Ranthropologist

Tag: Logical Fallacies

  • Poli-critical Thinking

    Poli-critical Thinking

    I’ve been off the blogging radar for a while. It’s not that I haven’t been inspired to write – I have ideas all the time. But I’ve been spending too much time in the noise. There are so many things to read, so many voices clamoring to be heard over the din, and sometimes I got lost and overwhelmed with it all and I despair that there will ever be any understanding. I know I have friends who read my posts, and I appreciate it, but when I started this blog I nurtured secret hopes that others might read it, too. I have no desire to be well-known for what I write; my goal is to simply to share ideas in the hopes that others might find them useful. And in spite of my calling these posts “rants,” I also had (have?) hopes that I can hear other people’s ideas, even if they disagree with me. I feel strongly about many things but I have never expected other people to automatically agree with everything I say, or worse, be afraid that if they challenge me I’ll respond with rudeness or condescension. I have been guilty of arrogance and pretension, but I’ve gotten better at recognizing those traits in myself, partly through writing this blog. I don’t want to be a smug liberal, the type of ideologue who assumes that because of education and experience I’m somehow better qualified than other people to offer my ideas. And I don’t want to make broad generalizations about people I disagree with, either. It is too easy to believe that people who are anti-vaccine, for example, are crazy or stupid or brainwashed rather than sincere people with sincerely held, even if mistaken, beliefs. I am strongly pro-vaccine, and the science is on my side – but has anybody ever won an argument where they started out by saying “You’re a terrible parent because you won’t vaccinate your kids”? This is why I am such a fierce advocate of critical thinking skills. And yes, duh, everybody thinks critical thinking is important, and most people probably consider themselves to be good critical thinkers already. But in reality, it takes constant practice to keep from getting tangled in the thorns of fallacious thinking.

    So why have I decided to write a post now, after being silent since January? Because I want to talk about critical thinking in online commentary about politics. I’ve considered writing posts about specific political topics, but I made a sort of informal decision to just stay away from politics during this election cycle. I don’t expect to change anybody’s mind about who to vote for. The few things I’ve posted on Facebook have mostly been my dismayed reactions to Donald Trump, or shared articles that address misconceptions about certain candidates or their ideas. And full disclosure, for the sake of this post: I voted for Hillary Clinton in the primary, though ideologically I agree with much of what Bernie Sanders represents (and I have no space here to talk about why I decided not to vote for him in spite of that agreement). But as far as I remember I have not posted anything online exhorting friends to vote for Hillary or Bernie. Even the things I’ve posted about Trump have been mostly preaching to the choir, and the few online friends I have who are pro-Trump are certainly not going to change their minds based on anything I have to say. But if you are going to post about politics, the more you avoid logical fallacies, the stronger your argument will be. So here, in no particular order, are some of my observations and suggestions about how to think poli-critically.

    Facts. I’ve ranted about facts before, so I won’t get too detailed here, but people tend to confuse facts and opinions. Here’s the deal: a fact is a verifiable truth. An opinion is a judgement about a fact. So, politically, it is a fact that Hillary Clinton (whether through her campaign or the Clinton Foundation) has taken donations from Monsanto. It is an opinion that this makes her an unfit candidate for president. It is a fact that Monsanto manufactures the herbicide glyphosate; it is an opinion that this makes Monsanto an “evil” corporation. Don’t confuse the two. You can develop your own opinions, but you do not get to make up your own facts. (On a related note, I hope to soon write a post that’s been percolating in my brain for quite some time about Monsanto, glyphosate, the organics industry, and genetically modified crops. I have my issues with Monsanto, but glyphosate and GM technology are not among them).

    Ad hominem. Explained at length in this post, in politics ad hominem manifests itself almost exclusively as name-calling and insults. As I asked above, has anybody ever changed your mind by calling you an idiot? And even if you aren’t strictly trying to change somebody’s mind, have you had any interest in continuing a dialogue that involves name-calling and insults? Differences of opinion can be illuminating and constructive – and sometimes you actually do change your – or somebody else’s! – mind. That won’t happen if you engage in ad hominem.

    Fundamental attribution error. You can read about this fallacy in more detail here. In politics, this tends to manifest itself as a sort of ideological tribalism: me and my group are right because we are more knowledgeable or ethical or clear-headed or realistic. The other side is wrong because they are uninformed or ignorant or brainwashed or bigoted. You make right choices because you are smart and ethical; they make wrong choices because they don’t know any better or because they are morally flawed (this is also ad hominem). To avoid this error, it is wise to bear in mind that people with different political ideas think YOU are the one who is uninformed, etc. Consider that they may actually have a logical, rational, and well-thought-out basis for their beliefs, even if you don’t agree (see fact vs. opinion above). Obviously this isn’t always going to be true of another’s opinion – but it may also not be true of  YOUR opinion.

    Confirmation bias (aka the echo chamber). This is one of the biggies, which is why it has made multiple appearances in my writing. This is the classic human tendency to only remember the things that support our points of view, and to forget or reject everything else. It is what causes people to stop looking as soon as they find what confirms what they already think. People also have a tendency to surround themselves with like-minded people and sources of information, which is why confirmation bias creates an echo chamber of self-fulfilling opinions. It happens to all of us, all the time. Do you believe that Hillary Clinton is innocent of anything other than poor decision-making regarding her email server? You can find all the articles you want to support that opinion. Do you believe that the Democratic party’s elite stole the primary from Bernie Sanders? You can find all the articles you want to support that idea, too. And when someone points out an article or a set of ideas that refutes your opinion, you can reject it for any number of reasons to resolve the cognitive dissonance and continue confirming your bias.

    The Genetic Fallacy. One of the most common reasons to reject an alternative point of view is to impugn the source. This is an example of the genetic fallacy, wherein you reject or accept an argument based on its origins rather than on its merits. So in the case of politics, if an article in The New York Times points out Donald Trump’s many lies and inconsistent statements, a Trump supporter can reject it because it comes from a paper that is generally considered to be liberal. I have to say I find it highly amusing that people of all political stripes will use the epithet “lamestream media” to lambaste and reject any article with which they disagree. And the genetic fallacy works the other way when you use it to lend credibility to a source. This has echoes – pun intended! – of the echo chamber, because we tend to seek out the sources we already agree with. So to avoid this thinking error, rather than accept or reject a source because of where or who it comes from, weigh the argument on its actual merits. Sometimes even the sources we trust are wrong, and the ones we usually reject are right! I admit that this is one of the hard ones for me – I want to believe in the credibility of my go-to sources, but I have made it a habit to fact-check against multiple sources before forming a solid opinion.

    I’m going to stop here for now, but I may add to this list in a later post. I have no illusions about this little post making any difference to anybody, but it feels good getting it off my chest. And I make no claim whatsoever to being immune from these same mistakes, but I have made a conscious and continuing effort to be aware of them in my thinking and my writing. It’s why I continue to engage, civilly and respectfully, with the people with whom I disagree (although I generally won’t tolerate name-calling). It’s why I can debate somebody on politics or culture in one post, and post a happy face on a picture of that same person’s kids in another one. It’s why I teach anthropology. And it’s why, after being careful to avoid errors in my thinking as much as possible, I will ultimately reject certain ideas and embrace others, and defend my point of view logically but passionately. If I do come across as smug or condescending at times, well – that’s just something else to work on, and I have no doubt that this political season will give me plenty of opportunities.

  • Conspiracism

    Conspiracism

    As we begin a new year and approach a presidential election, I find myself wondering if the polarizing ideological conflicts that convulse our nation are going to become more extreme. I have read articles talking about how people used to be able to differ politically without also, apparently, hating each other. Yet today’s ideological differences are expressing themselves much less as reasoned disagreements than they are as vitriolic and insult-laden shouting matches, whether between televised talking heads or anonymous keyboard warriors. Rather than engaging in civil and open-minded debate, people align themselves with one position and cling to it ferociously, even in the face of rational arguments and clear facts to the contrary. I believe much of this has to do with the double-edged ease with which information now flows to people from so many different sources. I say double-edged because for every factual piece of information, there is a converse piece of utter nonsense, and because people are so easily swayed by their own confirmation bias (and I am not immune!) they find what they seek and then guard their bit of “proof” as tenaciously as a mother bear guarding her cubs.

    One of the reasons I keep this blog is because I am practicing being a better critical thinker. No one is immune from logical fallacies, but by writing about them (and, I hope, making them familiar to others), I hope to keep them at the forefront of my mind when I am confronted by new information and, especially, differences of opinion. I am just as likely as anybody else to scoff at a headline or article that does not align with what I already (want to) believe; but with practice, I am learning to recognize these errors and try to overcome them. So, I try to remember to fact-check ideas even if they support my point of view. I explore further when I am confronted with information that refutes what I already believe. I am especially cautious about sources that I know to be ideologically aligned with what I already think – in other words, just because an article comes from Mother Jones or Think Progress or Vox, I am still responsible for approaching it critically. There are certain sources I have stopped consulting, even though they purport to be progressive or liberal, because I have found with investigation that they are exaggerating, distorting, or omitting the facts. No side is blameless when it comes to this practice, so you always have to be cautious. Of course, when a preponderance of the evidence supports a point of view, like any good scientist I am going to be supportive of that view. This is simple enough when dealing with factual information, but less so when it comes to opinions and interpretations. Still, if you have the facts to support the opinion, the ground becomes pretty solid. And, I am more than happy to debate with people who can logically and rationally employ (sometimes the same) facts and come up with a different conclusion. That is what good civil discourse is all about.

    But now for the crux of this post: people whose beliefs in support of their ideologies have become so irrational and paranoid that no amount of countering factual information will possibly sway them. This way of thinking is called conspiracism, in contrast with rationalism. Do I mean to imply that conspiracism is irrational? Absolutely – but don’t try telling a conspiracist that. Just like belief in the supernatural, conspiracism is not subject to logical testing because there is always an answer to your rational counter-argument. As I noted above, every person is prone to using logical fallacies, but conpiracism elevates it to an art form. No lapse of logic is off-limits in defense of the conspiracy. You have a news account or article that refutes the conspiracist’s argument? That’s from the lame-stream media – you can’t trust them! Ask the conspiracist for factual proof in support of their hypothesis? I can’t show you – THEY are powerful and THEY don’t want us to know! Question the validity and objectivity of the conspiracist’s source? Of course s/he isn’t affiliated with a university or research institution or respected media outlet – OTHER people got rid of them because they were threatened by the truth s/he discovered! Just like people defending their belief in God, conspiracists have an answer for everything. Here are a few other characteristics of your typical conspiracist, courtesy of Michael Shermer’s wonderful book Why People Believe Weird Things (1997, p. 206):

    1. Absolute certainty they have the truth.
    2. America is controlled to a greater or lesser extent by a conspiratorial group. In fact, they believe this evil group is very powerful and controls most nations. (My addition: or, the conspiratorial group may be the government itself).
    3. Open hatred of opponents. Because these opponents (actually “enemies” in the extremists’ eyes) are seen as a part of or sympathizers with “The Conspiracy,” they deserve hatred and contempt. (My addition: the contempt often takes the form of the epithet “sheeple,” to describe people who aren’t “smart enough” to recognize the conspiracy – they are sheep).
    4. Little faith in the democratic process. Mainly because most believe “The Conspiracy” has such influence in the U.S. government, and therefore extremists usually spurn compromise.
    5. Willingness to deny basic civil liberties to certain fellow citizens, because enemies deserve no liberties.
    6. Consistent indulgence in irresponsible accusations and character assassination.

    It’s no coincidence that at least five of these characteristics seem to apply to that idol of the far right, Donald Trump! (The only one I’m not sure of is number 2.) But at the same time, I want to be clear that conspiracism is not limited to those on the political right. Whether you are anti-vaccine, anti-GMO, or anti-fur, or a Birther, a Truther, or a Holocaust denier, there is enough conspiracism to cover the entire spectrum of ideologies. We can even include non-political conspiracists like flat-Earthers! Not every conspiracist has all the characteristics listed above, but it only takes adherence to a few. And these aren’t the only typical characteristics. Conspiracists believe that they are special. They, in amongst all the sheeple, have been able to resist the lies. Only they have the mental toughness and intelligence to recognize the truth. They are immune to the conspiracy, and they may even be in danger because of their special knowledge – which is why they really can’t tell you how they know what they know. They are members of an exclusive club of the super-smart, the super-aware, and the super-prepared. They can’t be fooled. Just imagine what a powerful feeling this must be, and maybe it starts to make sense why some people become adherents of conspiracism.

    I don’t really have a point to end on here. Mostly, I’m dismayed at how widespread at least some degree of conspiracism has become. And let me stress that I’m not saying that I think every person who disagrees with me is a conspiracist! In fact, most of the people with whom I discuss opposing ideas do not fall into this category; or at least, they only exhibit one or two of the characteristics from the list. And I do have reason for hope. I frequently change my stance in light of new information, and I know other people do, too. Just this morning, I read this wonderful quote from one of my science heroes, Alfred Russel Wallace:

    Truth is born into this world only with pangs and tribulations, and every fresh truth is received unwillingly. To expect the world to receive a new truth, or even an old truth, without challenging it, is to look for one of those miracles that do not occur.

    A few days ago, a friend of mine and I civilly debated someone on her Facebook feed about an issue we feel passionately about (appropriation of Native American culture). He wasn’t buying our arguments, but the next day he posted on the original thread to say he’d done some reading and research of his own, and he had changed his mind. Moments like this give me hope – and I think when people are approached with civility and friendliness, when they aren’t insulted or bullied or accused but are instead invited to spell out their differences – well, when that happens, miracles CAN occur.

  • Facts and Fauxpinions

    Facts and Fauxpinions

    A few days ago a friend linked to an article on my Facebook page and asked “is this you?” I read the article, titled “No, It’s Not Your Opinion. You’re Just Wrong,” and laughed. I laughed at first because it sounded like something I would say, and I laughed as I read the article because it made a serious point in a humorous way. This is not just a Daily Read post because I want to expand on some of the things mentioned in the article. I suggest reading it first, because the author, Jef Rouner, makes beautiful work out of distinguishing between facts and opinions. The point of this post, inspired by Rouner, is to provide a discussion of some of the critically important concepts he addresses.

    I continue to feel concerned about the availability of so much information through the internet. Our ability to do a Google search and open ourselves to a world of knowledge is a wonderful thing, but it has a dark side. I’m not going to harp on the point here since I’ve addressed it many times before, but a lot of the problem comes from an inability to distinguish between fact and fiction, truth and lies, data and anecdote, science and snake-oil. Human beings are pattern-seeking animals. We deploy motivated reasoning to justify our beliefs and choices. We are easily bamboozled by sophisticated nonsense. We are prone to a whole host of logical fallacies, a subject I’ve only barely managed to skim so far. We tend to stop cold on our quest for knowledge when we come across a source that backs up what we already want to believe, and scoff at or dismiss information that refutes our beliefs; that is, we fall prey, sometimes willingly, to confirmation bias. And we will reject the arguments of others by throwing out a few non-arguments in response: “I’m entitled to my opinion.” “I’m allowed to have my beliefs.” “I have the right to free speech.” Aside from the fact that these statements are not actually arguments but are instead information-free, knee-jerk, defensive cliches bereft of any logical content or reasoned rebuttal, they are also frequently wrong.

    To begin: an opinion is not a fact. Neither is a belief. This reiterates what Rouner says in his article, but it bears repeating: an opinion is a judgement of a fact. A fact is a verifiable truth. The earth’s existence is a fact. That the earth is round is a fact. That the earth orbits the sun is a fact. These facts have all been verified. None of them is an opinion. If someone says to you, “In my opinion, the earth is flat,” they are not actually stating an opinion; they are making a claim that the flatness of the earth is a fact. They are wrong. Opinion has nothing whatsoever to do with it. This example is obviously ridiculous, but it applies to other areas of fact. Evolution is a fact that has been verified. Yet there are plenty of people who will say that in their opinion, evolution – especially of humans – has not occurred. Again, this is not an opinion because an opinion is a judgement of something. So, you could say that in your opinion, scientists who study evolution are arrogant; but if you say that evolution, in your opinion, is wrong, you are using opinion the wrong way. You cannot substitute an opinion for a fact. If you do not think evolution occurs, then by all means marshall whatever evidence you can in support of your hypothesis, but leave your opinions out of it.

    This confusion of opinion with fact happens all the time. It tends to occur when people are unable to marshall the evidence to support their ideas, so all they can say is “Well, I’m entitled to believe that evolution didn’t happen.” But are you? Are people really entitled to dismissing known facts because it happens to not match with their ideological predilections? I sometimes wish we could do this, but it just doesn’t work: facts don’t give a shit about your opinions or your beliefs. I think that when someone rejects a fact because it is not true, in their opinion, we should call those fauxpinions.

    Related to the unsupported, non-entitled opinion is the lament that a person’s right to free speech is being suppressed by those who deign to argue with, dismiss, or ignore a person’s non-factual fauxpinions. Again, this happens when a person is unable to pull together a body of actual facts and evidence to support their side of the argument. I wish I didn’t have to point this out because it’s so achingly obvious, but somebody disagreeing with you does not constitute a violation of your freedom of speech. A debate does not constitute a free speech violation. A ban or an unfriending is not a free speech violation. A deleted comment is not a free speech violation. Someone pointing out where you may be wrong is not a free speech violation. Someone having a different opinion from you – and yes, even though I have harped on facts, it is obviously possible to have different actual opinions about a fact (e.g. different opinions on the death penalty) – is not a free speech violation. Even the loss of commenting privileges on a website, or the deleting of your account, is not a free speech violation.

    So what is a violation of freedom of speech, then? It is when the government suppresses speech. That’s it. It’s really that simple. If any government official, agency, bureau, department, et al deletes your Twitter account, then, my friend, you have experienced a violation of your freedom of speech. If Twitter deletes your account, they are not violating your free speech. They may not be justified, but Twitter, Facebook, the comment section in your local paper, your Tea Party cousin, your socialist aunt – none of these entities is obligated to listen to you or allow you to say whatever you want to say. So please, for the love of speech, do not whine about how your rights have been violated because somebody blocks or deletes or, god forbid, disagrees with your speech. You may have the right to say it, but I have the right to disagree with it, ignore it, or dismiss it.

    We all have a lot to learn online and from each other. We will all have different opinions about the facts we encounter. We will all sometimes feel dismissed or ignored by people who disagree with us. And we should all learn to back up what we say with logic and reason, avoid fauxpinions, and know the difference between facts and opinions. Our speech will be better for it.

  • Daily Read: Uncriminal Immigrants

    Daily Read: Uncriminal Immigrants

    I really shouldn’t have to point this out, but after a few days of seeing the primacy of the Kate Steinle killing on Fox News (as seen from the treadmill at my gym), I am compelled to share the data. Here’s the deal: Steinle’s killer was an illegal immigrant. The shooting took place in San Francisco, which is a sanctuary city for illegal immigrants – a designation that means the city will not use municipal funds to enforce federal immigration laws; nor will they routinely question people about their immigration status. Here’s the part I shouldn’t have to point out: Steinle’s killer, Francisco Sanchez, did not kill her because he is an illegal immigrant. Being an illegal immigrant did not cause him to shoot her. There is no causative element between his immigration status and his actions. Granted, if he wasn’t in San Francisco, he couldn’t have killed Steinle; but it is a massively fallacious and illogical cognitive leap to assert the proposition that being an illegal immigrant is causative. Correlated, yes; causative, no. Here’s the basic assertion: Sanchez killed Steinle. Sanchez is an illegal immigrant. Therefore, illegal immigrants are killers. This is like saying that all fish swim. I also swim. Therefore, I am a fish.

    I realize that I’m simplifying this – I don’t think any rational person is actually proposing that all illegal immigrants are killers or criminals. But the sensationalizing of this story and the framing of it as a consequence of illegal immigration gets to me, because the data do not support the proposition that illegal immigrants are more likely to be criminal. That’s where we get to the Daily Read for today. This article from The Economist gives the data, which show clearly that Latin American immigrants are less likely to commit crimes. It’s a brief but illuminating read that, among other things, reports that “America’s major cities, and the country as a whole, have seen a significant decline in rates of violent and property crime over the past 30 or so years. Crime has fallen even as the proportion of Americans born on foreign soil has grown, and as rates of unauthorised immigration have gone up.” So as far as I’m concerned, it’s irresponsible and disingenuous for Fox News and other media outlets to claim that Steinle’s death is a direct consequence of illegal immigration and sanctuary cities, and worse, that immigrants to this country are more likely to be criminals.

    Not Here to Cause Trouble

  • Daily Read: Naturally Toxic

    Daily Read: Naturally Toxic

    I’ve been meaning to write a post about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and why I have no problem with them for a while, but I haven’t done it because I know so many people who are anti-GMO and I’m not yet ready to step on that particular landmine. That said, I am getting increasingly alarmed at the new trend towards “natural” labeling of foods because I recognize it for what it is: greenwashing in the service of the profit motive. The lionizing of the “natural” label reveals a common logical fallacy that I have yet to write about: the naturalistic fallacy. I promise I’ll write more about it, but in summary, this is the fallacy that leads people to believe that if something is natural, it is better for them. This is absurd; it only takes a few moments of reflection to realize that a natural substance like, say, rattlesnake venom is not exactly good for you. The flip side to this is the assumption that if something has been altered by human intervention, it is bad for you. I suspect people who have survived diseases like cancer because of modern medical treatments would beg to differ.

    This is a long introduction to today’s Daily Read, brought to us by Yvette d’Entremont (previously featured in this Daily Read). D’Entremont tackles the idea of natural automatically being better by discussing recent decisions by chains like Chipotle and Panera to remove certain ingredients from their foods. The article is packed with links if you want more information, but it’s a good start all by itself. The upshot here is that it is misleading to slap the “natural” label on a food, and there is no harm from leaving in the ingredients that have been demonized with the “chemical” label. The greater harm comes from fooling people into thinking that natural is automatically better – and from companies using this fallacy to promote their products as being better than they really are.

    The Bullshit Hypocrisy of “All-Natural” Foods

  • Daily Reads: Food Logic

    Daily Reads: Food Logic

    Lack of critical thinking about food has long been one of my biggest peeves. I rant to my students every semester about why they shouldn’t worry about gluten unless they have celiac disease; that the paleo diet is based on pseudoscientific reasoning about human evolution; and why their blood type has nothing to do with what kind of food they should eat. So I truly appreciate today’s Daily Read from Alan Levinovitz. Writing for Slate, Levinovitz compares diet fads to religions and laments the fact that no amount of facts and logic will dissuade people from their uncritical faith in charlatans like Dr. Oz and the Food Babe. He deconstructs how these folks make abundant use of sophisticated nonsense to manipulate people and scare them into compliance with their absurd dictates about “unnatural” foods and insidious “chemicals” and “toxins.” Levinovitz sounds pretty discouraged about the possibility of changing people’s minds; yet he ends by making a compelling argument for improving people’s critical thinking skills by educating them about such persuasive techniques and logical fallacies. Perhaps there is hope yet.

    The Logical Failures of Food Fads