| YUKSEL.ORG
|
This is a psychology experiment. First,
you will read an unpublished article by Edip Yuksel, professor of logic
and superficial intelligence at U.N.I.T. Please read it carefully with
ALL examples. Later, you will briefly evaluate this article. Finally, we
will present you 10 statements and ask you to distinguish fallacious arguments
from valid ones. The experiment should take about 60 minutes.
Viruses Fallacious:The Bugs That Eat Your BrainCritical thinker listens well, considers the context and implication of data, feels empathy, is open minded for new ideas, values the truth, acts reflectively not reflexively, distinguishes the relevant information and observations, questions assumptions, searches for more information, asks for clarification when it is needed, holds the judgment, avoids hasty generalizations, exa-mines alternatives, looks from multiple perspectives, keeps eye on ego, analyzes the information, compares it with other ideas, evaluates pros and cons, is alert against group thinking, questions authority, takes risks, values time and effectiveness, is aware of the fatal impact of extreme emotions, voices his opinion with courage, does not hesitate to change his position if finds it to be wrong or weak, and detects his statements and other's claims against logical fallacies. An ideal critical thinker has all these and similar qualities. But logical fallacies are one of the most important elements which needs not only determination but also good mind, discipline and experience. Fallacies, are arguments that tend to persuade but should not persuade. Logical fallacies are like shorts in electrical circuits. They turn off the lamps in the streets of Reasonland. Gigantic or microscopic, conspicuous or dubious, regardless of their size, they all cause intellectual disorientation in certain areas. Let me switch to a better metaphor. Fallacies are linguistic viruses passed by verbal communication. They are mostly sandwiched among words and statements. Some are detrimental and some ornamental. The former, either eat your healthy brain cells or rapidly duplicate and saturate them with fatty assumptions and salty judgments. The later ones, secrete intoxicating chemicals which eventually cause your brain to become susceptible for more dangerous viruses. If you don't have an updated virus detection program in your brain, soon your brain will be invaded by all kinds of viruses. After infection, you loose your critical thinking ability and become a harmless fanatic at best, or ........... at worst. (Fill the blank with the choices of your own). Therefore, without wasting time you should open a new file for a utility program titled Fallacy Disinfectant. The file should contain the following four integrated programs: 1. FCC (Fallacy Characteristic Classification)After this brief introduction let's stroll in the files. Please read the following examples carefully. FCC (Fallacy Characteristic Classification) This is a data program. It should contain all essential information about the identity of the most dangerous and the most common logical fallacies. Their name is not important. You must learn their characteristics in order to develop an immune system to fight them. Here are a gang of them: Begging the question: Defending a doubtful premise or inference by repeating it in different words or suggesting the claim in question as an explanation. It is also called circular reasoning. This fallacy can be more difficult to detect when there are several intervening links in the argument chain. This complexity may mask the circular reasoning. For instance: "Since p is true, q is true; since q is true, r is true; since r is true, s is true; but since s is true, p is true." Example 1:Appeal to authority: Assuming that something is true simply because an expert or authority says so and ignoring evidence to the contrary. Or, rejecting a claim requiring no expertise on the ground that the claimant is not authority. Example 1: Dr. Ponens and Dr. Tollens claim that logic is generally culture-dependent and subjective. They must be right, since they are professors of anthropology at a prestigious university. Example 2: If this book is the word of God, then the universe, according to its clear verses, is created from nothing, Causal confusion: Confusing correlation or chronology with causality. Assuming that because one thing preceded another, the former caused the latter. Also called post hoc, ergo prompter hoc (after this, therefore because of this). Example 1: After each lightning there is a thunder. Thus, lightning causes thunder. Example 2: Either/or Reasoning: Assuming that there are only two answers or options to a question and introducing one of them as the only correct one. Also called False Dilemma. Example 1: You are either feminist or male chauvinist. Obviously, you are not feminist; therefore you are a male chauvinist. Example 2: A particular Either/or reasoning is either valid or invalid. For instance, "God either exists or does not" is valid, while "Jesus was either lying or telling the truth when he claimed he was God" is invalid. Self Defeating Argument: The credibility of the argument is reduced by inner or external contradictions. Example 1: Niggers should be respected and treated equally in job market. Example 2: On the bathroom wall: "Writing on the bathroom walls is stupit." Inconsistency: An inconsistent argument suffers from contradictory conclusions. We can easily miss them in our vague and ambiguous language. Example 1: Democracy is the best system since the will of people freely determines the government. Radical Islam, however, does not respect western value system. Therefore, radical theocratic parties should not be allowed to run for government in democratic free countries. In case they participate and win the elections, military should not let those totalitarian fanatics run the country as it was properly done in Algeria, recently. Example 2: Killing someone deliberately is a horrendous crime except in case of self defense. Such criminals deserve capital punishment. Statistical Fallacies: Blending other fallacies with statistics. Jumping to a conclusion based on small samples or based on selected samples (biased), or interpreting accidental correlation as casual connections, or comparing two statistics with different samples, or biased interpretations. Example 1: A nationwide poll conducted last Sunday in front of 436 major Churches gave a very strong message: eight of ten Americans oppose abortion. Example 2: Shed human cells comprise 70% of house dust. Therefore, increase in the number of people living in a house can increase amount of house dust. Example 3: The statistical results in Littleton is surprising. A test measuring math skills I conducted on 90% of 2,400 town population shows that the bigger the foot size the better math skills. Ad Hominem: Instead of addressing the issue, attacking the personality. But, if the issue is closely related on the credibility of the person then a relevant personal evaluation will not be considered fallacy. Example 1: I don't think that his so called solution presented by Dr. Integer for Format's last theorem is accurate; Dr. Integer is a stingy ugly man. Example 2: Your honor, the story told by the witness is not reliable, since he has a long record of fraud and deception. Equivocation: Confusing the different meaning of multi meaning words. It is also called Four-term fallacy. It survives on ambiguity: Example 1: Every person has a father. Every father has a child. So every person has a child. Example 2: If the chairperson does not sit on his chair and start presiding the meeting, chaos may preside the room. Complex Question: Hiding the second issue behind a surface issue. This fallacy focuses your attention on one issue while advocating the second issue dubiously. It is also called the Loaded Question. Example 1: Have you stopped spying for FBI? Example 2: Did you get your doctorate degree in philosophy? Affirming the Consequent: This is one of the most popular formal fallacy which the premises do not entail their conclusions. Its form: "if p, then q; q; therefore, p." Example 1: If Prof. Wiseman gives me a grade A on this final paper, then I will get a grade A in this course. I did earn a grade A in this course. Thus, he must have given me an A on this paper. Example 2: If a number is divisible by 2, then it is an even number. Eighteen is an even number; thus, it is divisible by 2. Denying the Antecedent: This is similar to the Affirming the Consequent. Their premises do not entail their conclusions. Its form: "if p, then q; not p; thus, not q." Example 1: If Prof. Wiseman gives me a grade A on this final paper, then I will get a grade A in this course. Prof. Wiseman did not give me a grade A on this paper. Thus, I did not get an A in this course. Example 2: If a number is divisible by 2, then it is an even number. 19 is not divisible by two; thus, it is not an even number. There are many more fallacies with fancy names, such as, Red Herring, Slippery Slop, Sob Story, Straw man, Gobbledygook, Inflated Language, Nonfalsifiable claim, False analogy, Hasty Generalization, Slanting, Over simplifying, etc. FDD (Fallacy Diagnostic Detection)This is a police program. It will arrest any new information and check for viruses after receiving a search warrant from FCC. If they are infected it will reject them immediately, or put them in a byproduct document called Reject, for further scrutiny. If the search is not conclusive, then it puts the newcomers in Suspect files which are marked according to their degree of potential danger. FDD is a learning program. It increases the speed of its diagnosing skills with each case. Initially, exercises are needed for essential training.FII (Fallacy Interferonic Intelligence) This is an intelligent program which can supplement FCC with new information about new viruses or the old ones which are obscured by a cryptic, tricky and vague language. Fallacies are not always in traditional forms. They occasionally mutate or use camouflage and become unrecognizable by a passive FCC. In some cases you may encounter an entirely new fallacy. If you don t have this crucial intelligence agency you can easily become their prey. FAA (Fallacy Auto Alarm) This is an alarm program. It warns you
to be extra careful when your brain is washed with hormones after a thunderstorm
of emotions. During hormone flood our FD (Fallacy Disinfectant) program
does not run properly. Most of the infection cases are the result of this
vulnerable condition. Harmful or harmless Viruses Fallacious can enter
your head without your visa and you may get enormous ecstasy while they
are having feast on your brain. This unit also automatically activates
FD in full capacity whenever you receive messages from marked sources.
My black list includes politicians, activists, clergy men, poets, psychologists,
media, sales people, and me and you. (You can relax when you are in contact
with philosophers. Most likely you won't be able to notice their viruses,
since they get their doctorate degree for finding better ways to camouflage
them. Ironically and fortunately, they are the least harmful ones, since
most people cannot understand and internalize their ideas and they are
hormone free. K. Marx was more a politician than a philosopher. His philosophy
was heavily spiced by anti-capitalistic hormones. Nevertheless, we can
accept him as an exception.)
FOUR QUESTIONS ON THIS ARTICLE
Please answer the following questions briefly:
5 (excellent)2. Rate your understanding of this article: 5 (excellent)3. Rate the appropriateness of examples given for fallacious reasoning: 5 (excellent)4. If your answer for the third question is not 5, please explain why: FIND THE FALLACIOUS ARGUMENTS Please read the following statements and identify the fallacies discussed in previous article for the arguments presented below. Put letter "V" for "valid" or letter "F" for "fallacious" on the left of each statements. 1. The average American woman has 2.5 children. It is impossible to have half a child. So the average American women is an impossibility. 2. If the battery is dead the car won't start. The car is not starting. Then, the battery must be dead. 3. Until very recently, there have been no women on the Supreme Court, and even now there are only two. Consequently, the various opinion handed down by the Supreme Court on abortion are bound to be insensitive to the needs and concerns of women. 4. Do you still cheat on your taxes? 5. If it is Monday the office will be open. It is not Monday. So the office must not be open. 6. Nothing is better than a Power Macintosh. An IBM is better than nothing. Therefore, an IBM is better than Power Macintosh. 7. AIDS is not a homosexual epidemic, since less than 40% of AIDS cases involve homosexuals. (Approximately, 2-4 % of US population is homosexual). 8. If men are to survive, they must be fit; indeed, only the fittest survive. And we can verify this by simply looking around and seeing who have survived. Obviously, they have survived because they are fit. 9. Highly accurate predictive power of astrology has nothing to do with new sophisticated methods of calculations, but it comes from accumulation of collective wisdom through ages. 10. A man with no hair is bald. A man with
only five hair is bald. A man with just one more hair would be bald. And
if he had just one more he would be bald too. But this can go on indefinitely.
So no matter how much hair a man has, he is bald.
METHOD Subjects are divided into two groups. The first group is given exactly this test.. The second group will receive the same test with the following two modifications: 1. Under the title of the article, a general warning statement is inserted, and the title Professor is removed. Sure, the same change will apply to the initial instruction where "professor of logic and superficial intelligence" and the imaginary "U.N.I.T." are mentioned. 2. The title and instruction of the last section of the experiment will be slightly changed. This change suggests the possibility of valid arguments in following ten arguments: ARE THESE FALLACIOUS ARGUMENTS?RESULTS AND EVALUATION 1. Some of
subjects in the first group are expected not to notice the valid arguments
presented as fallacious arguments in the article. If they remain passive
and submit to the author of the article, then their answers for the third
question of the FOUR QUESTIONS will be higher than the second group. Then,
they are recommended to read the following clarification. Though it is
not relevant to the experiment, but it is relevant for the well-being of
their brains and for integrity of our experiment. Furthermore, if they
want, they can express their reason why they did not notice them. Here
is the clarification for the first and second part of the experiment:
Dear subject, if you have found all the examples cited for fallacies in the article appropriate, then, go back to the examples and read all the SECOND ones carefully. Probably, you have already noticed or smelled some problems with them. How many of them contain viruses fallaciouses? What kind? Do they fit the categories where they are placed under?Let's scan all the SECOND examples one by one: Begging the question: The statement "I like . . ." is not a true/false value proposition. It is an expression of subjective feelings which are not required to be justified rationally. Thus, logical questioning may receive circular, but legitimate responses. Appeal to authority: The conclusion of the conditional premise 'If this book is the word of God', does not suffer from this fallacy. God, by definition is perfect, trustworthy and Omniscient. You cannot over rely on God. Harboring doubt about God's word contradicts the conventional definition of God. Causal confusion: Can you think of any valid argument stating a doubtless causal relation (not correlation!). I could not. Either/or Reasoning: The second example does not share the symptoms stated in the title. A close examination will reveal that the second example is both valid and sound. For instance, did Jesus really claim that He was God? Self defeating argument: The second example is not defeating the argument. On the contrary, it is somehow confirming the argument. The person who denounces graffiti by using graffiti provides at least one case to support his/her claim. Therefore, this virus can be named as self incriminating argument, or suicidal argument. Inconsistency: Though it does not contain the standard components of an argument, it does not suffer from inconsistency, since it tries to distinguish murder from the capital punishment. Statistical Fallacies: It is a statement of fact. It is not an argument. The percentage of shed human cells can be questioned. Ad Hominem: Reliability of witnesses is a relevant argument. Fallacy of equivocation: The meaning of the two 'chair's is not confused. Complex Question: It does not advocate any hidden agenda. Affirming the consequent: It is valid, since there are only two options: either even or odd. It just repeats the definition. Therefore, it is an empty argument. Denying the precedent: It is valid, since any number that is not divisible by 2 is and odd number. It just repeats the definition. Therefore, it is an empty argument. 2. The subjects in the first group are expected to identify several out of the TEN ARGUMENTS as VALID arguments, since the instruction authoritatively demands both Valid and Invalid remarks. All of the ten arguments were fallacious, that is, invalid. They are: 1. Fallacy of Equivocation.DISCUSSION Since the parenthetic statement under the title of the article and the instruction for the last ten arguments are crucial, the experimenters must be sure that subjects read and notice them. In order to facilitate this, the experimenter can ask from subjects to read them loud. If the experiment shows the expected results,
then, it will mean that the halo effect of expert authorities create an
anti-reasoning magnetic field for some people. Musicians, poets, actors
and actresses, can be excused for inhibiting or reducing the power of reasoning
of their audience since they are not riding their horses in the reasonland.
On the other hand, no scientist, how expert and how genius he/she is, should
not deserve such an extreme trust.
Works Used An Introduction To Logic, Wayne A. Davis, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, 1986. Critical Reasoning, Cedrblom & Paulsen, Wadworth Pub. Comp., Belmont, California, 1982. Fallacy: the counterfeit of Argument , Ward Fearnside & Willam B. Holter, Prentice hall, N.J. 1959. Guides to Straight Thinking, Stuart Chase, Herper & Row, New York, 1956. How To Argue, David J. Crossley & Peter A. Wilson, Random House, New York, 1979. Informal Logic, Douglas Walton, Cambridge Un. Press, New York, 1989. Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric, Howard Kahane, Watsworth, Belmont, CA, 1971. Logic and Logical Thinking: A Modular Approach, Peter A. Facione/Donald Scherer, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1978. Essentials of Logic, Manicas& Kruger, American Book Company, New York, 1968. |