WHY BAD?!?

The inspiration:

Intellectual Humility

I think there’s an important connection between intellectual honesty and humility. A simple goal of this class is to get us all to recognize what counts as good evidence and what counts as bad evidence for a claim. I think we've gotten pretty good at this so far. But this doesn’t guarantee that we’ll care about the difference once we figure it out.

Getting us to care is the real goal. We should care about good evidence. We should care about evidence and arguments because they get us closer to the truth. When we judge an argument to be overall good, THE POWER OF LOGIC COMPELS US to believe the conclusion. If we are presented with decent evidence for some claim, but still stubbornly disagree with this claim for no strong reason, we are just being irrational. Worse, we’re effectively saying that the truth doesn’t matter to us.

Instead of resisting, we should be open-minded. We should be willing to challenge ourselves--seriously challenge ourselves--and allow new evidence change our current beliefs if it warrants it. We should be open to the possibility that we’ve currently gotten something wrong. This is how comedian Todd Glass puts it:

Here are the first two paragraphs of an interesting article on this:

Last week, I jokingly asked a health club acquaintance whether he would change his mind about his choice for president if presented with sufficient facts that contradicted his present beliefs. He responded with utter confidence. “Absolutely not,” he said. “No new facts will change my mind because I know that these facts are correct.”

I was floored. In his brief rebuttal, he blindly demonstrated overconfidence in his own ideas and the inability to consider how new facts might alter a presently cherished opinion. Worse, he seemed unaware of how irrational his response might appear to others. It’s clear, I thought, that carefully constructed arguments and presentation of irrefutable evidence will not change this man’s mind.

Ironically, having extreme confidence in oneself is often a sign of ignorance. Remember, in many cases, such stubborn certainty is unwarranted.

Second-Hand News

Angelo heard it through the grapevine:

Filling In Memory

Here's a section (pages 78-80) from psychologist Dan Gilbert's great book Stumbling on Happiness about how memory works:



The preview cuts off at the bottom of page 80. Here's the rest from that section:

"...reading the words you saw. But in this case, your brain was tricked by the fact that the gist word--the key word, the essential word--was not actually on the list. When your brain rewove the tapestry of your experience, it mistakenly included a word that was implied by the gist but that had not actually appeared, just as volunteers in the previous study mistakenly included a stop sign that was implied by the question they had been asked but that had not actually appeared in the slides they saw.

"This experiment has ben done dozens of times with dozens of different word lists, and these studies have revealed two surprising findings. First, people do not vaguely recall seeing the gist word and they do not simply guess that they saw the gist word. Rather, they vividly remember seeing it and they feel completely confident that it appeared. Second, this phenomenon happens even when people are warned about it beforehand. Knowing that a researcher is trying to trick you into falsely recalling the appearance of a gist word does not stop that false recollection from happening."

Too many words, Sean! Can't you just put up a video? You better make it funny, too!

Fine. Here's Dan Gilbert on The Colbert Report:

Deoderant Gender Norms

If you don't buy these products, you're being unnatural:

Hearsay, You Say?

-via GraphJam

-via xkcd

An Expert for Every Cause

Looking for links on appealing to authority? This is your post! First, here's an interesting article on a great question: How are those of us who aren't experts supposed to figure out the truth about stuff that requires expertise?

Not all alleged experts are actual experts. Here's a method to tell which experts are phonies (this article was originally published in the Chronicle of Higher Education).

It's important to check whether the person making an appeal to authority really knows who the authority is. That's why we should beware of claims that begin with "Studies show..."

And here's a Saturday Night Live sketch in which Christopher Walken completely flunks the competence test.

Begging the Dinosaur

I couldn't resist giving you some stuff on begging the question. Here's my favorite video for Mims's logically delicious song "This is Why I'm Hot":

Let's Be Diplomatic: Straw Person

Here's some stuff on the straw man fallacy:

• Politicians love to distort their opponents' positions. Even Obama does it.
• Politicians aren't alone: we do it, too. Often we distort arguments for claims we disagree with without even realizing it. This is because we have trouble coming up with good reasons supporting a conclusion that we think is false, so we have a tendency to make up bad reasons and attribute them to our opponents.
  
• Hire your own professional straw man!

Also, speaking of red herrings, here's a cute cat picture:

Wait, we weren't just speaking of red her--Oh. I see what you did there.

Clever.

That's an Ad Hominem, You Jerk

Here are some links on the ad hominem (personal attack) fallacy:

• Sure, some critics of Obama are racist, but does that mean we can dismiss their arguments? As much as we might want to, logically, no we cannot!
• Some variants on the personal attack: tu quoque (hypocrite!) and guilt by association (she hangs around bad people!).
• I should note that tu quoque isn't always fallacious reasoning.
  
• "The ad hominem rejoinders—ready the ad hominem rejoinders!"
• Remember our rallying cry: "STUPID PEOPLE SOMETIMES SAY SMART THINGS."
  

Get to studying, you ignorant sluts.

Accent the Pity

Here is a pair of comics playing off the fallacy of accent:


This next one pulls off a rare double-accent:

And here's an ad that's clearly appealing to pity. Whadaya think? Is this appeal relevant or irrelevant? Let us know in the comments to this post.

Take My Wife, as Amphiboly

Here's some stand up from Henny Youngman, the violin-toting comedian who came up with "Take my wife... please!" How many jokes rely on amphiboly?

Fallacies, Fallacies, Everywhere

Looking for links on fallacies and equivocation? This is your post! First, there's a nice series of short articles on a bunch of different fallacies, including many that aren't in our book.... but also an entry on equivocation.

Speaking of, my best friend the inter-net has some nice examples of the fallacy of equivocation. Here is one good one:

A feather is light.

What is light cannot be dark.
Therefore, a feather cannot be dark.

Inductioneering

Here are a few dumb things about inductive arguments. First, a video of comedian Lewis Black describing his failure to learn from experience every year around Halloween:


Next, this stick figure comic offers a pretty bad argument. Why is it bad? (Let us know in the comments!)

Evaluating Deductive Arguments

Here are the answers to the handout on evaluating deductive arguments that we went over in class. Perhaps I should have titled the handout "So Many Bad Args!"

1) All kangaroos are marsupials.
All marsupials are mammals.
All kangaroos are mammals.

P1- true
P2- true
structure- valid
overall - sound

2) (from Stephen Colbert)
Bush was either a great prez or the greatest prez.
Bush wasn’t the greatest prez.
Bush was a great prez.

P1- questionable ("great" is subjective)
P2- questionable ("great" is subjective)
structure- valid (it's either A or B; it's not A; so it's B)
overall- unsound (bad premises)

3) Some people are funny.
Sean is a person.
Sean is funny.

P1- true (we might disagree over who specifically is funny, but nearly all of us would agree that someone is funny)
P2- true (each "Sean" in this handout refers to your teacher, Sean Landis)
structure- invalid (the 1st premise only says some are funny; Sean could be one of the unfunny people)
overall- unsound (bad structure)

4) All email forwards are annoying.
Some email forwards are false.
Some annoying things are false.

P1- questionable ("annoying" is subjective)
P2- true
structure- valid (the premises establish that some email forwards are both annoying and false; so some annoying things [those forwards] are false)
overall - unsound (bad first premise)

5) All bats are mammals.
All bats have wings.
All mammals have wings.

P1- true
P2- true (if interpreted to mean "All bats are the sorts of creatures who have wings.") or false (if interpreted to mean "Each and every living bat has wings," since some bats are born without wings)
structure- invalid (we don't know anything about the relationship between mammals and winged creatures just from the fact that bats belong to each group)
overall- unsound (bad structure)

6) Some dads have beards.
All bearded people are mean.
Some dads are mean.

P1- true
P2- questionable ("mean" is subjective)
structure- valid (if all the people with beards were mean, then the dads with beards would be mean, so some dads would be mean)
overall- unsound (bad 2nd premise)

7) This class is boring.
All boring things are taught by Sean
This class is taught by Sean.

P1-questionable ("boring" is subjective)
P2- false (nearly everyone would agree that there are some boring things not associated with Sean)
structure- valid
overall- unsound (bad premises)

8) All students in here are mammals.
All humans are mammals.
All students in here are humans.

P1- true
P2- true
structure- invalid (the premises only tell us that students and humans both belong to the mammals group; we don't know enough about the relationship between students and humans from this; for instance, what if a dog were a student in our class?)
overall- unsound (bad structure)

9) All hornets are wasps.
All wasps are insects.
All insects are scary.
All hornets are scary.

P1- true!
P2- true
P3- questionable ("scary" is subjective)
structure- valid (same structure as in argument #1, just with an extra premise)
overall- unsound (bad 3rd premise)

10) All students in here are humans.
All humans are shorter than 10 feet tall.
All students in here are shorter than 10 feet tall.

P1- true
P2- true!
structure- valid (same structure as arg #1)
overall- sound

11) If Sean sings, then students cringe.
Sean is singing right now.
Students are cringing right now.

P1- questionable (since you haven't heard me sing, you don't know whether it's true or false)
P2- false
structure- valid
overall- unsound (bad premises)

12) If Sean sings, then students cringe.
Sean isn't singing right now.
Students aren't cringing right now.

P1- questionable (again, you don't know)
P2- true
structure- invalid (from premise 1, we only know what happens when Sean is singing, not when he isn't singing; students could cringe for a different reason)
overall- unsound (bad 1st premise and structure)

13) If Sean sings, then students cringe.
Students aren't cringing right now.
Sean isn't singing right now.

P1- questionable (again, you don't know)
P2- true
structure- valid
overall- unsound (bad 1st premise)

14) If Sean sings, then students cringe.
Students are cringing right now.
Sean is singing right now.

P1- questionable (again, you don't know)
P2- false
structure- valid (from premise 1, we only know that Sean singing is one way to guarantee that students cringe; just because they're cringing doesn't mean Sean's the one who caused it; again, students could cringe for a different reason)
overall- unsound (bad premises and structure)

Howard Sure Is a Duck

Howard the Duck is my favorite synecdoche for the 80's: