex… it does need to be done! It’s the glue that God gave us to bond us to one another. The bible is very clear that it is your responsibility as a spouse.

Hopefully this is a false analogy for all you married people out there...

HT: Pharyngula

Podcast - Tutorial 34: Psychoanalysing Tool

It’s been a while, but we’re finally back with another, albeit short, episode. Courtesy of Dr Phil - we have a couple of fallacies for you to test yourself on.

Listen Now: https://ia802506.us.archive.org/3/items/HH101/HH101e0047.mp3

Dr. Phil outwitted

I'm almost done mixing the next podcast (on Begging the Question). Meanwhile, try this video. The guest special pleads, Dr. Phil throws in a false analogy (one of his favourite moves), the guest points out it's a false analogy then outwits Dr. Phil in the commercial break. Legend.

Self serving scientist

Baroness Greenfield should know better, which leads me to believe she has become a LAME commentator. Here is her public speculation, based on nothing but personal intuition, about the effects of the social networks of "teh interwebs" on the brains of children:

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

Zuh? What's the point of that False Analogy? To convince me social networking is good? Funnily enough, I prefer my meat pre-packaged...

A teacher of 30 years had already noticed a sharp decline in the ability of her pupils to understand others, Lady Greenfield told the House of Lords.

Given Greenfield's area of research is brain science, I find it hard to believe she isn't aware of how the brain reconstructs memories, and of course, Observational Selection. So how can she make such claims?

Questions for the Lady: Did you write any of this down at the time? You know, gather trustworthy data? Or is this just your own personal anecdote?

"It is hard to see how living this way on a daily basis will not result in brains, or rather minds, different from those of previous generations," she said.

Well, yeah. That's a reasonable hypothesis. But without actual research, that's all it is. Moreover, so what? Is "different" automatically "bad"?

Hmmm, one or two generations ago brains, or rather minds, tended to be xenophobic, homophobic, sexist, etc. I'm pretty glad they're different now...

Ben Goldacre sticking it to these self-serving LAME media slags.

A "legitimate" psychic hotline

Karen Stollznow, associate editor of the Australian Skeptic, demonstrated how easy it is to become a telephone and email psychic. She recently received the following correspondence from an ex-employee of the same psychic company (Absolutely Psychic Network) in response to her article:

Hi Karen

I commend you for this website. Indeed there are many psychic networks that are questionable. I know because I have worked for PRN, Psychic Friends Network and other networks as well such as Psychic chat and psychic source. Psychic chat owns a sex club and psychic source has another hot line that markets sexual hookups. But I think you should cut some slack to Absolutely Psychic because they are no where near the sleeze bags in the market. APN is 1 thing and 1 thing only: TESTED PSYCHICS. Now, in my humble and respectful opinion, being offered a contract is much different than being able to maintain it. Calls are monitored and client feedback factors into maintaining the position. This is the equivalent of marriage. Walking down the aisle doesn’t guarantee you a successful marriage. But a person of your great merits knows that and I don’t need to elaborate in any further because you weren’t contracted by them.

Freedom of speech is a great liberty but the written word doesn’t always portray the entire or accurate story. For this reason, I will extend my liberty in free speech as I have worked for Absolutely Psychic Network (APN) for 7 years and have found it to be EXCELLENT.

As for the 2nd person who alleges to have worked for them, I can only say that if she researched the market she would notice that Absolutely Psychic Network/Absolutelypsychic.com (APN) offers the highest pay scale. They have given me a raise every year and gift card for such long years of service. Independent contractor work liberates one to pursue other career paths simultaneously. If she doesn’t have other venues of expression, then sure frustration is possible. But I believe that the universe may be trying to say something to that person. I’m 51 years old and have been around the block longer for quite some time.

Namaste
Belle

This email is really quite inane the whole way through. However, notice how 'Belle' tries to make this particular psychic service from the other "sleazy" ones by pointing out the others also run sex lines. It's an attempted Poisoning of the Well towards the other psychic hot lines, as if that has anything to do with Absolutely Psychic Network. Isn't that equivalent to being the best player in the worst team (pick any sport)? So we have a Red Herring as well.

"Belle" also attempts to "prove" her case with the False Analogy with a marriage. As Jef and I said with our podcast on false analogies, the problem with analogies in argument is how easy it is to turn them around, back onto the advocate.

"Belle" said:

Now, in my humble and respectful opinion, being offered a contract is much different than being able to maintain it. Calls are monitored and client feedback factors into maintaining the position. This is the equivalent of marriage. Walking down the aisle doesn’t guarantee you a successful marriage.

I.e. Karen might have fooled the APN to get the contract initially, but they'd have worked out she was a fake eventually. But, of course, I've been told that there are women who manage to fake it with their husbands throughout their entire marriage...

The Atheist Nightmare revisited

The argument from banana is where I originally posted about this - but I thought I'd give YouTube a crack, by using bits of Podcast 3 - False Analogy.

The politics of opposition - Well Poisoning with Weasel Words

Treasury secretary Ken Henry just released a relatively favourable growth forecast for the Australian economy (Australia is still predicted to grow while many other economies shrink). Liberal Party and opposition frontbencher, Andrew Robb, has to resort to fallacy to make a point:

Defending his decision to suggest that a Treasury growth forecast had the whiff of “manipulation” about it, Mr Robb said today the Prime Minister was hiding behind the reputation of the public service chief.

“All of this is a form of McCarthyism to silence people at a time ... of huge financial meltdown causing tremendous problems in the real economy now across the world,” Mr Robb said.

….“This Government is hiding behind officials, pushing them out to the forefront and it's unfair on officials.”

One quick point to note is the obvious contradiction – the Government is silencing people, yet is simultaneously pushing these officials out to the forefront…?

Now, let’s take the charge of “McCarthyism”. McCarthyism, from what little I garnered studying The Crucible in high school, and have since confirmed via the repository of all knowledge, was a paranoid hunt for communists throughout the US government:

McCarthyism is a term describing the intense anti-communist suspicion in the United States in a period that lasted roughly from the late 1940s to the late 1950s. This period is also referred to as the Second Red Scare, and coincided with increased fears about communist influence on American institutions and espionage by Soviet agents.

McCarthyism is a Weasel Word, along the same lines, but not quite as low, as charging someone with Fascism, or Nazism. Robb has used it for the emotional response it evokes. In using a Weasel Word, he seeks to misrepresent the issue by avoiding an accurate and factual description.

By associating the Labor Government with a particularly abhorrent movement and time in the US, Robb is Poisoning the Well. He attempts to throw doubt on the Government by linking them to a group which is seen as suspect and denigrated.

Even if it were the case that the Government had manipulated figures favourably, it would be a False Analogy to link this to McCarthyism. McCarthyism was about witch hunting; whereas he has suggested the Government has nudged public officials in a particular direction to achieve a political goal.

If anything, he should call placing political pressure on public servants to give the right results (wink, wink, nudge, nudge…) “Bushism”. (I’m not saying I endorse this view by the way. I’m merely playing off the relatively common public perception that the Bush administration was not beyond nudging public officials for political purposes.) But that would be political suicide….

Website:
Share on Facebook
Podcast:

Source: Andrew Robb accuses Kevin Rudd of McCarthyism over Ken Henry - The Australian (Nov 13 2008).

Podcast: Hunting Humbug 101 - Tutorial 03: False Analogy

In this third podcast we discuss False Analogies. This includes a direct reading from our book: Humbug! The skeptics' field guide to spotting fallacies in thinking. We'll eventually get around to podcasting all the fallacies from the book, so you can think of it as the "audio book" version of Humbug!. The easiest way to ensure you won't miss any fallacies is by subscribing below.



Here's the link to direct download: (21 mins & 20 mb) and you subscribe here: http://huntinghumbug101.podbean.com/feed/or by clicking one of the buttons below.

Share on Facebook

Show notes:
Here are the links to the Argument from Banana and Good and Bad Analogies. Not all analogies are false and not all are apt (this would be a False Dichotomy). Analogies lie on a continuum, from strong to weak. We also discuss the use of nonsensical sayings to confuse an opponent in our new section, Schadenfreude - the guilty pleasures of humbug.

Catholic Woodstock... LOL

Apparently people are trying to draw an analogy between World Youth Day and Woodstock. For example:

Despite the significance of the occasion, the build-up to the six-day event's opening mass was more akin to an open-air rock concert than a church gathering, reflecting its nickname of ''Catholic Woodstock''.

Now, it's not a fallacy to make this False Analogy, as it is not being used as the basis of an argument. However, another analogy, a far more apt analogy, springs to mind to demonstrate the inappropriateness of the link between supposedly* devout and chaste Catholic youths and the hedonistic, free loving, drug taking hippies of Woodstock:

Comparing World Youth Day to Woodstock is as apt as comparing an incense burner to a bong.

_________________
*I say "supposedly" - a few hundred thousand youths partying for a week? I have my doubts...

Ass clown argues astrologer ass clowns are actually scientists

The following text comes from a letter to the editor, published in today's Age, by first rate idiot Phillip Jensen of St Andrews Beach:

The various forms of astrology are evolving disciplines that constitute millennia of observation, recording, hypotheses and proofs through experimentation, incorporating differing opinions based on an accepted knowledge base. This sounds like science to me.

The reason why it sounds like science, Phillip, is because you are misappropriating scientific terms. Either you are deliberately creating a False Analogy or, more than likely, you are just an ass clown*. I wonder if Phillip can point me in the direction of an astrological hypothesis or "proof" which has been verified by experimentation?

I've written about the difference between science and pseudo science before:

A scientific theory is a concise and coherent set of concepts, claims and laws (frequently expressed mathematically) that can be used to precisely and accurately explain and predict natural phenomena.

A theory should include a mechanism that explains how its concepts, claims, and laws arise from lower-level theories.

Astrology fails these criteria miserably. Its very nature is to work in wishy-washy generalisations. This is the antipathy of science, which requires concise and coherent predictions and explanations for natural phenomena. And as to providing some kind of plausible mechanism...?

At the beginning of his letter, the ass clown claims that:

Astrological "readings" are symbolic personality and life path delineations that verify things we already know about ourselves as well as effectively making the unconscious conscious.

Well, just how good are astrologers?

The scientific community, where it has commented, claims that astrology has repeatedly failed to demonstrate its effectiveness in numerous controlled studies. Effect size studies in astrology conclude that the mean accuracy of astrological predictions is no greater than what is expected by chance, and astrology's perceived performance has disappeared on critical inspection. When tested against personality tests, astrologers have shown a consistent lack of agreement with these tests. One such double-blind study in which astrologers attempted to match birth charts with results of a personality test, which was published in the reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal Nature, claimed to refute astrologers' assertions that they can solve clients' personal problems by reading individuals' natal charts. The study concluded that astrologers had no special ability to interpret personality from astrological readings. Another study that used a personality test and a questionnaire contended that some astrologers failed to predict objective facts about people or agree with each other's interpretations.

Another bunch of ass clowns.

______________
* One whose stupidity and/or ineptitude exceeds the descriptive potential of both the terms ass and clown in isolation, and in so doing demands to be referred to as the conjugate of the two. (Ref: Urban Dictionary.)

Source: Astrology is not only star gazing - The Age - 24 Dec 2006 - Letters

Tags: Skepticism, False Analogy, Astrology, Fallacy

Analogies - the good and the bad

I've already looked Gold Star Junkies by David Ruenzel, here and here, and have not been particularly friendly to it. However, like most things in life, it’s not all-bad; some aspects of the article are okay.

Ruenzel’s article is essentially a tirade against forms of extrinsic motivation in schools - hence the title - Gold Star Junkies. Referring to a study on the adverse effects of rewards (note it’s a study on the adverse effect of rewards, not just the effect of rewards, so immediately one is left wondering if we are looking at a case of advocacy research), Ruenzel uses this analogy:

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

Ruenzel has used this analogy (actually a simile) to illustrate his point in order to make it more convincing. This is a common tactic used in argument. But analogies can never be used to prove a point, only to illustrate it. Not only this, there are varying degrees of "aptness" for analogies, from completely apt, to completely false.

Ruenzel's analogy in this case is quite apt. In the sentence preceding the analogy he points out that it is silly to reward someone for doing something they already enjoy. Kids enjoy using magic markers, just as they enjoy TV. It follows that there is no need for a reward system in either case. The analogy he uses has not proved his point, but it has illustrated it further, making it more convincing. (In saying that, his conclusion is really quite obvious and mundane - if children are intrinsically motivated there is no need for extrinsic motivation. Well, of course…).

Now don't get me wrong, I was surprised that Ruenzel was able to make a reasonable point. Not to worry, he produces an entirely fallacious False Analogy at the end of his article:

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

No, tests are entirely unlike putting huge scoreboards in a classroom. They are exactly like... tests and are used to measure achievement, generally a few times a year. They are not an "endless series", and to claim that they are means Ruenzel is guilty of False Positioning. (Though maybe that idea isn't as absurd as Ruenzel says? That kind of pressure helps athletes and sporting teams produce their best performances. Why not kiddies?)

Here’s a question for Ruenzel. Should we not judge achievement? If you believe we shouldn’t, then how are we to tell if teaching and learning has been successful? How are teachers, schools and students to be held in account to parents and taxpayers? You know - the people who pay for this education...

Miranda Devine rolls her eyes at climate change…

…and suggestions it gets her "all hot and bothered". From her SMH column - Geeks in white coats shall inherit the earth:

Every time I write an article pointing out there is no scientific consensus on the extent of man-made - as opposed to natural - climate change, or that attacks on genetically modified food are flawed, I am accused, quite seriously, of being on the payroll of Monsanto or Western Mining.

This is simply untrue - see this article in Science for evidence of a scientific consensus:

Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.

Any field of scientific inquiry moves forward through hypothesis and counter-hypothesis. Devine states that the jury is out on anthropocentric climate change. She is guilty of using the rhetorical tactic of Exaggerated Conflict. Her implied argument is that uncertainly within the field of climate change means the whole field can be safely doubted.

(Also, have you ever noticed that, yes, there are climate change "skeptics", but none of them actually ever seem to be those who study climate change? There are also "evolution skeptics" (read: creationists) but we don't take them seriously either, because none of them are evolutionary biologists. This is not to say either of these "non-experts" couldn't be right, but I know which group I'd put my money on - if I was so inclined to gamble, which I'm not.)

She then moves on with a favoured False Analogy of the climate change "skeptics":

Environmentalism is the powerful new secular religion and politically correct scientists are its high priests, rescuing the planet from the apocalypse of climate change, as the Doomsday clock ticks down. Kyoto is the Promised Land and Bush/Howard/capitalism/industry/farmers are Satan.

If you need the explanation as to why this is a False Analogy then see a previous post - McCrann's false analogy. Now it's time to bring in a heavy weight - a scientist (obviously the one scientist that is not biased) - to back up her point:

Perth exploration geologist Louis Hissink suspects "politicised science has replaced religion as the arbiter of human affairs ... priesthoods of both organisations are concerned with what happens in the future and that current behaviour is thought to affect that future, hence it needs to be proscribed and prescribed".

And so we have an Appeal to Authority. This one guy is an authority (an exploration geologist - on climate change - he couldn't possibly work for the mining industry... surely not?), but let's ignore the 928 papers surveyed by Science Magazine in which none of them disagreed with the scientific consensus. (Note that by talking to only one person for her column, someone who tells her what she wants us to hear, she is Stacking the Deck - here's Hissink's blog.)

A bit of advice - try not to use opinion columns as a primary source for anything - especially science. They'll let any fool write for a newspaper these days, no matter how pointless everything they say is.

Update: Expert scientist guy Louis Hissink doesn't think the much of the Big Bang either, and rates it about the same as biblical creationism:

The Big Bang is as fictitious as Creation, the two being the one and same event, but separated intellectually by an enormous expanse of chronological time. It is the religious belief of a competing, more liberal minded, religious sect… the ‘Big Bang" fact is scientifically absurd.

Just what science does he believe in? Doubting everything is the same as believing everything - both require limited cognitive function.

Update 2: Some of the most prestigious science academies in the world issued this statement on climate change - Joint science academies’ statement: Global response to climate change (note – pdf).

Plimer partakes in poisoned polemic

Humbug! reader Ben pointed me towards this piece of pontificating by Ian Plimer, in The Australian (5th Jan 2006) Global warming a damp squib which uses a few diferent fallacies. Of note is False Positioning, compounded with Stacking the Deck. I've posted on False Positioning already wrt global warming so I won't revisit it. One other nice little bit of flawed reasoning, however, is:

… and in 1997 Chris Rose of Greenpeace maintained the religious mantra with "Time is running out for the climate". We've heard such failed catastrophist predictions before. The Club of Rome on resources, Paul Erlich on population, Y2K, and now Greenpeace on global warming.
This argument is flawed but is not easily classified (it could be seen as a False Analogy, Unfounded Generalization, or just "What does Y2K have to do with global warming?"), - but I'll argue that it’s actually an example of Poisoning the Well. The metaphor is that any "water" (idea) taken from that "well" (source) is poisonous (tainted, of no value).

At first this might not seem to be a particularly clear example - it's certainly not in the "classic" form. Putting it simply, the failed predictions of Y2K * and a population explosion are not in any way, shape or form, related to predictions of global warming. But by linking them together he implies that all "catastrophist predictions" are the same. Ie, any prediction of "doom" is going to be wrong. The classic "poisoning the well" is when an advocate seeks to undermine an opponent's position by linking the position to an original source which is denigrated. The difference here is he links the position - global warming - to denigrated predictions of catastrophes.

He should have gone "the whole hog" and linked them to the failed predictions of the "end of the world" by the Church of the Subgenius - who predicted:

...that on "X Day" [5th July 1998], the end of the world will occur. At 7 AM, "the Men from Planet X, or XISTS, will arrive on Earth, close a deal with "Bob," rupture the card-carrying Ordained SubGenii up to the Escape Vessels of the Sex Goddesses, and destroy the remaining population of Earth, VERY VERY SLOWLY." Bob is J.R. Dobbs, leader and High Epopt of the Church of the SubGenius, Living Avatar of Slack, the Saint of Sales. He was responsible for founding the Church on a shifting, sandy beach of hypocrisy." ^
But this would be a little too obvious. Linking global warming predictions to failed "scientific" predictions makes his point, on the surface, seem reasonable. But it is, in fact, a simple rhetorical device designed to win an argument, not to "seek after truth".

* I shall ignore the fact that this fails to take into account that, perhaps, the warnings of Y2K led to companies and computer manufacturers upgrading their computer BIOSes and operating systems.

^ Their prediction was wrong also - since X day did not materialize, they say: we're still here -- a little shaken, perhaps, and re-evaluating the interpretation of PreScripture... Further study indicated that we have been given a reprieve. The artifact on which the date was written was accidentally inverted; the end of the world will really happen in 8661 CE!

Carlton Weasels Away

Mike Carlton, in his column Co-operation is almost the word has this to say:

The media straighteners and punishers who push the Howard Government's appalling refugee policies tend to foam at the mouth when you call the Baxter immigration detention centre a concentration camp... But this is precisely what it is, as any dictionary will confirm. The Macquarie Dictionary: "Concentration camp, n, a guarded enclosure for the detention or imprisonment of political prisoners, racial minority groups, refugees, etc ..." That is Baxter to the letter. The Macquarie goes on to give the example of the Nazi camps, but I have no intention of playing that card. It is enough to say, this Easter, that Baxter, in all its inhumanity, is a black stain upon a supposedly civilised society.

My objection to Carlton's misuse of the expression 'concentration camp' has nothing to do with "the Howard Government's... etc... etc". My objection is based on quite a different consideration - precision in language and the descriptive power of important concepts. Carlton's Weasel Word usage of 'concentration camp' is a clear example of a dysphemism. That is, corruption of a useful negative term by a slack-jawed media yokel who cares nothing for precision in using the tools of his craft. His actions reduce the potency of this critically important term by applying it without discrimination.

In a pre-emptive attempt to legitimise his weasel-usage, Carlton claims that "any dictionary will confirm" his interpretation. Presuming for the sake of argument that he is not clairvoyant, and that he has not read a very large number of dictionaries to confirm his statement, he is making a false claim. The form of the false claim is a common one - False Attribution, compounded by Stacking the Deck.

It is easy to disprove Carlton's claim - only one instance which does not confirm his unequivocal generalisation is required. To this end, I consulted an obscure and little-known dictionary which I happened to discover in an out of the way bookshop in a dark alley in Sardinia. Some readers may not have heard of it - Carlton certainly hasn't. It is called the Oxford Dictionary of English. The ODE defines 'concentration camp' in the following terms: "place in which large numbers of people, especially political prisoners or members of persecuted minorities, are deliberately imprisoned in a relatively small area... sometimes to provide forced labour or to await mass execution... strongly associated with... the Nazis in Germany". In fact, the ODE (OED) definition is not miles away from the Macquarie. Read the whole Macquarie entry, and you will realise that Carlton is also stacking the deck by concealing parts of the Macquarie entry which do not support his case for slipshod and illiterate usage.

Way to go Mike... stealing 'concentration camp' so we no longer have a succinct, unambiguous descriptor for an actual concentration camp. May I suggest that in future you use the False Analogy, "...detention centres are just like concentration camps" rather than the dysphemism, "...detention camps are concentration camps". A subtle distinction, and not entirely justifiable, but illiterate columnists should begin with baby steps, and who knows, one day one of your columns may actually contain valuable information.

McCrann's False Analogy

Looking through some past opinion columns I came across this beauty of a False Analogy by Terry McCrann in the Herald Sun - Global warming's core flaw.

GLOBAL warming – or `climate change', as it now tends to be called by its acolytes, in case it inconveniently cools things along the way – is as theological as any religion.That's to say, it rests on a series of beliefs, which might or might not have some relationship to objective fact. But in any event, the key is the belief.

Now I don't wish to Appeal to (lack of) Authority, make an Unfounded Generalization, Impugn his Motives, use Special Pleading or engage in Personal Abuse – but generally, asinine and opinionating economists such as McCrann lack any expertise (authority) in matters of science and theology. Not only that, they are always motivated by money. Whereas, given my background in philosophy of science, my expertise as a science teacher and the fact that my first name is Theo, I can claim insight into both Science and Theology!

McCrann's analogy is inept. (This is not to say everything he says is inept - though he does engage in other fallacies in his opinion piece such as false positioning.) Scientific knowledge is a set of beliefs, but it is belief based on physical evidence and repeatable (thus verifiable) experiments. The domain of science is physical. Given the right education and required mental faculties – anyone can comprehend and access the evidence for scientific claims. Religious knowledge is a set of beliefs, but it is belief based on revelation. The domain of religion (should be) non-physical. But religious belief is not based on any physical evidence – it is a matter of personal faith.

Thus his comment: " But in any event, the key is the belief." is without any foundation. The key is empirical data. Different theories for the data will be proposed and argued over, but this is how science proceeds. New experiments, studies and procedures will eventually resolve which theory "wins".

If I were an economist, the last area of human inquiry I would compare something to is religion. Economic "science", playing the stock market etc., conforms much more closely to this description than does science: "…it rests on a series of beliefs, which might or might not have some relationship to objective fact. But in any event, the key is the belief."

Examples of False Analogy

The advocate puts forward an analogy in support of a case, but the analogy only has superficial similarities to the case in question.

The politics of opposition - Well Poisoning with Weasel Words

Ass clown argues astrologer ass clowns are actually scientists

The argument from banana

Mr Lefty is worried

Intelligently designed false analogy

Barnaby's Analogy fits...

Fallacy Phil's False Analogy

Intelligently Designed Cat Escapes Bag

Analogies - the good and the bad

Miranda Devine rolls her eyes at climate change…

Carlton weasels away

McCrann's false analogy

For a comprehensive and considered written commentary on False Analogy (and other fallacies) - see The skeptic's field guide to spotting fallacies in thinking - Humbug!
Internal Tag: False Analogy

In this podcast we discuss False Analogies. This includes a direct reading from our book: Humbug! The skeptics' field guide to spotting fallacies in thinking. We'll eventually get around to podcasting all the fallacies from the book, so you can think of it as the "audio book" version of Humbug!. Not all analogies are false and not all are apt (this would be a False Dichotomy). Analogies lie on a continuum, from strong to weak. We also discuss the use of nonsensical sayings to confuse an opponent in our new section, Schadenfreude - the guilty pleasures of humbug.

Here's the link to direct download: http://www.archive.org/download/HuntingHumbug101Episode1-WhatIsHumbug/03Tutorial03_FalseAnalogy.mp3