The logical fallacy of equivocation is committed when someone uses the same word in different meanings in an argument, implying that the word means the same each time. For example, someone asserts that I have “faith” in science, and then implies this is the same as religious faith. This argument (that I have to refute with the same friend, periodically), seems to be saying that since I have not personally performed every single scientific experiment ever performed, by every scientist, in the history of the world – since I haven’t personally performed them all - I can’t know for sure that they have been performed at all. Therefore if I believe what I read about science, I must have “faith” in science. This is the same as religious faith, and therefore science is my religion.
Of course, the correct word to describe my view of science is “trust”, not “faith”. I have trust in science because (1) I have evidence that science works (look at all the products of science around you), and (2) there is evidence that science is self-correcting, and that if some scientist just made something up to con the rest of the world, another scientist would eventually expose the fraud. Of course, I can’t prove that all scientific experiments actually took place as described, and perhaps that’s where my friend’s confusion lies. But I do have evidence; therefore accepting science is not faith. The fallacy is to say that trust, based on evidence, is the same as blind faith based on no evidence at all. The ploy is to use the word “faith” for both of these definitions, but then to imply they both mean religious blind faith.
Recently it struck me that New Agers (and other woos) employ a slightly more subtle version of equivocation. You can see an example in this comment by author Daniel Pinchbeck. He is replying to my criticism that his book appears to center around the Mayan prophecy that 2012 will bring about the end of the world as we know it. He wrote:
"The world as we know it" ending in 2012 is flap copy - but it is probably true in any case, Mayan Calendar or not, when you combine the effects of climate change, resource depletion, and the increasing toxification of the environment, plus proliferation of WMDs etc. Species extinction is also passing a critical threshold, so that if we don't make an ecological u-turn in the next few years, it may be irreversible.
Note the double speak – how he’s trying to have it both ways? He backs away from the Mayan prophesy because he knows it’s nonsense, and instead introduces things he thinks are more believable – climate change, extinctions, etc. The idea is I’ll be drawn in (because I can’t deny global warming, etc), and I have to agree with him. Just like I “have” to agree with my friend that I can’t personally prove the big bang happened and therefore I have faith in science. So I agree the world is in crisis and then Bazam! - I’ve just agreed to the premise of his book, namely that the Mayan prophesy is real. (And despite the weasel words about “flap copy”, that is one of its premises.) Sneaky. Clever though.
I experienced this fallacy at a dinner party recently. Some people were talking about the absurd What The Bleep Do We Know!? film: specifically the “Indians didn’t see the ships” myth. For those who haven’t heard about this, a premise of the film is that we can create our own reality with the powers of our minds only. It’s standard Newage drivel drawing on distorted interpretations of quantum mechanics among other things. Anyway, one example given in the film, to support the premise, is how when Columbus first arrived in the West Indies, the natives were literally unable to see his ships. Why? Because they had never seen ships before, so ships did not exist in their reality.
When I pushed these people on the absurdity of this claim, they started to retreat to lesser versions of the myth. For example, they suggested perhaps the Indians just didn’t realize they were large ships containing people. Or, perhaps they didn’t realize the significance of the ships – that they contained colonizers who would steal their lands and kill most of them off. See how the story has now been downgraded to something believable? But this was the same shtick as with the Mayan prophesy. Surely I must agree the Indians might not have realized the significance of the ships? How could I not see this might have been true? And the moment I agree to this possibility - Bazam! - I’ve just agreed to the absurd premise of the film, and all my other criticisms of it have been refuted. They have got me to agree to a lesser, more believable version of the story, but are using acceptance of that lesser version to show the premise supported by the woo version is true.
Debating people like this can be frustrating - a bit like trying to nail jelly to the wall. Just when you think you have nailed the absurdity of something they say, their story slips almost imperceptibly to something less woo, and you find you have to agree with them. You have to be focused to prevent them from claiming victory as they slide back to the woo point that started the argument. Specifically, you have to be clear about the different versions of the story that are now being discussed, and you have to push them to say which ones they believe. If they believe the woo version, then ask them for the evidence. If they are equivocating about a lesser version, point out that this lesser version does not support the premise that they want to prove. Keep a clear head as they slide between the different versions of the story. Point out they are equivocating – using different versions of the story but implying that both support the woo premise.
An interesting question is do they realize they are doing this? My view is that most of them don’t: their thought processes are so muddled that they really don’t see they are equivocating. After all, if they could think clearly, they wouldn’t believe the stuff they do believe, would they?
Edited to add:
Check out this comment that in an incredibly timely manner, demonstrates again equivocation around the “Indians didn’t see the ships” myth. As I said – muddled thinking.
Whenever someone uses this kind of argument on me, I have an analogy that shows them the difference between faith and trust.
When I sit in an airplane, I trust that it will convey me safely to my destination. I trust this because I know that thousands of airline flights crisscross the world and land safely each day, that the airlines employ large numbers of mechanics tasked with ensuring the safety of their planes, and that when an accident does occur, there is an investigation initiated to find out what went wrong and prevent it from happening again.
On the other hand, the kind of situation that would lead me to have faith (in the religious sense) in an airline would be if dozens of flights were crashing each day, killing thousands of people, and the airlines were making no effort to determine the cause, instead waving off bereaved relatives with explanations like, "We have specialized training you don't and know a lot of things you couldn't hope to understand, so just trust us when we tell you that we know what we're doing."
This analogy should help anyone grasp the difference. Trust is based on evidence; faith is not.
Posted by: Ebonmuse | June 26, 2006 at 04:03 PM
I wasn't trying to sneakily trick you into buying into the Mayan Calendar through that comment - but thanks for commending my cleverness.
My thesis is nonduality - mind and matter, psyche and cosmos, are actually different aspects of the same thing. Therefore, it is perfectly natural that the material and empirical destruction of the biosphere - which is likely to bring about the rapid collapse of our current civilization - is meshed with the accelerated evolution of human consciousness to a new threshold of awareness.
I theorize (following Jose Arguelles and John Major Jenkins) that the Classical Mayans were shaman-scientists who used psychedelic substances and non-ordinary states to assemble a knowledge system linking time, astronomical cycles, and consciousness, and that through this exploration, they were able of determining the completion of one cycle of human consciousness and the shift into a new cycle. In fact, one basic element of this transition is the integration of modern scientific rational knowledge with the esoteric and intuitive knowledge of shamans and mystics - left brain meets right brain. Quetzalcoatl, symbolizing integration of bird (heaven) and snake (earth), represents this process.
My problem with many skeptics is that their avowed skepticism is actually a cover for their deep belief in materialism as truth. They then proceed from this position to critique any other perspective, not recognizing their own internal bias. In actual fact, materialism is a belief system. All that we really know of material reality is what comes to us mediated through our consciousness - therefore it should be paternaly obvious that our consciousness is fundamental rather than the material world we perceive through our senses. Quantum physics tells us there is no objective or privileged position in time and space.
Posted by: daniel | June 27, 2006 at 07:30 AM
Scrolling past the appeals to other ways of knowing...
My problem with many skeptics is that their avowed skepticism is actually a cover for their deep belief in materialism as truth. They then proceed from this position to critique any other perspective, not recognizing their own internal bias. In actual fact, materialism is a belief system. All that we really know of material reality is what comes to us mediated through our consciousness - therefore it should be paternaly obvious that our consciousness is fundamental rather than the material world we perceive through our senses. Quantum physics tells us there is no objective or privileged position in time and space.
Sounds like you're trying to build a case for special pleading. Unfortunately, consciousness itself is "material" or "natural." The real problem woos have with materialism is that it's actually all-inclusive, not restrictive: Anything that has an effect is material. By definition.
I was thinking of doing a "Doggerel" entry on a single word, but I couldn't think of one. I think you've brought up a good one: "Obvious."
Posted by: Bronze Dog | June 27, 2006 at 08:10 AM
Re: My problem with many skeptics is that their avowed skepticism is actually a cover for their deep belief in materialism as truth. They then proceed from this position to critique any other perspective, not recognizing their own internal bias. In actual fact, materialism is a belief system.
Actually, no. All I ask for is that there should be evidence to back up claims. If there is no evidence then we have no need to believe in the thing a person is claiming – and that is true whether materialism is true or not.
I’ll give you an example. We have evidence that Newton’s laws are correct (close enough anyway). When NASA sends up a probe to Mars, say, they need to get the calcs correct so that the probe goes into orbit and doesn’t crash on the surface. Newton’s laws are correct each time – if they get the figures wrong the probe crashes on the surface (or misses completely), and we don’t get back pictures from Mars. That is true whether materialism is correct and Mars is a real place made of matter, or if (for example) subjective idealism is correct and everything is mental. Whatever ontology is correct, you still don’t get the pictures of Mars if you don’t program the correct speed and trajectory into the rocket, and that’s true if the rocket is material or if it isn’t.
Materialism sure feels real, and my guess it it’s probably true, but it’s truth is irrelevant to the question of whether or not a claim is supported by evidence.
Re: All that we really know of material reality is what comes to us mediated through our consciousness - therefore it should be paternaly obvious that our consciousness is fundamental rather than the material world we perceive through our senses.
That doesn’t follow. I could just as easily say:
All that we really know of consciousness is what material reality shows us - therefore it should be obvious that material reality is fundamental rather than the consciousness through which we perceive it.
Re: Quantum physics tells us there is no objective or privileged position in time and space.
Can you please describe the quantum physics experiment that demonstrates that?
Posted by: Skeptico | June 27, 2006 at 04:55 PM
I think Daniel is mixing Heisenberg's quantum uncertainty up with the general relativity concept of "no privileged frame of reference".
I doubt he understands either concept well enough to make a coherent argument to back up his meaningless sentence.
Posted by: Big Al | June 28, 2006 at 05:33 AM
my lengthier arguments are in my book... i am getting a bit sick of your arrogant tone of dismissal.
The quantum physics experiment I was thinking of (one of them) is John Wheeler's Delayed Choice experiment.
one point:
"We have evidence that Newton’s laws are correct (close enough anyway)."
We don't even know what we mean by "laws" - whose "laws"? What makes us so sure they are permanent? Rupert Sheldrake notes that the idea that there are fixed "Laws of Nature" is itself an antiquated notion deriving from 17th Century metaphysics - the same monotheistic and unchanging vision of reality that underlies the Newtonian worldview. Sheldrake suggests that the "Laws" of nature might be more like "habits" that form through a process he describes as "morphic resonance." You can check this out in his book, "Patterns of the Past."
I am pointing out that we have a lot of work to do to realize how quantum physics has pulled the rug out from under the Newtonian-Cartesian ground we thought we were standing on so firmly.
Above, your reversal makes no sense: Consciousness obviously comes first. You only perceive material objects through the images and sense-data that are conveyed to your conscious awareness. "The reality of the psyche" in Jung's terms is completely self-evident when you meditate upon it - but of course it is so much easier to be arrogant and reject other people's ideas. That's what believers like to do.
Posted by: daniel | June 29, 2006 at 05:55 PM
Wheeler's Delayed Choice Experiment was a thought experiment highlighting some weirdness of the wave-particle duality of light. It says nothing about "objective or privileged position[s] in time and space." A major principle of Special Relativity is that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames, hence there is no observable "preferred" frame. I suspect this is where you got that idea. But physics has no bearing on anything you've said, as much as you try to misinterpret it to support your beliefs.
Actually, Wikipedia has no trouble stating what we mean by a law.
And appropriately enough, you're (perhaps unintentionally) equivocating in your use of the word "law" when you say "whose laws?" -- laws of nature are not decided by someone, in the way human laws are. They're simply the way nature seems to operate, based on our observations.
Posted by: Davis | June 29, 2006 at 07:13 PM
Re: my lengthier arguments are in my book... i am getting a bit sick of your arrogant tone of dismissal.
Well I’m getting sick of your dopey arguments, but I didn’t complain. Actually, I thought I had been fairly polite up to now. This is my blog, and no one is forcing you to come here, but if you do I‘m going to ask you to back up your claims. Don’t complain if you can’t.
Re: The quantum physics experiment I was thinking of (one of them) is John Wheeler's Delayed Choice experiment.
So you can’t describe the experiment as I asked. More to the point, you can’t explain how it supports “Quantum physics tells us there is no objective or privileged position in time and space”. As far as I can see it supports no such claim, although I'm sure everyone awaits your explanation with baited breath.
Of course, no one really understands the quantum results Daniel is talking about. Daniel, along with many woos (see # 10), uses this confusion and ambiguity to try to make out he knows something oh-so deep about the universe that is backed by science. He doesn’t.
The effect Daniel is alluding to is one of the fundamental mysteries of quantum mechanics. Mysteries – that means we don’t know what it means. But that doesn’t stop woos from insisting it means their fairy-stories are true.
Re: one point:
"We have evidence that Newton’s laws are correct (close enough anyway)."
We don't even know what we mean by "laws" - whose "laws"? What makes us so sure they are permanent? Rupert Sheldrake notes that the idea that there are fixed "Laws of Nature" is itself an antiquated notion deriving from 17th Century metaphysics - the same monotheistic and unchanging vision of reality that underlies the Newtonian worldview. Sheldrake suggests that the "Laws" of nature might be more like "habits" that form through a process he describes as "morphic resonance." You can check this out in his book, "Patterns of the Past."
Pure red herring. Sheldrake can suggest what he wants, but my point (that you clearly missed), remains, namely that my insistence that there must be some evidence to support your claim before I will take it seriously, has nothing to do with whether materialism is true or if it isn’t.
Re: I am pointing out that we have a lot of work to do to realize how quantum physics has pulled the rug out from under the Newtonian-Cartesian ground we thought we were standing on so firmly.
Agreed we don’t understand things as well as we thought. So why are you so sure that QM supports your beliefs? It seems to me you are the one who has made his mind up he understands the universe so well. You even quote QM to support your beliefs, even though you can’t explain how they do.
Re: Above, your reversal makes no sense: Consciousness obviously comes first. You only perceive material objects through the images and sense-data that are conveyed to your conscious awareness. "The reality of the psyche" in Jung's terms is completely self-evident when you meditate upon it
Your claim that “consciousness obviously comes first” is just your opinion. I could just as easily say, you only perceive material objects because they actually exist. You have offered not one shred of evidence that “consciousness” came first. It’s just your belief system that you apparently need to justify your claims.
As I said, it doesn’t matter to me whether consciousness exists first or not – I still need evidence for your claims before I take them seriously.
Re: but of course it is so much easier to be arrogant and reject other people's ideas. That's what believers like to do.
Yes you do.
Posted by: Skeptico | June 29, 2006 at 07:50 PM
I only reject ideas for good reasons. All the logical fallacies employed here more than suffice for me to reject Daniel's ideas.
If you feel like providing evidence, rather than misdirection and arbitrarily manufactured exceptions to logic, I'll be listening, Daniel.
Posted by: BronzeDog | June 29, 2006 at 08:04 PM
Quantum physics. It's for when all else fails for the really keen 21st century charlatan and bullshitter - Daniel.
Believe it or not, Daniel, there are a few people who do understand quantum physics - but you obviously aren't one of them. The tone and (lack of) substance of your arguments rather indicates you'd have a quite a bit of trouble with the inverse sqare law, never mind quantum physics.
Another thing you clearly don't understand, Daniel, is the difference between philosophy and science.
Posted by: pv | June 30, 2006 at 04:57 PM
I remember seeing some shows dealing with early 20th century quackery. Electricity was the hot item back then, since no one understood it. Now, it's quantum mechanics.
Posted by: BronzeDog | July 01, 2006 at 06:59 AM
About the ships:
I'm sorry my souce for this is vague, but I distinctly recall an old episode of Nova or Nature on PBS which dealt with the first encounter of the Indians in Puget sound with European ships. So far from not seeing them because they did not fit into their frame of refernce, they interpreted them in accord with thier belief system and thought them to be an epiphany of the raven god.
Posted by: Helena Constatine | July 07, 2006 at 09:44 AM
Actually, Helena, that story can be found in the thirteenth episode of Carl Sagan's Cosmos, "Who Speaks For Earth?", in which they re-enact the 1786 arrival of the explorer La Perouse in Latuya Bay. The Tlingit people thought the object on the horizon was the raven god and a sign that world's end was nigh, but an old warrior volunteered to row out in a canoe and meet the supposed raven. . . only to discover, when his aged eyes got close enough, that it was a ship, crewed by people.
So, we have empirical evidence that the "Bleep" story is nonsense. Not that evidence ever mattered in these discussions. . . .
Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 07, 2006 at 12:08 PM
Dear Sir,
I find your post very interesting. I want to comment this in my blog (http://delenda-est-carthago.blogspot.com), thus, I ask your permission to translate it to spanish and post it in my blog, of course, mentioning you as the author
Thank you.
[email protected]
Posted by: Antonio López | July 20, 2006 at 10:44 PM
Antonio:
Sure - please translate it for your blog if you wish.
Posted by: Skeptico | July 21, 2006 at 08:06 AM