Skeptico

David Dilworth - Dishonest and a Liar. Also Still Wrong

Redundant tile. Harsh also, but true, as I will demonstrate.

I wrote my last post, Incorrectly Calling Logical Fallacies, to explain where David Dilworth had gone wrong in his claiming to have identified six fallacies in a single sentence. I have commented on his site at the post in question, my last comment being this one. Dilworth just doubled down on his errors by posting Skeptico’s Misconstruction of Basic Logical Fallacies – while Spreading his own Fallacy Fog (he likes his long titles). Unfortunately it’s just an example of missing the point, ignoring the difficult points, jumping at loopholes, dishonestly altering his blog to support his new arguments and lying about it and pompously declaring victory.

I just posted a comprehensive rebuttal as a comment at Dilworth’s blog, but he holds posts for 5 to 7 days before releasing them [Edit: he actually released the comment later the same day], so I just wanted to get one small part of it up there now. (The entire comment is over 3000 words.) The piece I wanted to cover was Dilworth's claim that he had defined his use of the word “Science” unlike Eisen (and therefore Eisen’s use was fallacious. It’s not, of course, but that’s what he’s claiming). This is how Dilworth argued this point:

..to help define and explain any terms I use that are unclear. (My use of the ambiguous term “science” is available here.)

He’s saying that he did define his use of the word “Science” in that August 2012 post, and so his use of it is not like Eisen’s. But this is not true since Dilworth only wrote that piece within the last week, in an attempt to cover up his mistake, and so it was not “available here” or anywhere as he claimed (ie he was lying).

How do I know that? The thing is, that page looked suspicious. I didn’t remember seeing it – I had looked around Dilworth’s site quite a bit before posting, and I think I would have seen the one page describing the thing I said he had not described. It also looked odd that the “References” section only had one reference in it. So I wondered if he had just added it. I tried The Wayback Machine, but it hadn’t archived Dilworth’s blog for over a year. Fortunately (but unfortunately for Dilworth) there is Google cache. This lets people see what your site looked like the last time Google crawled it – in this case a week ago. Check the Google cache of David Dilworth’s blog. The narrative is: This is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on Jan 25, 2013 04:29:27 GMT- that’s ONE WEEK AGO. And guess what – as recently as a week ago there was no “References” section where science is defined. David Dilworth wrote that and added it in the last week. His original “fallacies” post was there for almost six months with no explanation of the ambiguous term science. 

As Google cache gets updated eventually that page without the “References” tab will be gone. So I saved the screenshots.

Here is a the current screenshot – note the references tab with the “what do I mean by science” sub tab (ringed rather amateurishly by me). That’s what he said was “available” since August 2012 (click the image for a larger version).

Now look at the screenshot of the 1.25.13 cached blog. There is no “References” tab. Oops! Dilworth added that page less than a week ago and then implied it was there all along.

This shows that Dilworth’s claims of being not (very) emotionally attached to being right as evidenced by his willingness to acknowledge he make errors and to correct his own errors is also a flat out lie. He certainly has to stop claiming now that he is the one arguing honestly, the one willing to admit errors, the one applying the “principle of charity” as he calls it. He is clearly none of those things.

More to the point, it shows that Dilworth knows that his own use of the word “science” is no different from Eisen’s (or he wouldn’t have tried to cover it up). So Dilworth has to make a choice now. He has to choose either:

1. His (Dilworth’s) own post contained more ambiguity fallacies than Eisen’s, and he therefore has to apologize to Eisen for calling him a hypocrite, or
2. He has to agree that merely using the word “science” without fully defining it (as both Eisen and Dilworth do) is not a fallacy, and therefore he has to agree that his “fallacies” #1 and #2 are not fallacies.

Maybe there is a third option – offhand I can’t think of one. (By the way, the correct choice is #2.)

(Also BTW this is not a Tu Quoque fallacy as Dilworth claimed. I am not saying ‘you did it too so Eisen is not committing a fallacy.’ I am suggesting that neither of them is committing a fallacy.)

At the end of my yet unpublished comment, I wrote the following questions that arose from his post and my dismantling of it. You have to read my full (unpublished) comment to understand all of these, and this post is already long enough, but these are the questions.

Questions For David Dilworth

1. If you really are willing to correct your errors as you claim, why did you try to cover up your use of the undefined word “science” by writing a “What do I mean by “Science?” page and pretend it had been there all along? Isn’t that a sign of someone trying to hide errors, rather than correct them?
2. Now that we know you hadn’t defined what you meant by “science” the numerous times you used it, will you now either (a) admit that your article was full of logical fallacies too, and apologize to Eisen for calling him a hypocrite, or (b) agree that just using the word “science” without defining it is not a fallacy, and admit your fallacies # 1 and 2 are incorrect? Pick one. (Hint: the correct answer is (b).)
3. You claimed that the ambiguity fallacy is not equivocation. But according to Wikipedia, equivocation is ambiguity arising from the misleading use of a word. Aren’t you talking about misleading uses of word? If so, how is that not equivocation?
4. If you didn’t mean equivocation, what did you mean? Alternatives include amphiboly, accent, composition and division. Explain what you meant and how it applies to this case.
5. Why do you insist that all that is necessary to identify this fallacy is to show how a word has multiple meanings, when your own cited link, plus this one and this one disagree?
6. Show how someone could actually be fooled into believing GMOs are safe when they were not, due to the ambiguity. Explain exactly how this could happen. What would be the thought process? If you can’t show that you can’t claim a fallacy.

David, time to release my comment from “moderation” and answer the questions.

Incorrectly Calling Logical Fallacies

Regular readers will know that critical thinking involves knowing logical fallacies – recognizing them in other people’s arguments, and not using them in your own. But falsely calling fallacies is just as bad. Arguably worse, since using a fallacious argument just means you haven’t justified your argument - your argument could still be right for other reasons. Falsely calling a fallacy means you are saying something is wrong when it isn’t.

Recently I was researching something for this year’s Golden Woo awards, when I came across a blog post titled New World Record? Six Logical Fallacies with a Single Sentence promoting Genetically Modified Food, written by someone called David Dilworth – and I thought ‘that’s just what I’m looking for. Six fallacies in one sentence! I have to see that.’ Unfortunately the sentence didn’t contain six logical fallacies. On the contrary, the author of the post was wrong on all counts and obviously didn’t understand logical fallacies.

Dilworth’s post criticized an article by UC Berkley biologist Michael Eisen: The anti-GMO campaign’s dangerous war on science. Eisen’s article opposed California Prop 37 (the 2012 California ballot initiative to require labeling of genetically modified foods). Dilworth approved of the initiative. Here is Eisen’s supposedly fallacious sentence Dilworth’s post was all about:

For the backers of the initiative to claim [ GMOs might be harmful ] as a finding of fact is an outright lie, and an outlandish attack on science.

Obviously you can see the six fallacies in that sentence. No? Me neither.

I asked Dilworth for an explanation, and after the second attempt he replied with this comment detailing what he said were the fallacies. This is my summary of Dilworth’s claim:

1. None of the six fallacies he called were actual fallacies used in the sentence
2. One of them (what he said was a non sequitur) could at a pinch be described as an assertion fallacy (something just asserted, not supported). A bit lame though, when taken in context with the rest of the article.
3. One of the “fallacies” relied on something written in a different sentence, so it couldn’t have been a fallacy “in a single sentence” as claimed.
4. Dilworth employed a Straw Man fallacy and two Assertion fallacies of his own, to support his case for two of the “fallacies.”

I’m going to explain in detail where Dilworth is wrong. This post is going to be a bit long, but I think it’s worth doing because (1) I don’t like to see such nonsense standing unopposed, and (2) I do feel very strongly that understanding logical fallacies is a path to critical thinking and I hope that my analysis will shed light on what is, and on what is not, a logical fallacy.

Here is my analysis of each of Dilworth’s claims:

1 and 2 – Ambiguity Fallacies

1. Ambiguity fallacy: His claim of an “attack on science” is ambiguous about what he means by “science.” Does he mean scientific methodology, reasoning or facts derived from experiment – or some combination? It does make a difference. (It is also possible he means GMO scientists – but that would add an additional fallacy of falsely equating scientists with ideas of science.)

2. Ambiguity fallacy: Nor does he define the careless way he uses the word “safe.” (The word “safe” is not explicitly in the offending sentence, however the sentence refers to its earlier use.)

Does he mean “not harmful” or that the harms are only relative to the benefits?

Dilworth is calling these fallacies because there are ambiguous meanings of “science” and of “safe.” This is ridiculous.

Ambiguity or Equivocation is a fallacy if you use ambiguity in meaning, or different definitions of a word, to win an argument. For example, as I explained in my post about equivocation, people have said to me I have “faith” in science, therefore science is my religion. They’re using the different definitions of “faith” – (a) one meaning “trust” and (b) another meaning “blind faith with no evidence.” The fallacy is to claim I have definition b, when I have definition a. For it to be a fallacy there has to be an advantage to the different meanings. There has to be one meaning of the word where the argument is valid, and another version (the one the arguer wants you to accept) where it is not – otherwise it is not a fallacy. Dilworth’s own cited link even says this:

As a logical fallacy, Ambiguity occurs when linguistic ambiguity causes the form of an argument to appear validating when it is not.

Because of the ubiquity of ambiguity in natural language, it is important to realize that its presence in an argument is not sufficient to render it fallacious, otherwise, all such arguments would be fallacious. [My bold.]

Eisen isn’t doing this – he is not using linguistic ambiguity to try to win a point. He is simply using everyday words in the way most people understand them, with no attempt to benefit from ambiguity. Dilworth either didn’t read or didn’t understand his own link (the first hit you get when you Google “Ambiguity Fallacy”). At most Eisen is guilty of careless writing, but even that is a stretch. Dilworth is arguing like a lawyer – expecting every word to be fully defined with no ambiguity. But that’s not required to be free of fallacy.

Dilworth’s claim becomes even more ridiculous when you examine his own post. Read it and you will find the following references to the word “science,” none of which are defined:

1. Eisen’s article attracted me because I’ve been helping work for good science for a few decades
2. Eisen never mentions (or realizes?) that he and Food Safety proponents might each embrace science but have different philosophies or values.
3. What really makes me uncomfortable is when Eisen claims high authority as spokesperson for “Science,” then he’s purporting to speak for me and anyone else who cares about science.
4. The only other contact I’ve had with the GMO debate is a cordial letter I penned to a British GMO researcher who seemed to have a misguided proprietary ownership of Science
5. David Dilworth is the editor of likely the largest database of environmental impacts which compiles the best available science on over 1,000 different kinds of environmental harms, mitigations, and thoughtful, reasonable alternatives to avoid those harms.

That’s five uses of the word “science.” So Dilworth, according to his own reasoning, employed at least five Ambiguity Fallacies in this one post. (Of course they’re not fallacies, as I explained earlier. But Dilworth must think they are.) Dilworth doesn’t apply the same microscope to his own writing that he applies to the writings of someone he disagrees with. If he did, he might realize no fallacy had been employed by Eisen.

There is no “debating advantage” to Eisen for using words that might be interpreted differently. Consequently there is no fallacy.

3 - Proof Of Negative Fallacy

Next, assuming he intends safe to mean “not harmful” his position (claiming there is no possible harm from GMOs) requires a Proof of a Negative fallacy.

No it doesn’t.

First thing – it is not a fallacy to say you can prove a negative. The fallacy is to say you can prove a universal negative. For example, I can’t prove there are no white crows. I can search the world and see millions of black crows, but that wouldn't prove there wasn’t a white crow somewhere. If Eisen had said GMOs were never dangerous, had never harmed anyone and never would, he would be claiming to have proved a universal negative. (He’d be saying there were no white crows, anywhere.) But he isn’t doing that. He’s saying that the claims of the backers of the initiative are wrong (or as he puts it, a lie). He’s not “claiming there is no possible harm from GMOs” as Dilworth puts it. He just says that the studies, evidence or whatever the backers of the initiative are claiming as facts, are not true (ie he’s just saying that none of the crows they have shown him, are white). Eisen has not claimed a universal negative, he is claiming a limited negative. That’s not fallacious.

If you read a little further down Eisen’s article, you can see what he is really saying:

There is no compelling evidence of any harm arising from eating GMOs, and a diverse and convincing body of research demonstrating that GMOs are safe.

Note, not “no possible harm”, but “no compelling evidence of any harm…” Different things. The first would be a fallacy, the second, not.

Furthermore, Dilworth’s statement: “his position (claiming there is no possible harm from GMOs)” is not anything I can find Eisen saying. He doesn’t say that in the sentence, and I’ve searched his whole article and neither the phrase “no possible harm” nor “no harm” appear anywhere. So ironically, to build a case for a fallacy, Dilworth had to build a straw man fallacy of his own.

Dilworth misunderstands this fallacy. The real fallacy is to ask opponents of the initiative to prove a universal negative – ie to prove that GMOs are never harmful. Ironically, that is what GMO opponents do and what Dilworth is doing elsewhere (see below under the heading “Main Article”).

So #3 is definitely not a fallacy. Although Dilworth employed a Straw Man fallacy.

4 – Non Sequitur Fallacy

His claim of a “lie” is false since it is a Non-Sequitur fallacy (it does not follow).

That’s because committing a lie requires more than making a false claim, it requires the person making the claims to understand it is false.

Not really. All fallacies, strictly speaking, are non sequiturs (ie the conclusion doesn’t follow from the arguments presented). But the Non Sequitur fallacy refers to a conclusion that simply has no logical connection at all to the argument’s premises. Read, for example, the rational wiki on the non sequitur. See their examples – Eisen’s “lie” doesn’t really fit. If you accept for the sake of argument that the claims are false, a lie is one possible conclusion, and not something that simply has no logical connection. If anything, this would be argument by assertion (ie he hasn’t shown it is a lie), but IMO it’s really just a bit of careless writing.

So #4 not really a fallacy, but I agree you shouldn’t accuse people of lying unless you can demonstrate that they are. I’ll accept “argument by assertion.”

5 – Contradiction Fallacy

He claims GMO harm is a lie even though admitting “I’m sure they have a reference that justifies their making this assertion.” (!)

So — the first part of his sentence claims its a lie that GMOs might be harmful – while later admitting Food Safety people will have a study justifying their claim. That’s a
Contradiction fallacy.

First thing: the “while I’m sure they have a reference that justifies their making this assertion…” wording comes in the previous sentence. Therefore, this is not a fallacy in “a single sentence” as Dilworth puts it.

More to the point, it’s not contradictory at all. It’s quite possible for people to have studies and references, and to quote them when needed, while at the same time knowing the studies and references are lies. This should be obvious.

#5 Not a fallacy.

6 – Proof By Assertion Fallacy

This leaves his seemingly powerful assault with no valid support (there is no attack on science, no lie, and no valid argument supporting anything he claims with that sentence). That means his sentence taken as a whole is
worthless, making it a mere opinion; not a logical argument. “Proof” without facts is called a Proof by Assertion fallacy.

Dilworth is double counting. By that argument, any fallacy is automatically two fallacies – the original one, plus proof by assertion, since the original fallacy means the argument has no valid support (that’s what a logical fallacy is) and is therefore just assertion. So #6 is not a fallacy.

Also, Dilworth’s “there is no attack on science, no lie” claim is in fact two arguments by assertion of his own – Dilworth hasn’t demonstrated there is no attack on science and he hasn’t demonstrated there is no lie. He just tried to create ambiguity by introducing different definitions of science. He also demonstrated that Eisen hadn’t proven a lie, but he didn’t prove there is not one (we just don’t know).

Summary

1. At a stretch there is one logical fallacy (assertion that there was a “lie”). A bit lame though IMO, and not a major part of Eisen’s argument against the initiative.
2. Dilworth’s arguments to support two of the claimed fallacies involved his using a straw man fallacy, and two assertion fallacies of his own.
3. One of the claimed fallacies “in a single sentence” actually occurred in a different sentence. Why Dilworth thinks this is a fallacy “in a single sentence” is beyond me.
4. Dilworth’s entire post is one huge Argument by Assertion fallacy, since he didn’t explain in his post either (a) which sentence he was talking about or (b) what the fallacies were. Consequently Dilworth was just asserting there were six fallacies; he didn’t demonstrate that there were. I could argue this was six Argument by Assertion fallacies.

Dilworth did (after two days and two follow up emails from me) allow my comment which included many of the arguments above. He doubled down immediately with a reply that included this additional fallacy directed at me:

Since you claim to know what he means by those terms “Safe” and “Science”, let me respectfully request – can you please provide your definitions / interpretations of the terms – in the context of how Eisen used them.

An obvious straw man, since I never claimed “to know what [Eisen] means” by “Safe” and “Science” – I just wrote “He is simply using everyday words in the way most people understand them.” My beliefs about what Eisen meant, is irrelevant. The burden is with Dilworth to demonstrate that Eisen’s use of these words was fallacious – ie that there is one meaning of the word where the argument is valid, and another version (the one Eisen wants you to accept) where it is not. I did reply to that effect, but as of this evening (exactly five days after I posted my reply) my comment is still marked "awaiting moderation." [January 14, 2013 Edited to add: Sometime this morning, my comment was released from moderation, just over 132 hours after I posted it.]

Main Article

Dilworth's more detailed post calling even more fallacies, is just as bad. I’m not going into all of his mistakes, but see this fallacy he accuses Eisen of using:

Shifting the Burden of Proof Fallacy, Argumentum ad Ignorantiam. The above quote also falsely implies that the burden of proof is now placed with Food Safety proponents.

Duh, of course the burden of proof is with those claiming GMOs are unsafe. The burden of proof is always with those making the positive claim. GMO proponents can’t possibly prove a universal negative – that GMOs cannot possibly cause harm. That is the fallacy – asking for proof of a universal negative - and yet it’s what Dilworth expects Eisen to do. And get this: Dilworth, in this paragraph, expects Eisen to prove a universal negative. But in Dilworth’s “Fallacy #3” he accuses Eisen of claiming he had proved a universal negative and then states that this is a fallacy. So according to Dilworth, it’s a fallacy if Eisen claims to have shown GMOs are safe and it’s a fallacy if he says he can’t show GMOs are safe. Astonishing. This is what happens when you don’t understand what you’re talking about.

Also (couldn’t resist this one) Dilworth brings up Thalidomide – yes Dilworth is invoking the Science Was Wrong Before fallacy.

Finally, get a load of this:

The article's overarching theme is based on a fallacy formally called "Special Pleading." It means he attacks opponents for not meeting a set of standards (apparently "science reasoning") - while he violates those same standards (presumably you won't detect them). In short, hypocrisy.

First, no it’s not Special Pleading unless Eisen explicitly stated that different standards apply to him (another fallacy name learned, but not understood). Regardless, behold the chutzpah – Dilworth’s fallacy filled article (falsely) accuses Eisen of hypocrisy, for (drumroll) using fallacies. Breathtaking.

Dilworth’s posts are bad – maybe even A Straw Man gets AIDS bad. To call fallacies correctly, you have to understand them, and to do that you need to understand why they are fallacies. Dilworth gives the impression that he has just learned the names of fallacies without understanding them, and then tried to fit them to an article he disagreed with. To do critical thinking, you also have to examine your own arguments, and if you find they contain fallacies you try to re-write them without the fallacies. (And if you can’t, you consider changing your position.) Dilworth neglects to do this on an epic scale. The writings of woos are generally full of logical fallacies and claims not consistent with evidence. Dilworth’s articles are worse than most because his many errors and fallacies are dressed up in the language of critical thinking. But Dilworth is not a critical thinker, he is just an unorganized writer and confused thinker who decided to to fit the names of logical fallacies to an article whose conclusions he disagreed with. That’s not the way to do it and it’s why his articles are so completely wrong. He should delete these posts which are an embarrassment and apologize to Eisen for accusing him of hypocrisy.

Bad arguments by analogy

…like there’s another kind.

Some twit called Nicholas D. Kristof writes in the New York Times that criticizing religion is the same as racism or sexism:

At a New York or Los Angeles cocktail party, few would dare make a pejorative comment about Barack Obama's race or Hillary Clinton's sex. Yet it would be easy to get away with deriding Mike Huckabee's religious faith.

Liberals believe deeply in tolerance and over the last century have led the battles against prejudices of all kinds, but we have a blind spot about Christian evangelicals. They constitute one of the few minorities that, on the American coasts or university campuses, it remains fashionable to mock.

Those poor downtrodden Christians again who are, don’t forget, the minority in the US with no money no resources and no power. Oh wait, no they’re not. Fortunately Ed at Dispatches From the Culture Wars puts Kristof’s silly argument in its place. Ed calls it a category error; I’d say it was a false analogy. Read Ed’s whole piece – I couldn’t have said it better. (Well I’m sure I could, but read Ed’s piece anyway.)

Anyway, thinking about this yesterday, it occurred to me that woos just love argument by analogy – in fact they’d be totally stuck without it. Here’s how it goes:

1. Racism is bad
2. Criticizing religion is like racism
3. Therefore criticizing religion is bad

Notice they didn’t have to show any actual evidence that criticizing religion is bad. Standard woo – no facts, evidence or logic, so argue by analogy instead. Here’s the thing - if I had to argue that racism is bad, I wouldn’t think of an analog to racism that we all agree is bad, and say “hey, racism’s the same”. No, I would explain why racism is bad. With perhaps some facts, citations, logic, evidence. Of course, I could do that because racism is, actually, bad, and so the facts logic and evidence are there to support the statement. Woos don’t have anything to back up their position, so analogy is often all they have. Where would Michael Behe do without Mount Rushmore? Or a mousetrap? And what would Kristof have written about without racism or sexism?

When someone argues by analogy, you can be pretty sure it’s because they don’t have any facts, evidence or logic to support their position. And all you have to do to debunk their argument, is find the flaw in the analogy.

Dinesh D'Souza is Not Very Bright

This is funny. Via Pharyngula today I found this piece of very poor reasoning from Dinesh D'Souza. D’Souza is banging on about how the spiritual world is of a completely different order from anything we know, and how we have no way to investigate or comprehend it. PZ has the obvious response: “So how does Dinesh D'Souza know anything about it?” Read D’Souza’s whole piece – it’s all bad.

I just had to laugh at one point he made – and it’s that part I want to comment on. Bereft of any arguments of his own, D’Souza relies on an argument made by the philosopher Kant. Briefly, Kant argued that human knowledge is limited by “the limited sensory apparatus of perception” we possess. That is, we cannot be sure our perception of reality shows us what reality is really like. D’Souza goes on to say this (with my bold):

When I challenged Daniel Dennett to debunk Kant's argument, he posted an angry response on his website in which he said several people had already refuted Kant. But he didn't provide any refutations, and he didn't name any names. Basically Dennett was relying on the argumentum ad ignorantium-the argument that relies on the ignorance of the audience.

LOL – argument from ignorance is an argument that relies on the ignorance of the audience? Nooooooo. Can he really believe that’s what argument from ignorance is? No. Argument from ignorance is:

… a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false or that a premise is false only because it has not been proven true.

And here’s the funny bit. You see, super duper ironically, that’s exactly what D’Souza is doing when he says that since no one can refute Kant – Kant must be right. D’Souza’s argument is an argument from ignorance. Add the straw man D’Souza started with, and you have a mish-wash of illogical waffle.

Of course, Kant could be right. There could be another reality we can’t comprehend. But just because there could be a different reality we can’t comprehend, that doesn’t mean there is one. And even if there were, there is no reason to believe that it’s anything like the version D’Souza or any other religious nit wits believe in.

Argument By Analogy

An argument by analogy takes place when the arguer:

1. Has a point to prove about something
2. Gives you an analogy for the thing
3. Points out that the analog contains the feature they are trying to prove exists in the original
4. Concludes the feature in the analog must also exist in the original.

The flaw in this method of argument

The flaw is simple: the analogy always breaks down somewhere. If the analogy breaks down, the conclusion the arguer is trying to draw from the analogy just doesn’t follow. That’s all there is to it. Argument by analogy is rarely as good as an argument by logic, evidence or facts. Clearly if the arguer had any logic, evidence or facts to support his case he would present them. That he resorts to argument by analogy shows his argument is probably devoid of logic, evidence or facts.

Examples

The most persistent users of argument by analogy are ID creationists. For example, Michael Behe is especially fond of his Mount Rushmore analogy:

For example, unintelligent physical forces like plate tectonics and erosion seem quite sufficient to account for the origin of the Rocky Mountains. Yet they are not enough to explain Mount Rushmore.

Of course, we know who is responsible for Mount Rushmore, but even someone who had never heard of the monument could recognize it as designed.

So by analogy, life on Earth must also have been designed. He goes on to invoke William Paley and his watch analogy – essentially the same argument only with a watch instead of Mount Rushmore. The obvious place the analogy breaks down is that neither Mount Rushmore nor a watch can have offspring, while living things regularly  reproduce themselves. Since this reproduction (with minor changes) is fundamental to the theory of evolution, and since it obviously doesn’t work with Mount Rushmore, Behe’s analogy is bogus. The only startling thing in my view, is how ID proponents like Behe can still use this lame analogy when it is so obviously bogus and has been debunked so many times.

Michael Egnor (another creationist) uses argument from analogy in his plea for dualism - ‘Verizon Deniers’ Find a Cellphone. He compares the human mind to a cell phone, which (as we all know) picks up signals from elsewhere. That is, we know the people we hear on the phone don’t actually live inside the phone – the phone is just a receiver of the voices. Egnor concludes that the human brain is the same – the mind exists elsewhere (in some unspecified non-material realm), and the brain is just a receiver for the mind’s thoughts. Of course, we know that if we placed the cell phone in a faraday cage that is impervious to radio waves, the signal would be lost. That is one place the analogy breaks down, since there is no equivalent way to block the “signal” (analog or digital – ha ha), from the “mind” to the brain. We also know that damage to specific areas of the brain can produce specific changes in personality or other brain functions, while damage to specific areas of the phone produce no analogous changes in the message received. (Usually damage to the phone produces either no change or the phone stops working completely.) So right there we have two places the analogy breaks down, and we can dismiss the argument. It is notable that Egnor produces no actual evidence for this rather extraordinary claim of his. (Orac did a fine and more detailed take-down of Egnor’s argument, as did Steven Novella and others.)

Correct uses of analogies

I believe there are two correct uses of an analogy in a discussion. The first is to explain something that is complex and perhaps technical, in language that is simpler or within the recipient’s experience. As an example, I modestly (well no, not really) present the Beatles analogy I used in the Lost Tomb of Jesus post. James Cameron used the analogy of some future archaeologist finding a tomb in Liverpool, marked with the names John, Paul, George and Ringo, and concluding he had found the lost tomb of The Beatles. I wrote that, by analogy, Cameron had really found a tomb with the names John, Paul, George and Britney, and concluded Britney Spears was the drummer in The Beatles. (Bear with me – you have to read the whole post.) But my analogy wasn’t used to make the case – I had done that by examining the statistics and showing where they were wrong. The analogy was to help explain it.

The other correct use of an analogy is to get around a mental block – where someone simply can’t conceive of the point you are making so you make an analogy they might be able to think about. An example would be to explain to a theist, how an atheist simply has no belief in God. A religious person possibly couldn’t even conceive of there being no God, so instead you present Bertrand Russell’s teapot analogy. Here, he believer is asked to consider if he believes there is a teapot in orbit between the Earth and Mars, and when he realizes he can’t prove there isn’t one he might understand why the atheist has no belief in God and why the burden of proof is upon the person saying God (or a teapot in orbit), exists, rather than upon those saying they don’t. Note that the teapot analogy doesn’t prove the point, but it might help the theist understand the idea.

Schrödinger’s Cat

What have you done to the cat, Erwin? He looks half dead."

- Mrs. Schrödinger.

The above quotation is attributed to Erwin Schrödinger's wife – apparently an early animal rights activist. The rest, as they say, is history.

I was reminded of Schrödinger’s Cat after reading this comment and this comment recently. Each of these commenters enlisted Schrödinger’s Cat to prove some facts woo they were promoting. Unfortunately for them it does no such thing.

First, for those unfamiliar with it, a summary of the Schrödinger’s Cat thought experiment:

Schrödinger imagined that a cat is locked in a box, along with a radioactive atom that is connected to a vial containing a deadly poison. If the atom decays, it causes the vial to smash and the cat to be killed. When the box is closed we do not know if the atom has decayed or not, which means that [the cat] can be in both the decayed state and the non-decayed state at the same time. Therefore, the cat is both dead and alive at the same time...

Note: the cat is both dead and alive at the same time. The woo’s argument goes: this is really weird and counterintuitive, therefore __________ (insert preferred brand of woo) is real. There are several flaws in this line of reasoning.

First, from this translation of Schrödinger's original "cat paradox paper", we know that Schrödinger was deliberately presenting this dead and alive scenario as a “quite ridiculous” case. In other words, since a cat obviously cannot be both dead and alive at the same time, the extreme version of the Copenhagen interpretation (the version that says consciousness is necessary), must be wrong. This could be because “observation” really means “measurement” (ie the Geiger counter measuring the atomic decay is the “observer”), or because Copenhagen itself is wrong. Either way, it is amusing when woos throw Schrödinger’s Cat into the debate, quite oblivious to the fact that is was designed to show the exact opposite of what they think it shows.

But there is a more fundamental reason Schrödinger’s Cat doesn’t support the woo position.

I Taught I Taw A Puddy Tat

Schrödinger’s Cat is a thought experiment only. Thought experiments can be useful to explain a complex idea, or to get people to question assumptions, but a thought experiment cannot by itself prove or disprove anything. To prove or disprove something, you have to perform a real experiment. Schrödinger’s Cat has never actually been performed as a real experiment, and in my view could never even in principle be performed as a real experiment. The reason should be obvious. Schrödinger’s Cat says the cat is both dead and alive until we look at it. But we cannot tell if the cat is dead or alive until we look at it. It’s Catch-22: to perform Schrödinger’s Cat we’d have to look at the experiment without looking at it. Clearly impossible. So it proves nothing.

Of course, this also means that Schrödinger’s point wasn’t proven either: since we can’t say for sure that the cat isn’t both dead and alive, we can’t say if Copenhagen is right or wrong. The “consciousness is necessary” interpretation of QM is unfalsifiable.

But even if the experiment could be performed, and the dead and alive at the same time position confirmed, that still wouldn’t support the many woo claims made for quantum mechanics. If you want to demonstrate that something is true, you need to show some actual evidence that the thing actually is true. Just because quantum mechanics is weird and counterintuitive yet true, it doesn’t follow that any weird and counterintuitive woo is also true.

Poor Puddy Tat!

A Straw Man gets AIDS

One of the skills of critical thinking is to understand logical fallacies – to recognize them in your opponent’s arguments and not rely on them yourself. But it’s easy for beginners to get caught out by them – to misunderstand a fallacy and call it out in error. You certainly need to be sure you understand them before you make a fool of yourself. Nowhere is this more evident than in the link Orac sent me to a post on Hank's "You Bet Your Life" blog. Hank doesn’t think HIV causes AIDS, and in his post AIDS Inc: Common Logical Fallacies he lists what he thinks are the logical fallacies employed by what he calls the “AIDS bunglers”. As an educational exercise I thought I should point out Hank’s errors, which are threefold:

1. Calling fallacies that aren’t
2. Calling the wrong fallacy, and
3. Stating Straw Man versions of his opponents’ positions, and calling them fallacies.

For brevity I’m going to refer to the idea that HIV causes AIDS as the “HIV theory”, and its proponents “HIV theorists”. I will refer to the people who disagree with this as “dissenters”. In this post I’m not going to discuss specific evidence that shows HIV does or does not cause AIDS – I’m going to focus solely on Hank’s misuse of logical fallacies.

Here goes:

Ad Hominem:

If you don't believe that HIV causes AIDS, well, you suck.

If that was all the HIV theorists had to offer, this would be ad hominem. However, they don’t rely on ad hominem, they rely on the evidence, and if evidence is presented to support your position, you are not relying on fallacious logic. Which brings us neatly to Hank’s next point:

Appeal To False Authority:

The NIH has a great government website, which explains why HIV Causes AIDS

This is not an Appeal To Authority. If the claim was just “the NIH says HIV causes AIDS”, this might be an appeal to authority. But here’s the thing: the actual article Hank links to is a summary of the evidence that HIV causes AIDS, plus rebuttals to the many “HIV does not cause AIDS” myths. Someone could debate these evidences if they wanted to, but they can’t deny that the website does, in fact, list detailed evidence that HIV causes AIDS. Therefore, the website is not relying on the authority of the NIH but on the evidence it lists. Citing evidence is not an appeal to authority, and so citing this website is not fallacious.

This is a classic example of someone who has heard the term “Appeal To Authority”, but has not understood it. If an “authority” lists evidence, it is not fallacious to cite it.

Appeal To Emotion:

Look, millions of poor Africans are gonna die, if you don’t immediately start believing that HIV causes AIDS!!!

That would be an Appeal To Emotion, but the HIV theory relies on evidence not on this Straw Man Hank has created.

Appeal to Fear:

Did you see what we did to Duesberg? If you don't accept that HIV causes AIDS, we will strip away your funding and ostracize you. Now, get smart, will ya?

I’m not sure why this paper from 1987 is cited – it doesn’t really say what anyone “did to Duesberg”, and if this is all that happened in 19 years is this really anything to fear? In any case, Duesberg’s credibility has been damaged because the preponderance of evidence supports the HIV theory and not Duesberg’s largely unsupported claims, not because anyone “did” something to him.

Appeal To Force:

If you don't agree that HIV causes AIDS, we will call CPS and take away your children.

The cited article suggests that children are being experimented on in violation of medical standards, but nowhere in the article is it suggested that the children were taken away because their parents doubted that HIV causes AIDS. Hank’s citing this article is really itself an Appeal to Fear, or an Appeal to Emotion.

Appeal To Majority:

C’mon, everybody’s wearing a red ribbon, why not you?

This is hilariously absurd. The link is to one of Hank’s earlier posts which describes a Seinfeld sketch - the one where Kramer is ostracized for not wearing a red AIDS ribbon. I’m not making that up – check the link. It takes some serious chutzpah to write an article about how your opponents use logical fallacies, and as evidence for this you cite the script of a TV sitcom. I’m not sure exactly what fallacy that would be (argument from authority?) – but it is certainly ludicrous.

The funny thing is that even in the sitcom, Kramer is not saying HIV doesn’t cause AIDS, he just doesn’t want to wear a ribbon – which makes Hank’s citing it a False Analogy too. I think it is probably also a non sequitur, but I’m open to other suggestions of what fallacies Hank is relying on here.

Appeal to Novelty:

Yeah, I know that retroviruses historically haven’t been show to kill cells, but this is a NEW retrovirus from a Chimpanzee in Cameroon via the Castro!

I don’t ever recall any HIV theorists relying on that Straw Man argument.

Appeal To Numbers:

Thousands of scientists think that HIV causes AIDS, why not you?

No. An Appeal to Popularity (as I prefer to call it) is something like “millions believe homeopathy works, so it must work”. But those millions are being fooled by the placebo effect amongst other things, which is why the number of people who believe it is irrelevant. But the “thousands of scientists” are all looking at the evidence.

Appeal To Tradition:

Traditionally, viruses are very bad things, causing many different ailments, why not this virus, too?

Another rather silly Straw Man of the HIV theory. Did anyone ever seriously make this argument for the HIV theory?

Argumentum Ad Nauseum:

HIV causes AIDS. You’re a Dissenter. HIV causes AIDS. You’re a Dissenter. HIV causes AIDS. You’re a Dissenter. HIV causes AIDS. You’re a Dissenter. HIV causes AIDS. You’re a Dissenter. HIV causes AIDS. You’re a Dissenter.

That might be Argumentum Ad Nauseam (note the correct spelling) if that was all that was offered, but (again), HIV theorists have evidence too.

Begging The Question:

AIDS is the disease that is caused by HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.

Again, if that was all that was offered it would be circular reasoning, but there is that pesky evidence too.

Burden Of Proof:

Can you prove that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS?

Since the evidence that HIV causes AIDS is pretty strong and widely accepted by scientists in the field, I think the burden of proof is back in the dissenters’ camp to show evidence for their alternative.

Complex Question:

Have you stopped beating your wife while denying that HIV causes AIDS?

That doesn’t even make sense. Anyway, another Straw Man.

False Dilemma:

Either you accept that HIV causes AIDS or you're responsible for killing millions of Africans.

This doesn’t really make sense as a false dilemma. A false Dilemma is where two alternatives are held to be the only options, when in reality there exist one or more other options which have not been considered. But “accept that HIV causes AIDS” and “be responsible for killing millions of Africans” are not really alternatives, are they? It’s more an appeal to consequences, but even that doesn’t really work. Either way it’s another of Hank’s Straw Men.

False Premise:

Since HIV is found in all cases of AIDS, obviously HIV must cause AIDS.

If there was no known mechanism for how HIV causes AIDS, or if there was no evidence for the HIV theory, he might have a point.

Gambler's Fallacy:

Look, highly credentialed scientists have usually got it right in the past, so I just know they got AIDS right this time!

No, this is not a Gambler’s Fallacy. The Gambler’s Fallacy refers to random activities, such as coin tossing. For example, if you just tossed a coin three times and got three heads, a gambler’s fallacy would be to say the next toss would be more likely to be tails (since you just got three heads in a row). Of course, the probability of getting heads again would still be 50% since a random event is not less likely to occur because it recently happened. But science isn’t “random”. The reason the “highly credentialed scientists have usually got it right in the past” is not due to randomness – it’s due to the reliability of the scientific method. It is not fallacious to say that scientists are likely to be right, unless you can specifically explain why they are likely to be wrong in this case (which Hank hasn’t done).

Guilt By Association:

You know who else doesn’t believe that HIV causes AIDS?

*(insert pictures of Nixon, Mbeki, Kary Mullis here)*

Would be ad hominem, if the above was the argument presented. Again, it’s one of Hank’s Straw Men.

Non Sequitur:

HIV causes AIDS, because if not, that means we've been lying to people all these years.

More of an Appeal to Consequences, actually. Or perhaps a false dilemma. And if the above was the argument it would be fallacious. But again, there is the evidence.

No True Scotsman:

Argument: "No Scientist questions whether HIV causes AIDS

Reply: " Dr. Kary Mullis questions whether HIV causes AIDS."

Rebuttal: "Ah yes, but no true scientist questions whether HIV causes AIDS.

That would be a NTS, except that I don’t think anyone says "No Scientist questions whether HIV causes AIDS”. After all, we know Duesberg questions it, and he’s a scientist. Another Straw Man.

Post Hoc/False Cause:

Since we’'ve started pumping people with AZT and other toxic drugs, AIDS deaths have decrease 62%. Therefore, HIV causes AIDS.

No, this is not a Post-Hoc fallacy. If there was no theoretical mechanism for how AZT works, and we just randomly noticed that AIDS deaths decreased in correlation with AZT, this would be a post hoc fallacy. But we do have theories of how AZT works, and recipients of AZT and other AIDS drugs have been monitored very carefully since their introduction to determine the results. It is not Post Hoc fallacious reasoning to note that people got better after taking drugs designed to make them better – if it were we would never be able to trial any new drug or therapy, and there would be no point ever to double-blind studies.

Red Herring:

Well, you say that to prove HIV causes AIDS, requires extraordinary evidence, because it's an extraordinary claim. Well, we’d like to note that "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence" is itself an extraordinary claim.

Another Straw Man. Extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence, but no one claims that this, is itself an extraordinary claim. In any case, I think the HIV theorists have provided the extraordinary evidence – it is the dissenters who don’t have the evidence.

Slippery Slope:

If you don't accept that HIV causes AIDS, you will do poorly in class, drop out of school, commit crimes, go to prison, and die of AIDS.

Not really a slippery slope; more an Appeal to Consequences, I would have thought. Either way Hank is making another Straw Man.

Just to be clear on this Straw Man business – I’m not claiming that no one ever said anything like the things Hank is claiming; I’m saying these Straw Man arguments Hank is putting forward are not the main arguments put forward by the scientists who support the HIV theory.

Reading Hank’s post I was reminded of something Jason Rosenhouse wrote recently:

… it has never once happened in the history of science that a theory achieves mainstream status, only to fall apart when a clever outsider notices a simple logical oversight.

Of course Jason was writing about Ann Coulter’s supposed “disproval” of evolution, but it occurred to me that it could just as easily apply to AIDS dissenters. They have a lot in common: a poor understanding of science and logic, combined with a religious need for the orthodox science to be wrong. With HIV/AIDS, as with (say) evolution and global warming, you don’t have to understand all the evidence to accept that the orthodox view is probably correct - you can get a pretty good idea just by looking at the position the majority of peer reviewed science is supporting. That doesn’t mean the orthodox position is definitely 100% correct – all science is provisional and anyone can challenge the orthodoxy if they have compelling evidence. But challenging orthodoxy is an extraordinary claim, for the good reason that the orthodoxy is already supported by extraordinary evidence. To overturn this you need even more extraordinary evidence to the contrary, and this misnamed list of fallacies isn’t it.

Equivocation

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.

The appeal to “science doesn’t know everything”

Here is another fallacious argument:

Science doesn’t know everything

… or equivalent wording.

The argument is that since science doesn’t know everything, the believer’s unscientific claim is worthy of consideration.

The flaw in the argument

The statement “science doesn’t know everything” is obviously true. The believer thinks the corollary is that any idea he likes the sound of, that cannot be proven false, is worthy of consideration. This is wrong. Something is only worthy of consideration if there is a reason to suppose it is true. Usually that means some evidence.

If you don’t restrict yourself to things that are backed by some evidence, or if there is at least some logical reason to suppose they might be true, you will believe in absolutely anything. And I have this really great bridge to sell you.

Examples

This is a typical version of this fallacy:

Hundreds of years ago we didn’t know radio waves existed, but they obviously did exist, so how do you know “qi” (or whatever woo idea they are promoting) does not exist today?

The answer is – we don’t. But, no one imagined radio waves existed, or claimed to be using them before they were scientifically discovered either. The thing is, “how do you know “qi” does not exist?” is the wrong question. The question you should be asking is, “is there any evidence for “qi”?

Another example would include the ever lame James Van Praagh on Larry King last night:

Just because things cannot be proven scientifically in the scientific method or the way you choose it to be in your paradigm, your way of thinking, it doesn't mean it (sic) doesn't exist.

To which the obvious rejoinder would have been: just because I can’t prove to everyone that you’re a fraud doesn’t mean you aren’t one. 

And if you thought that wasn’t lame enough, he had his own rather garbled version of the radio waves argument:

If that was the way it is germs, bacteria they wouldn't have existed if we didn't find them and prove them. Look at the planet Pluto. Pluto, we would not have known it existed until we discovered it. That does not mean it does not exist.

I’m going to write up a longer review of Larry’s Wednesday night “psychic” show when I get time.

The appeal to “science was wrong before”

Here is another fallacious argument:

Science was wrong before

… or equivalent wording.

The argument is that since science is sometimes wrong, the believer’s claim is as likely to be true as one supported by scientific evidence.

The flaw in the argument

Science is a series of provisional truths, backed by evidence, that are amended when better evidence is available. The key word here is “evidence”. In other words, we have a reason to suppose scientifically supported ideas are true. Contrast this with unscientific ideas, where there is rarely any rational reason to suppose they are true. Additionally, the scientific idea that was shown to be “wrong” was often not completely wrong: it often still had utility.

In reality, science has proved the most reliable method we know for evaluating claims and figuring out how the universe works. The appeal to “science was wrong before” is just a smoke screen to disguise the fact that the believer has no evidence for his claim. It does not follow that science should not be applied to evaluate claims, or that unscientific claims are likely to be true.

What they’re missing

As well as being a flawed argument, it also shows ignorance of how science works. Yes, science has been wrong, but the scientific method is self-correcting. And it is always scientists who have unearthed new evidence who do the correcting, never people who ignore the scientific method.

Ironically it also shows up the strength of science and the weakness of believer methods. For example, compare the way scientific errors are discovered and corrected, with what happens in, for example, astrology or alternative medicine. In those fields no errors are ever corrected for the simple reason that no one ever critically tests those beliefs to see if they even contain errors. Errors are a permanent feature of those beliefs. Error recognition and correction is a strength of science.

Examples

There are several versions of this fallacy. For example, believers often cite Newton being proven wrong by Einstein. Of course, Newton’s calculations are close enough for anything other than close-to light speed calculations – that’s why Newton’s formulae are used by NASA.

Alternative medicine proponents will often note that evidence-based doctors are sometimes wrong in their diagnoses, as if this means altie therapies work. Doctors are fallible and our knowledge is incomplete, but the evidence-based approach has led to huge advances and improvements in healthcare, unlike alternative treatments that have achieved virtually nothing.

This fallacy is related to, but is slightly different from, the appeal to other ways of knowing.

The appeal to other ways of knowing

Here is another fallacious argument skeptics will have heard:

There are ways of knowing other than the scientific one

or

The scientific method is not the only source of truth

..or similar wording. It is an appeal to other ways of knowing apart from science. The claim is that the tools of critical thinking and science are not sufficient to evaluate the believer’s claim; therefore the believer's claim has validity despite the lack of evidence for it.

The flaw in the argument

No one is claiming that science has all the answers or is always right. However, science has proved to be the most reliable method we know for evaluating claims and figuring out how the universe works. If the believer is claiming that there is a better method, it is up to him or her to justify that claim. To demonstrate this, believers need to explain their better method for evaluating claims, and provide evidence that it is indeed a better method. If they cannot do this their appeal to other ways of knowing is vacuous and fallacious.

For examples of this fallacy in action, you can do no worse that go to the astrologers such as Robert Hand or Dorian Gieseler Greenbaum. Of course, they have no choice but to utilize this fallacy since all rational evidence shows that astrology is made-up and astrology doesn’t work. Astrologers aren’t the only ones though. For some other examples you could read some of the believer comments posted to this blog. A prime example is this plea for the truth of reincarnation.

The appeal to be open-minded

All skeptics have heard this from someone at some point in a debate: “You need to be more open-minded” or “You’re too closed-minded”. This is presented as though it is actually a valid argument. In reality it just shows they have run out of arguments. They hide behind it to disguise the complete lack of any rational reason for you to accept what they are telling you. It's the last resort of someone who has nothing – if they had evidence they would obviously present it. 

Even so, it can seem compelling, since calling someone closed-minded is pejorative. But it’s fallacious rhetoric: doubting something is not necessarily closed minded. In fact, the closed minded ones are the believers who insist some fantastic story is true despite a complete lack of evidence to support it. They are too closed minded to accept that their fantasy might be false.

An open mind is…

Here’s the thing. An open mind is open to all ideas, but it must be open to the possibility that the idea could be true or false. It is not closed-minded to reject claims that make no sense. If you can’t accept the possibility that an idea might be false, then you are the closed minded one. An open minded person will critically examine all claims but will not accept them if there is no reason to believe they are true or if there is reason to believe they are false. To do so would be fallacious. And credulous.

The real problem

The “have an open mind” crowd are more than just logically wrong.  Their way of thinking is actually destructive to good ideas. Bad ideas should be discarded - by weeding out bad ideas the good can flourish. An earlier version of this argument would have gone, “You’re closed-minded in saying that humors don’t exist” to justify bloodletting. But by focusing uncritically on bloodletting, germ theory would never have been discovered. Germ theory was discovered by skeptical scientists who insisted on evidence, not by new-agers with open minds.

If you accept something when there is no reason to believe it is true you are just credulous. And if you will not reject something when there is no reason to believe in it then you are in freefall – you will believe in anything. This way of thinking is a complete dead end. Or to put it another way, don’t be so open minded that your brains fall out.

That’s better – my mind is now completely open!

Further reading

UK Skeptics have a good write up on this fallacy.

To see the fallacy in action, read some of the comments to my review of What the (bleep) do we know!? Start with this comment, then read this comment (and the rebuttals that follow them), but especially see this series of comments from Boney – see he stretches the have an open mind fallacy to amazing lengths.

Also, see this thread on JREF (long)

Ad hominem

I’ve been meaning to write this article for a while but I’ve been pretty busy recently banking all those checks from “big pharma” companies and living the high life on the proceeds. Also, this last week has been full of Libertarian Party meetings. We’ve been busy planning to remove all labor, environmental and safety regulations from corporations; it’s very time consuming.

Seriously, I have been accused of those things recently: in The Huffington Post and in the comments. Funny thing, the accusers always think this refutes the arguments I’ve been making, as if an (alleged) affiliation with (say) the Libertarians somehow magically changes Robert F. Kennedy’s article so that it’s now true instead of a pack of lies. Well they’re wrong. This mode of reasoning is a logical fallacy known as ad hominem: attacking the person presenting the argument, instead of pointing out a flaw in their actual argument. It’s a fallacy because even if the criticism of the person is true, his argument may still be valid. You can only tell if the argument is valid by examining the actual argument to see if it is actually valid.

Three cases

I can show what I mean by presenting three possible scenarios:

Case 1

Just supposing I really am a paid shill for the pharma companies. I’m writing my piece because I’m paid to express those views, not because I have arrived at them by honestly examining facts and evidence. That means I’m writing my piece irrespective of the facts, and so my piece may well be factually inaccurate. If that’s true, it should be easy for my opponent to point out these inaccuracies shouldn’t it? So why don’t they? Why do they insist instead on just saying I’m a pharma industry shill? Surely what matters is if the argument I have presented is correct or not?

Case 2

Alternatively, suppose I’m still a pharma industry shill, and I’m still writing my piece because I’m paid to do so, but suppose that my piece just happens to coincide with the facts. My piece is factually correct, purely by accident. So what is the relevance that I am a pharma industry shill?  My piece is correct regardless. Surely what matters is that the argument I have presented is correct?

Case 3

I’m not a paid shill for the pharma companies, and I have written my piece based on what I think is a good honest evaluation of the facts and evidence. Of course, my arguments could still be wrong – I’m only human after all. So how does anyone tell if my argument is correct? Surely they would still have to examine my arguments to see if they are correct or not?

In all three cases above, my status vis-à-vis being paid by the pharma industry or not is irrelevant: what is important is the data – if my piece is correct or not. It’s always the data that’s important, not my political affiliations, not who pays me, not my qualifications (or alleged lack thereof), not any other agenda I might have. Nothing about me is important. Only the data is important.

Attacking the person instead of the argument they present is intellectually lazy. It’s a substitute for thinking. It’s also 100% flawed reasoning: you don’t arrive at the conclusion from the argument presented. The funny thing is, people on both sides of the political spectrum criticize the other side for this method of debate, and yet they don’t realize they do it themselves. For example, those on the left will rail at Karl Rove for smearing his opponents and yet they will be the first to criticize their opponents based purely on a connection to (say) a corporation and profits rather than to any actual wrongdoing.

Critical thinking means you understand logical fallacies – you recognize them in someone else’s argument and you don’t rely on them in forming your own arguments. You’ll notice I didn’t criticize Kennedy because he is a lawyer with no knowledge of the science, or because he is (allegedly) opposed to big corporations. I attacked his data as being factually inaccurate. And if you want to criticize me you’re going to have to do the same.