The Skeptic's Field Guide

Tuesday, January 18, 2005

Spin another hypothesis

The following is based on Carl Sagan's baloney detection kit from his great book - The Demon Haunted World

When deciding on whether to believe an explanation for something, is it the only possible explanation, is it the most likely? Can you think of any other possible reason for it?
Spin another hypothesis - think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. What tests could be done to disprove all the alternative explanations (until you are left with only one)? The hypothesis that survives is the fittest and is most likely the right one (especially when compared to the first explanation that took your fancy). People tend to make up their minds about things very early on and as such, tend to ignore evidence which doesn't fit (Observational Selection).
Not a week goes by... (mobile phones)
An anecdote about dowsers being double-blind to their special pleading
Fat kids
The Biggest Douche in the Universe
Terrorists are not Muslim

LAMEASS of the Month

Semi regular posts on LAME Attention Seeking Schmucks:

ASS of the Month* (Inaugural)
LAMEASS retrospective

Saturday, January 15, 2005

The Socratic Method is a form of dialectic inquiry that in its strictness sense, isn’t of much use in real life. However, it is worth discussing given its historical importance, and as a precursor for a more loose definition which is of greater use in Humbug Hunting.

Essentially the Socratic method is a running dialogue between two persons (actors), one taking the lead role, in a question and answer format. The purpose is to establish the truth of the matter under consideration by proposition, contradiction of the proposition, repetition of this process and then eventual synthesis (the truth).

In its strict sense, the requirement is for both actors to have an agreed upon topic, to remain on topic, and to proceed by a question (from the lead actor) and response (from the minor actor). The lead actor looks for fallacies and contradictions in the minor’s responses, which are then used to drive the discussion forward until, eventually, the truth of the matter is attained. Note that this strict definition for the Socratic Method is known as the dialectic, made up of the thesis, anti-thesis and synthesis.

The non-strict interpretation, which is entirely more useful, is any kind of thorough question and answer dialogue, with all involved agreeing that the questions are answered and that the goalposts remain firmly in place. This requires a strong lead actor who refuses to allow the dialogue to go off topic and will not tolerate non-answers (so perhaps even this interpretation is somewhat unrealistic). The best example of this is actually the epitome of its converse - any interview with any politician, anytime in the past, present and future.

A common misconception among professional philosophers is that the best example of the Socratic Method is found in Plato’s Socratic Dialogues. Obviously this is where the Socratic Method gets its name, but the new and best exemplar is to be found in every single episode of Perry Mason. (Though there is a case for Detective Robert "Bobby" Goren from Law and Order - Criminal Intent; is there anything that guy doesn’t know?) In all cases, the principal actor uses their superior knowledge and skills in rhetoric to get to the truth of a matter (garner a confession from the baddy in the contemporary examples I cite).

Interesting aside regarding the dialectic and truth: The dialectic formed the basis of Marx's view of the development of history and political ideology (with his ideas being based on Hegel's work). The difference between this and the Socratic Method is extreme. One is the (attempted) search for the truth, one is asserted to be historical truth. Both are flawed, but only one profoundly so. As a tool for truth seeking, the Socratic Method is useful in particular domains of knowledge - in ethics and epistemology (for example) but not (usually) science. And even then the Socratic Method will more than likely not yield the truth. It is best viewed as a tool used to clarify ideas, spin other hypotheses, defend a position and remove contradictions and fallacies from that position. Much like Playing the Devil's Advocate, the Socratic Method is guaranteed to keep you "on your toes" and defy dogmatism.

Marx argued that history actually proceeds dialectically, through direct clashes of social systems with a resulting synthesis. This process then repeats, eventually culminating (after the violent overthrow of Capitalism) into a final synthesis - a benevolent Socialist utopia. Though there is a sort of poetic beauty in this idea (minus the violence, though Marx thought that necessary), it is clearly simplistic and untrue - Socialism didn't come after Capitalism, it coexisted with it and "lost". (Not only this, try to fit all of history into thesis/anti-thesis/synthesis, not just a few examples that suit… good luck.)

Examples of Reductio Ad Absurdum

The Advocate's premises are shown to be false as, if they are true, an absurd conclusion is reached.

An example: Hesa Cicy maintains that all beliefs are equally valid. For the sake of argument, this would mean that the scientific view of the Origin of the Universe and the Diversity of Life is of equal validity as a Young Earth Creationist view. Whilst this in itself is absurd, and perhaps example enough, his friend Chip Baud shows Hesa Cicy his argument is flawed - by following the premises to their natural conclusion:

If your argument is true - that all beliefs are equally valid, then there is no reason to give any particular belief any greater merit than any other - including your argument. Your argument is self-contradictory and as such, is absurd.

Logical Fallacies

Here is a list of the fallacies we cover:

Don't forget to check out these techniques for Humbug Hunting

Pages