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.

Red Herring

Other Terms and/or Related Concepts

Moving the goalposts; the Chewbacca Defense.

Description

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

Examples

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

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

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

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

(South Park 1998, Season 2, Episode 14)

Comment

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

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

 

Podcast: Hunting Humbug 101 - Tutorial 07: Non Sequiturs

In this podcast we discuss Non Sequiturs, as well as the change of website to www.skepticsfieldguide.net and of course, the eBook.



Here's the link to direct download: (22 mins & 10 mb) and you subscribe here: http://huntinghumbug101.podbean.com/feed/or by clicking one of the buttons below.

Website:
Share on Facebook
Podcast:

The mathematical moron

Browsing around the blogosphere I came across this post at the evolution blog responding to this piece of moronic anti-algebra drivel (or perhaps, dribble?) by Richard Cohen in the Washington Post.

There is too much pointless pontificating and far too many fallacies for me to be thorough, and the evolution blog post covers the whole thing, so I'll focus on half of one paragraph in Cohen's piece:

Gabriela, sooner or later someone's going to tell you that algebra teaches reasoning. This is a lie propagated by, among others, algebra teachers. Writing is the highest form of reasoning. This is a fact. Algebra is not. The proof of this, Gabriela, is all the people in my high school who were whizzes at math but did not know a thing about history and could not write a readable English sentence.

So much rubbish in not even one paragraph - where to start?

…algebra teaches reasoning. This is a lie propagated by, among others, algebra teachers…

Mathematics is by definition the strictest form of reasoning, precisely because everything is defined by mathematical axioms which result in tautological statements such as: "For the equation y = 2 x, if x = 2, then y = 4." Simple logic. You can't get any more "reasoned" than that.

Writing is the highest form of reasoning. This is a fact. Algebra is not.

Okay? And just how is this "a fact"? I'd say Cohen is guilty of a Factoid Propagation, but I find it hard to believe anyone would agree with him. . Cohen beclowns himself by not being able to communicate what he means. Does he mean: "Algebra is not a fact", or Algebra is not the highest form or reasoning? His syntax implies the former.

He then "proves" that writing is the highest form of reasoning:

The proof of this, Gabriela, is all the people in my high school who were whizzes at math but did not know a thing about history and could not write a readable English sentence.

(Given Cohen admits he is incapable of doing the most rudimentary mathematics, such as percentages, I won't assume he was actually able to count the total number of students in his school. It's hard to see how he can make this claim of "...all the people...".)

Fallacy 1 - Non-Sequitur. How does this "evidence" prove writing is the "highest form of reasoning"? All it "proves" is that the other people in his class were as stupid is he is; just in different ways.

Fallacy 2 - Making up anecdotes is a clear case of False Attribution. We are asked to take Cohen's word for it, that: "… all the people in my high school who were whizzes at math…". Wow, he has access to all their grades, and has since checked up on all of them to ensure his claim is factually correct.

Fallacy 3 - Unfounded Generalization. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he is correct in his claim that all the people he went to school with couldn’t write if they could do maths. Clearly, by implication, it then follows that all people who are good at mathematics can't write, or, you know, do anything else important, like tie up their own shoelaces. Given Cohen's lack of mathematical knowledge, I suppose we can forgive him for not understanding that his entire school is far too small a sample to extrapolate from in order form a meaningful position apropos to the likelihood of any one individual being a polymath. However, Cohen doesn't even have any actual data, just a (made up) anecdote.

A side note regarding anecdotal “evidence”. One doesn't have to have any knowledge of statistics to understand anecdotal evidence is as good as useless – especially as a "proof". Moreover, this anecdote is merely the assertion of one person. And even if more that one person was to make the same anecdotal assertion, the plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not data.

Cohen is a great example of this aphorism: "To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the ignorant."

No, he wasn't joking (just stupid).

WRT the "race riots" - the PM wasn't really sure (initially) what to make of this line of inquiry - an obvious non-sequitur.

Q: "Do you think anything the Government said over the last few years has set the tone for the actions on the weekend?"
PM: "Which Government?"
Q: "Your Government."
PM: "My Government?"
Reporter: "Yes."
PM: "Certainly not. What do you have in mind?"
Q: "Your position on Iraq."
PM: "My position on Iraq?"
Q: "Do you think that's had any influence on people feeling alienated?"
PM: "My position on Iraq? You've got to be joking."

Many comments over at Tim Blair's.

Examples of non sequiturs

A conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement. A Latin term which literally means "it does not follow". Most fallacies are merely different classes of non sequiturs.

• Grade Appeal non-sequiturs
• It seems trivial, but only because it is
• The mathematical moron
• No he wasn't joking (just stupid)