Consequent Skepticism – recognizes the consequences of our fallible impressions but corrects them through reason. “A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence”.
“[N]o testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact that it endeavors to establish”.
Twenty-five Fallacies that Influence our Beliefs
Problems in Scientific Thinking.
1. Theory influences observation. Modern science does not describe reality but rather proposes theories or models of reality. Science presupposes that reality exists independently of the observer but our examination of reality is influenced by the theory framing the examination.
2. The observer changes the observed. The act of studying an event can change it. Science tries to minimize and acknowledge the effects of the observation on the behavior of the observed; pseudoscience does not.
3. Equipment constructs results. How we measure and understand phenomena is highly influenced by our equipment and the value we place upon that equipment.
Problems in Pseudoscientific Thinking.
4. Anecdotes do not make a science. Without corroborative evidence from non-anecdotal sources, anecdotes (no matter how numerous) are worthless.
5. Scientific language does not make a science. Respectability may be gained by sounding scientific because science has a powerful mystique in our society.
6. Bold statements do not make claims true. Something is probably pseudoscientific is bold claims are made for its power and veracity. Propagandists have long taken advantage of our tendency to assume that where there is a lot of smoke, there must be some fire. However, smoke is just smoke. “[T]he more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinarily well-tested the evidence must be”.
7. Heresy does not equal correctness. Schopenhauer – “All truth passes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Second it is violently opposed. Third it is accepted as self-evident”. For every “truth” that was initially not accepted, there are thousands that were never accepted! Failure in following the rules of science leads to failure in scientific acceptance.
8. Burden of proof. Person making extraordinary claims has a greater burden of providing evidence in support of those claims than do those rejecting the claims. An outsider must marshal a greater amount of supporting evidence.
9. Rumors do not equal reality. Urban legends and persistent rumors are ubiquitous.
10. Unexplained is not inexplicable. Most of us find it more comforting to have explanations, even if they are false or premature, than to live with unsolved or unexplained mysteries.
11. Failures are rationalized. Failures get us closer to the truth. Scientists can be kept from deception by the recognition that other scientists will publicize any attempt at deception. Pseudoscientists ignore or rationalize failures and when they are exposed as deceptions, they argue that social pressure forced them to cheat).
12. After-the-fact reasoning (post hoc, ergo propter hoc). “After this, therefore because of this” is a logical fallacy. That two events follow in sequence does not mean that they are causally connected. Correlation is not causation.
13. Coincidence. Intuitive notions of probability bear little resemblance to the laws of probability. The human mind seeks relations among events and often finds them when they are merely contingent (conjunction without design). The law of large numbers – with a large enough sample, anything can happen.
Risk of dying (1994):
a. For a women giving birth (1/9100)
b. For anyone 35 – 44 years old (1/437)
c. From asbestos in schools (1/11 mil)
d. For anyone for any reason (1/118)
e. From lightning (1/2 mil)
f. For police on the job (1/4500)
g. From airplane crashes (1/167,000)
Some other odds:
Chance of dying in any particular automobile excursion (1/4M)
Chance of dying in auto accident during lifetime (1/140)
Winning the Illinois weekly lottery (1/3-5M)
First-year college student will graduate (50/100)
You will die this year (1/119)
Pro-golfer will get hole-in-one (1/15K)
Pilot of your air flight will be drunk (1/117)
Your child will run away & become prostitute (1/467)
Your stolen car will be recovered (67/100)
Earth devastated by a meteor in your lifetime (1/9K)
You will be incarcerated (1/200)
14. Representativeness. We remember meaningful coincidences and forget meaningless coincidences. We need baseline rates of events before we can determine the whether some event is unusual.
Logical Problems in Thinking.
15. Emotive words and false analogies. Metaphors and analogies can provoke emotions that can obscure rationality.
16. Ad Ignorantium. If you cannot reject a claim with evidence then it must be true. In science, belief comes from evidence in support of a claim, not from lack of evidence for or against a claim.
17. Ad Hominem and Tu Quoque (“to the man” and “you also”). Discredit the claimant and you may discredit the claim.
18. Hasty Generalization. Conclusions are drawn before the evidence warrants them (prejudice). Must not define the whole by the part (one rotten apple can spoil the barrel).
19. Over reliance on authorities. Expertise increases the chances of someone’s notions as being correct but it is not guaranteed. Also, expertise is limited to a particular domain. We must not accept a wrong idea just because it is supported by someone we respect (false positive) nor reject an idea just because it is supported by someone we disrespect (false negative). Examine the evidence.
20. Either-or (fallacy of negation or the false dilemma). Dichotomize a position so that the discrediting of one side automatically leads to support for the other. However, pointing to the weaknesses of one side does not demonstrate the strengths, or even the validity, of the other.
21. Circular reasoning (tautology or begging the question). The conclusion or claim is a restatement of one of the premises. Must construct definitions that may be tested, falsified and refuted.
22. Reductio ad Absurdum and the slippery slope. It the actual reduction can be tested, then pushing an argument to its limits is a useful exercise in critical thinking. Chaining consequences can lead to poor conclusions (e.g., eating B&J’s ice cream causes death).
Psychological Problems in Thinking.
23. Effort inadequacies and the need for certainty, control, and simplicity. Scientific and critical thinking requires the effort needed to acquire the training and experience. We must work to suppress our need for absolute certainty, total control, and effortless solutions to a problem.
24. Problem-solving inadequacies. When seeking solutions for a problem, people typically:
a. Immediately form a hypothesis and look only for examples to confirm it
b. Do not seek evidence to disprove the hypothesis
c. Are very slow to change the hypothesis even when it is obviously incorrect
d. If the information is complex, they adopt overly simple hypotheses or strategies for solutions
e. Always find causality even when there is no causality or solution.
25. Ideological immunity or the Planck problem. The more experience an individual has accumulated, the more apparently well-founded his/her theory (tend to seek and remember confirmatory evidence, not counter-evidence) which leads to a greater confidence in the ideology. We tend to reject ideas that do not corroborate old ideas. Every successful scientist has a vested intellectual, social and even financial interest in maintaining the status quo. History rewards those who were right and change does occur.
Spinoza’s Dictum.
“I have made a ceaseless effort not to ridicule, not to bewail, not to scorn human actions, but to understand them”.