Kim Beazley weighs in

…and jabbas on about the teaching of Australian history with this hefty False Dilemma:

"I'm an old historian, so naturally I tend to be favourably disposed," he said in Adelaide today.

"But I have got to say, when you look at the education minister of the Commonwealth focused on that, it's just an elite preoccupation.

"Fundamentally, what we need now from our education ministers is a focus on trades – encouraging young men and women into trades."

He is referring to the argument forwarded by the Federal minister for education, on which I posted yesterday. One wonders how Bishop's "elitist" argument (this coming from the Oxford educated "Mr Prolix"!) for consistent and factual teaching of Australian history discourages people from entering into trades?

I've a solution. Often forcing people to learn stuff annoys the hell out of them. Why don't we offer two types of choices for electives for junior high-school? Eg, Rote Learning History 101 (Australian Prime Ministers in Chronological Order) or Workshop 101 (Lathing for Beginners)? A suitable False Compromise if I've ever seen one.

______________
Tagged - Fallacy Skepticism, False Dilemma.

38th skeptic's circle is on

Go and try a delicious skeptical beverage at the skeptic rant. Many to choose from, including Quack Quencher, Woo Brew and my personal favourite - Satire Cider.

Question begging Bishop

In Today's Australian the new Federal Education Minister, Julie Bishop, makes this convincing argument about the teaching of history:

THE time has come for a renaissance in the teaching of Australian history in our schools. By the time students finish their secondary schooling, they must have a thorough understanding of their nation's past.

Fair enough I say. But why Ms Bishop?

It makes young people more informed citizens and better able to appreciate where our nation has come from and how we have arrived at our place as a modern lib-eral [sic] democracy.

Oh? A thorough understanding of our nation's past means people are more informed about where our nation has come from etc.? Wow, I'm convinced.

All she has done is argued for her first statement, that students ought to have a thorough understanding of the past, by saying that if they have a thorough understanding of the past they will be informed about the past. This pigheaded reasoning is an example of Begging the Question.*

In saying that, I'm all for the non-politicised teaching of and renewed focus on, Australian history, which is what the current Federal government is on about. And the rest of her opining is fairly reasonable. Though it's fair to say that non-educators need to tread wary when discussing issues of curriculum. The last Federal education minister, for example, gave credence to ID. (That's not to say they couldn't possibly have a reasoned opinion - otherwise I'd be guilty of Special Pleading.)

________________
*I'm possibly being a bit harsh, in that she does say they'll know why we are where we are now (a modern liberal democracy). I.e, she adds a little more to her argument than a simple restatement of her premise. But I wanted to post today.

Tagged - Fallacy Skepticism, Begging the Question.

Humbug hunting in bad faith

No way in the world was Gary Curtis referring to us with this post:

Too often, fallacy hunters set out to find fault with the arguments of those whom they disagree with, and whose conclusions they want to reject, instead of looking for flaws in their own arguments and those whose conclusions they wish to believe. In this way, looking for fallacies becomes a way of reinforcing prejudices, rather than correcting errors and strengthening arguments, as it should be.

That would be acting in Bad Faith!

________________
Tagged - Fallacy Skepticism, Bad Faith.

Examples of Immunised Hypothesis

The advocate forwards a claim that in practice (or even in theory) cannot be falsified.

• Falsification
  

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 (Simple-Minded Certitude).

For example, Turner Round and Benjamin Dover are is discussing a dream:

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

Ben 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 I'm hardly the sharpest knife in the cutlery draw. I think you're full of it mate."

Ben: "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. I'm happily married with two kids and no plans for any more. We've just paid off our mortgage and things couldn't be any better at work…"

Ben: "Your not thinking along the same lines that I am…" [At which point he winks at Turner and starts to unbutton his shirt] "Come on man, it's so obvious. Snakes are phallic and symbolise dangerous and forbidden sexuality…?"

Turner: "Dude, what are you doing? Can you please get your hand off my thigh… I don't bat for your team… Not that there's anything wrong with that*.

Ben: "Okay then, but 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 Ben continues with ad hoc interpretations until he eventually works out Turner's dream:

Ben: "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 you went ice fishing the day before the dream. 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. You're a man that's for sure, so it must be the alternative meaning, an association with summertime ease, leisure, and relaxation. It all makes sense; I'm off to Barbados on Wednesday! You were dreaming about me!"

Turner: "Dude, my wife will be here any moment. So will yours. How many times do I have to ask you to keep your hands to yourself? And can you please put your shirt back on?"

Ben has continued to interpret the dream in a way that favours his initial hypothesis; Turner is in denial about his true sexuality. No matter what evidence Turner produces to counter this claim, Ben spins explanation after explanation until his hypothesis is so convoluted that it should be treated with utter disdain. However, if it does turn out that Turner is in denial, and he eventually 'comes out', we have no reason to assume that the dream he had, and Ben's interpretation, was actually correct. It's just a coincidence.#

___________
* c.f. Seinfeld.

# It could be argued that in saying this I've immunised my hypothesis - that dream interpretation is nothing but a waste of time and doesn't reveal underlying psychological issues. But any resemblance between my rejection of dream interpretation even when it seems to work, and the fallacy immunised hypothesis, is also a coincidence.

Tagged - Fallacy Skepticism, Falsification, Hypothesis, Immunised Hypothesis.