Are Logical Fallacies Making You Wrong More Than You Think?

[Andre]

Food for thought.

5 logical fallacies that make you wrong more than you think.

The Internet has introduced a golden age of ill-informed arguments. You can't post a video of an adorable kitten without a raging debate about pet issues spawning in the comment section. These days, everyone is a pundit.

But with all those different perspectives on important issues flying around, you'd think we'd be getting smarter and more informed. Unfortunately, the very wiring of our brains ensures that all these lively debates only make us dumber and more narrow-minded. For instance ...

#5. We're Not Programmed to Seek "Truth," We're Programmed to "Win"... cont..

etc

Now how does a scientist overcome his this desire to win while seeking the truth?

 

[Simon Bridge]

It takes discipline and humility.
In fact - it is a fundamental humility in the scientific perspective.
We don't always succeed. One of the tricks is to try to make winning the same as getting a simpler and more general model. Which is the closest we get to finding "the truth".

 

[chiro]

Food for thought.

5 logical fallacies that make you wrong more than you think.

etc

Now how does a scientist overcome his this desire to win while seeking the truth?

Hey Andre.

I think the best way is to realize that failure is a part of discovery and growth as a human being regardless of the context. The minute people realize this, the whole idea of having to win all the time won't be as much of a focus as it was before.

It's not that winning is bad, it's just that when it becomes the sole focus over everything else that it's bad. One can show examples of how pride brings down all sorts of people including those that should have known better but didn't.

The real scientist will get over this pretty soon when things don't go quite as expected. I can't imagine anything better that does this for anyone whether its a scientist, athlete, entrepreneur or anyone for that matter involved in some kind of uncertainty/hard endeavor/other unknown attribute situation.

 

[russ_watters]

Food for thought.

5 logical fallacies that make you wrong more than you think.



etc

Now how does a scientist overcome his this desire to win while seeking the truth?

A scientist is most certainly not some random layman on the internet. You're committing a logical fallacy of your own there.

 

[Simon Bridge]

Then the question becomes: how is a scientist different from a random layman on the internet in relation to "winning" vs "finding the truth" doesn't it :)

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/kathryn_schulz_on_being_wrong.html
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/jk_rowling_the_fringe_benefits_of_failure.html

 

[BobG]

A scientist is most certainly not some random layman on the internet. You're committing a logical fallacy of your own there.

Which would be failing to be hard-wired to have a double standard?

I'd say the article is mostly garbage, but that would only prove that facts don't change our mind. There's no way to win.

There is some truth to the five facts they list, but the article is still entertainment that provides little real insight to any of those underlying facts. (I'm sick, sick, sick! Even when I try to be open minded, I just can't accept the truth of the facts in the article without some kind of hedge to diminish them!)

 

[Andre]

A scientist is most certainly not some random layman on the internet. You're committing a logical fallacy of your own there.

I have not even stated anything so how can a question be a logical fallacy?

 

[Vanadium 50]

Andre, you've been grinding the same old axe for quite a while here. So "I have not even stated anything" can only be read as "I have not even stated anything in this particular thread, despite having gone on and on about this in the past".

 

[NileQueen]

Russ Waters, Vanadium 50,

What is the point of PF, if you cannot discuss things?

The link is an interesting one, with valid points for discussion.

#5. We're Not Programmed to Seek "Truth," We're Programmed to "Win"

#4. Our Brains Don't Understand Probability

#3. We Think Everyone's Out to Get Us

#2. We're Hard-Wired to Have a Double Standard

#1. Facts Don't Change Our Minds

with elaborations on each heading.

I can address #1. If you come up with a new hypothesis that upsets a lifetime of work by another scientist or scientists, is it likely that they will welcome it? Ideally yes, but realistically, probably not. People have emotional attachments to their hypotheses.

Please try to be more positive, and allow discussion to take place.

 

[Simon Bridge]

These points have been discussed - what don't you understand?

eg. In #1. sure people have their favorites ... however, as a discipline, we default to skepticism: especially when a result confirms our favorite ideas. The very framework for research is ideologically built on disproving our favorite ideas. Even so, we don't trust ourselves to be objective and do our work as part of a broader community of skeptics who challenge our ideas at every turn. In this way we can leverage the community to make up for any perceived human failings that may tempt us.

It should be difficult to overthrow established science; facts, by themselves, shouldn't change our minds. Even so - established science has repeatedly been overthrown through history. It works.

So you see - insofar as the list can be considered as valid - knowing about these problems means that we can come up with mechanisms to overcome them.

 

[NileQueen]

These points have been discussed - what don't you understand?

eg. In #1. sure people have their favorites ... however, as a discipline, we default to skepticism: especially when a result confirms our favorite ideas. The very framework for research is ideologically built on disproving our favorite ideas. Even so, we don't trust ourselves to be objective and do our work as part of a broader community of skeptics who challenge our ideas at every turn. In this way we can leverage the community to make up for any perceived human failings that may tempt us.

It should be difficult to overthrow established science; facts, by themselves, shouldn't change our minds. Even so - established science has repeatedly been overthrown through history. It works.

So you see - insofar as the list can be considered as valid - knowing about these problems means that we can come up with mechanisms to overcome them.

Simon, my point is, the lack of openness to discussion if someone wants to discuss these points. You are not telling me anything I don't know, as I am PhD student in a scientific field. In practice, as a scientist, if you engage in controversial research, you are likely to be blacklisted, and may not be able to continue working in science. Clovis First is one of those hypotheses that you could not challenge. Now it has been overturned. So, there is plenty of room for discussion. It's not all cut and dried.

 

[wuliheron]

Scientists don't have to overcome their desire to win while seeking the truth. The truth is great, but it's always taken a backseat to winning and always will. That's why we have bureaucracies with traditions like peer review and demands for empirical evidence so the scientists can focus on what is important: Winning. At one time that meant being able to prove the Earth was flat so that's what scientists did.

 

[zoobyshoe]

From Andre's link:

It's called the argumentative theory of reasoning, and it says that humans didn't learn to ask questions and offer answers in order to find universal truths. We did it as a way to gain authority over others. That's right -- they think that reason itself evolved to help us bully people into getting what we want. Here's how a proponent puts it:
"'Reasoning doesn't have this function of helping us to get better beliefs and make better decisions,' said Hugo Mercier, who is a co-author of the journal article, with Dan Sperber. 'It was a purely social phenomenon. It evolved to help us convince others and to be careful when others try to convince us.' Truth and accuracy were beside the point."
And as evidence, the researchers point out that after thousands of years of humans sitting around campfires and arguing about issues, these glaring flaws in our logic still exist. Why hasn't evolution weeded them out? The answer, they say, is that these cognitive flaws are adaptations to a system that's working perfectly fine, thank you. Our evolutionary compulsion is to triumph, even if it means being totally, illogically, proudly wrong.

There is a link in the first paragraph to a NY Times article about the Argumentative Theory of Reasoning, but if you click on it, it turns out you have to create an account and log into read it. Not wanting to bother with that, I looked elsewhere.

Googling, I found a separate site about The Argumentative Theory of Reasoning.

https://sites.google.com/site/hugomercier/theargumentativetheoryofreasoning

It turns out the article Andre linked to completely misrepresents this theory. It does not assert we are hardwired to win at all costs to bully others, only that individuals are hardwired to produce arguments from confirmation bias. This, it turns out, is a good thing. In group reasoning the various confirmation biases function as a division of cognitive labor:

Prediction #3. If reasoning evolved so we can argue with others, then we should be biased in our search for arguments. In a discussion, I have little use for arguments that support your point of view or that rebut mine. Accordingly, reasoning should display a confirmation bias: it should be more likely to find arguments that support our point of view or rebut those that we oppose. Short (but emphatic) answer: it does, and very much so. The confirmation bias is one of the most robust and prevalent biases in reasoning. This is a very puzzling trait of reasoning if reasoning had a classical, Cartesian function of bettering our beliefs—especially as the confirmation bias is responsible for all sorts of mischief (cf. prediction #4). Interestingly, the confirmation bias needs not be a drag on a group’s ability to argue. To the extent that it is mostly the production, and not the evaluation of arguments that is biased—and that seems to be the case—then a group of people arguing should still be able to settle on the best answer, despite the confirmation bias (which they do, cf. prediction #2). As a matter of fact, the confirmation bias can then even be considered a form of division of cognitive labor: instead of all group members having to laboriously go through the pros and cons of each option, if each member is biased towards one option, she will find the pros of that options, and the cons of the others—which is much easier—and the others will do their own bit.

The paper does not assert that people stick to their guns in order to win at all costs!

Instead it asserts that argumentation often does produce change:

Here’s a very quick summary of the evolutionary rationale behind this theory. Communication is hugely important for humans, and there is good reason to believe that this has been the case throughout our evolution, as different types of collaborative—and therefore communicative—activities already played a big role in our ancestors’ lives (hunting, collecting, raising children, etc.). However, for communication to be possible, listeners have to have ways to discriminate reliable, trustworthy information from potentially dangerous information—otherwise speakers would be won't to abuse them through lies and deception. Listeners must have mechanisms of epistemic vigilance. One way listeners and speakers can improve the reliability of communication is through arguments. The speaker gives a reason to accept a given conclusion. The listener can then evaluate this reason to decide whether she should accept the conclusion. In both cases, they have used reasoning—to find and evaluate a reason respectively. If reasoning does its job properly, communication has been improved: a true conclusion is more likely to be supported by good arguments, and therefore accepted, thereby making both the speaker—who managed to convince the listener—and the listener—who acquired a potentially valuable piece of information—better off.

Individuals reasoning alone unchecked by alternate possible views are the most likely to err in their reasoning, as are groups in which there's too much a priori agreement (groupthink). Exposure to alternate and opposing views is a good thing:

If we can increase people’s exposition to arguments, if we manage to make them argue more with people who disagree with them, then reasoning should produce very good results without having had to be reformed.

It's not about winning, but testing for reliability. We are hardwired to test sources of information for reliability. All the confirmation biases people bring to the table are a test for the information source to overcome.

From Andre's link:

It's called the argumentative theory of reasoning, and it says that humans didn't learn to ask questions and offer answers in order to find universal truths. We did it as a way to gain authority over others. That's right -- they think that reason itself evolved to help us bully people into getting what we want.

That's a completely corrupted interpretation of what the theory asserts. The theory asserts pretty much the opposite in fact, that reasoning and argumentation developed to protect us from being abused by lying and deception.

 

[Pythagorean]

The honest answer is that the compulsion to win is not completely eliminated from academia. In fact, you get a lot of people who simply like to stand up in front of an audience and toot their horn. There's actually quite a bit of ego involved in academia, especially in the more prestigious schools.

Of course, winning in academia, is being right so a false positive will only get you so far before it comes back to bite you in the arse, because everyone else you're competing with is going to call you out on it as soon as they discover the true positive.

What's really interesting is when you have a controversy, and two different labs vying for their side of their story. It's kind of sad really, to see what goes on sometimes... confirmation bias, I think, is the big one.

 

[wuliheron]

It turns out the article Andre linked to completely misrepresents this theory.

It's Cracked magazine, perhaps the name of the magazine will give you some clue as to its purpose.

 

[Evo]

It's Cracked magazine, perhaps the name of the magazine will give you some clue as to its purpose.

I was wondering when someone would realize it's a spoof, like The Onion.

 

[edward]

I was wondering when someone would realize it's a spoof, like The Onion.

I was thinking spoof at first. A goggle search doesn't bear that out. It was everywhere from Huffpost to military forums.

http://biasandbelief.wordpress.com/2012/05/19/nice-article-from-cracked-on-biases/

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2011/11/5-logical-fallacies-that-make-you-wrong.html

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=629645

 

[wuliheron]

I was thinking spoof at first. A goggle search doesn't bear that out. It was everywhere from Huffpost to military forums.

http://biasandbelief.wordpress.com/2012/05/19/nice-article-from-cracked-on-biases/

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2011/11/5-logical-fallacies-that-make-you-wrong.html

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=629645

According to the National Science Foundation one in five Americans still believes the sun revolves around the earth. The whole point of Cracked magazine is to do spoofs like this and get them published in major news outlets and journals. To mock the whole system just as Conan O'brien has done twice now by simply recording an endless stream of news casters all spouting the exact same drivel and political rhetoric.

 

[Evo]

It's a very well known spoof site.

Cracked.com is the most visited humor website in the world, with over 300 million monthly page views.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cracked.com

 

[zoobyshoe]

I was wondering when someone would realize it's a spoof, like The Onion.

The intent is sardonic humor but not by spoof. The Onion outright invents humorous studies. Cracked mines real science for proof people are stupid, hypocritical, etc, not unlike the way you post news articles about people doing ridiculous things.

In the case of The Argumentative Theory of Reasoning, the writer flat out read the theory all wrong. That is not the case with the other four 'logical fallacies' listed. If you click on the links you'll see Cracked did not grossly misrepresent them, just digested them to suit the message that 'people are idiots'.

 

[Evo]

The intent is sardonic humor but not by spoof. The Onion outright invents humorous studies. Cracked mines real science for proof people are stupid, hypocritical, etc, not unlike the way you post news articles about people doing ridiculous things.

In the case of The Argumentative Theory of Reasoning, the writer flat out read the theory all wrong. That is not the case with the other four 'logical fallacies' listed. If you click on the links you'll see Cracked did not grossly misrepresent them, just digested them to suit the message that 'people are idiots'.

Spoof, humor, same thing to me in meaning it's not a serious website. Don't be so literal.

 

[Andre]

Nevertheless, the #5. We're Not Programmed to Seek "Truth," We're Programmed to "Win" is based on this,

Reasoning is generally seen as a means to improve knowledge and make better decisions. However, much evidence shows that reasoning often leads to epistemic distortions and poor decisions. ... people turn out to be skilled arguers. Skilled arguers, however, are not after the truth but after arguments supporting their views. This explains the notorious confirmation bias. ...etc

 

[wuliheron]

Spoofs are a central aspect of sardonic humor!

 

[edward]

The wordpress link above rewords the five into a form that enables each to be googled and approached in a more scientific manner. EDITED

1.Confirmation bias
2.Fundamental attribution error
3.Neglect of probability
4.The trust gap
5.Argumentative theory of reasoning

 

[mikelepore]

Now how does a scientist overcome his this desire to win while seeking the truth?

The cited article isn't only about scientists. Are you only asking about scientists? The field of science is the least susceptible to this problem, and politics the most susceptible. In most cases, if your idea is a new one, you never persuade others with an argument. What you usually have to do is publish a new idea, wait for the present generation of people to die of old age, and then someday a new generation of people recognizes that many of the old ideas are "common sense."

 

[Andre]

...The field of science is the least susceptible to this problem, ...

That's most likely true for the hard science, physics, math, chemistry, little room for speculation. However in softer fuzzier fields, like geologic sciences, there is a lot of speculations. Staying there, Nilequeen mentioned the clovis first hypothesis, there is a reason for the term http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/once-upon-a-time-in-america-724369.html; another fiercely battled field, to seek to be right or to seek to win is the Pleistocene megafauna extinction, who killed the mammoths? was it over kill, over chill, or over ill, or maybe an extraterrestrial event. There is no politics involved at all about who is to win that discussion and who was right, but yet the over heated debates continue. How about sciences that do involve political decisions?

 

[zoobyshoe]

Nevertheless, the #5. We're Not Programmed to Seek "Truth," We're Programmed to "Win" is based on this,

The title alone can be justified by the abstract but the article goes on to flatly assert that people argue...

...as a way to gain authority over others. That's right -- they think that reason itself evolved to help us bully people into getting what we want.

From the abstract:

Our hypothesis is that the function of reasoning is argumentative. It is to devise and evaluate arguments intended to persuade. Reasoning so conceived is adaptive given the exceptional dependence of humans on communication and their vulnerability to misinformation.

It says we are programmed to have, and find arguments that support, biases, but does not say anything to the effect that people are hardwired to say whatever it takes to become top dog.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Spoofs are a central aspect of sardonic humor!

They can be but aren't necessarily. Spoofs can be lighthearted; mere affectionate teasing.

Some sardonic humor takes the form of spoof, but by no means all does.

 

[wuliheron]

They can be but aren't necessarily. Spoofs can be lighthearted; mere affectionate teasing.

Some sardonic humor takes the form of spoof, but by no means all does.

Lighthearted is a gross generalization and characterization. Spoofs can sometimes be the only means of criticizing things openly but, otherwise, have nothing light hearted about them other than form.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Of course, winning in academia, is being right so a false positive will only get you so far before it comes back to bite you in the arse, because everyone else you're competing with is going to call you out on it as soon as they discover the true positive.

This was my thought as well. The ego of scientists is inextricably linked to the thought they have, or can in principle, uncover truth. Uncovering truth is the "win". It's the field of human endeavor where an untruthful "win" is the worst thing you could attempt, because your competitors can and will publicly debunk it.

On the other hand there is bullying. In Genius James Gleik tell the story of how Niels Bohr interrupted Feynman's first explanation of Q.E.D., took over the backboard, and gave him a remedial lecture in quantum mechanics. A less confident person than Feynman would have caved and slunk away never to mention Q.E.D. again. He got body slammed by Niels Bohr after all. Why didn't he throw in the towel?

 

[zoobyshoe]

Lighthearted is a gross generalization and characterization. Spoofs can sometimes be the only means of criticizing things openly but, otherwise, have nothing light hearted about them other than form.

I said a spoof can be lighthearted. I did not say spoofs are automatically all light hearted.

spoof 
noun
1.
a mocking imitation of someone or something, usually light and good-humored; lampoon or parody: The show was a spoof of college life.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spoof

Notice it says "usually light and good humored".

 

[wuliheron]

I said a spoof can be lighthearted. I did not say spoofs are automatically all light hearted.

Last year NYC arrested 26 reporters in one day to prevent them from covering protests against massive institutionalized corruption and congress debated empowering the military to arbitrarily suspend habeas corpus altogether and round people up like cattle. These days I wouldn't count on any spoofs being particularly lighthearted.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Last year NYC arrested 26 reporters in one day to prevent them from covering protests against massive institutionalized corruption and congress debated empowering the military to arbitrarily suspend habeas corpus altogether and round people up like cattle. These days I wouldn't count on any spoofs being particularly lighthearted.

You still have no clear idea what the word means.

Spoof ≠ political satire.

There can be spoofs of Star Trek, Moby Dick, Shakespeare, California Valley Culture, people who get plastic surgery, McDonald's, football players, etc. The list is infinite. Spoofs aren't limited to politics.

 

[wuliheron]

You still have no clear idea what the word means.

Spoof ≠ political satire.

There can be spoofs of Star Trek, Moby Dick, Shakespeare, California Valley Culture, people who get plastic surgery, McDonald's, football players, etc. The list is infinite. Spoofs aren't limited to politics.

Politics IS the personal. These days even the Muppets have been accused of being a communist plot and not long ago when I criticized a Christian film as having no artistic value I was accused of being anti-Christian. Spoofs are not limited to things necessarily commonly or explicitly thought of as political, but nothing is. Those creating a spoof may even have no intention whatsoever of making any kind of political statement, but their audience may see things otherwise. In so doing the spoof by definition becomes political. Keeping it at least somewhat easier for people to interpret as lighthearted or completely miss the fact it is intended as humor at all gives spoofs a rather unique place in political dialogue which is infamous for its vitriol, biting sarcasm, and other extremes.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Politics IS the personal. These days even the Muppets have been accused of being a communist plot and not long ago when I criticized a Christian film as having no artistic value I was accused of being anti-Christian. Spoofs are not limited to things necessarily commonly or explicitly thought of as political, but nothing is. Those creating a spoof may even have no intention whatsoever of making any kind of political statement, but their audience may see things otherwise. In so doing the spoof by definition becomes political. Keeping it at least somewhat easier for people to interpret as lighthearted or completely miss the fact it is intended as humor at all gives spoofs a rather unique place in political dialogue which is infamous for its vitriol, biting sarcasm, and other extremes.

So what? If I say "red" and you misinterpret that to mean "blue", it doesn't change the meaning of the word "red".