DENIERS USE LOGICAL FALLACYS
I’ve been studying critical thinking lately. The topic I’ve been interested in most recently is the Logical Fallacy. I’ve been studying them. How they apply, where they apply, when they do and don’t apply.
Since these LFs are on my radar I’m unintentionally looking out for them and spotting them when I see them.
A Red Herring is a Logical Fallacy as it is used to distract or change the subject of discussion away from the original argument to avoid the topic.
Another LF is called the False Dichotomy. Also known as the False Dilemma, Black or White Thinking and the Either-Or Fallacy(Citations 1, 2)
A false Dichotomy is used to present only two possible options when there can be more. Example, You are either Rich or you are Poor.
Somebody shared this video on Facebook. I noticed there was quite a few comments so I assumed the video was intriguing so I watched it.
CAN YOU SPOT THE RED HERRING AND FALSE DICHOTOMY?
Do You Own A Cellphone?
Do You Own A Cellphone?
Do You Own A Cellphone?
Wow, if that’s not a Red Herring attempting to distract and change the subject I don’t know what is. She’s using the Red Herring to create a False Dichotomy argument. It sounds something like this.
Either you Deny Climate Change or You Must Stop Using All Forms Of Technology In An Attempt To Stop Climate Change.
I SAYS WHAT? Pardon Me? Did I hear You Right?
Do I need to delve into a diatribe about the problems with this error in logic? We can’t force ourselves into a bubble and struggle to live again without technology. We can make changes to our current technology though.
TRYING TO POINT OUT A LOGICAL FALLACY TO A MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE BELIEVER
Please read the information in the Picture.
In this argument Peter is trying to point out that appealing to Authority is a Fallacy. He is right, APPEAL TO AUTHORITY is a Fallacy. (Citation 1).
Is Peter right to say you are committing a fallacy to appeal to Climate Scientists to prove your argument. No it’s not a Fallacy when they are experts in the field.
It’s not a Fallacy to Appeal To Authority When They Actually Are An Authority And There is A Consensus.
What’s the difference? The difference is these scientists have spent their careers in the field studying the data.
They aren’t just reading some blog.
They aren’t just citing a peer reviewed scientific journal.
They are collecting the actual data and actually writing the peer reviewed articles. They have the Evidence. The large body of evidence considered proof.
It’s only a fallacy to appeal to someone else like a car salesman to determine if climate change is a reality.
Even if man made climate change was not occurring it would still be the correct way to behave.
The Evidence for Man Made Climate Change is now considered overwhelming by the scientific community. (Citation 1).
As lay people not well versed in science, peer reviewed journals or the phrases and language used in the science circles we are forced to use the general media to learn about the world.
Even as laymen, if you want to participate in a discussion with friends or family we need to make sure we check multiple sources for our data. Working to confirm your views are right and conforming with reality is important.
Let’s look at this article from the Wall Street Journal. Sure they are a right wing source but they are still considered reputable. The article states that the 97 % consensus on Climate change is not legitimate. It doesn’t however provide a more likely percent which makes me wonder if they are withholding information.
Then I google Wall Street Journal on Climate Change and read this and this and realize that first article had an agenda and distorted the data.
I’m not going to be so bold and say that 97% of Scientists believe Climate Change is Man Made and serious. I’m simply going to state there is a consensus and they almost all agree.
What does having Scientific Evidence mean? How do we compare it with Evidence in everyday life or in law? (Citation 1, 2,)
Well it turns out understanding what is Evidence is complicated. I’m going to quote from a blog I read from time to time authored by James A. LindsayVI. A modest proposal My preliminary proposal is pretty straightforward, and it sort of blends two of the understandings that philosophers use and tries to keep to the scientific understanding of evidence, which is actually useful and not misleading. Further, I think it reflects the everyday “folk” use of the word in many applications.
A body of observations O is evidence for a hypothesis H if, and only if, it is a consistent part of a larger body of observations called evidential closure of O, comprised of all observations bearing significantly upon H, such that the probability that H is true givenO (plus its evidential closure) is sufficiently great to warrant justified belief that H is true. In this case, we could call an observation A in O an evidential observation.To summarize this definition in plainer language, I’m saying that an observation should only be considered “evidence” (more carefully, an evidential observation) for a hypothesis if it is a consistent part of a large number of observations that taken together, along with all other observations that have relevance, constitute support that justifies belief in the hypothesis. In short, we only have evidence if all of the relevant information we have, taken together, justifies accepting the hypothesis at a given level of confidence, and then the specific body of observations that provide inferential or direct support for the hypothesis is the evidence.The body of observations that collectively justify acceptance of the hypothesis, not any observation individually, is what we should consider to be evidence, and we could call an observation in that body an “evidential observation” if we wanted to. The key here is that something should only constitute evidence for a hypothesis if that hypothesis has, on the whole, strong enough reasons to be believed to be taken as provisionally true.Thinking of evidence as a body of observations, instead of thinking of individual observations themselves as being evidence, comports fairly well, but imperfectly, with the way lay people, scientists, and lawyers use the word, so it is not a radical overhaul to suggest that it be treated specifically as such.
See what I mean? As I delve deeper into learning Science and Skepticism I realize I need a larger brain. Mine is a small IDE drive and I need a large Solid State Drive brain. It still works, its just a lot slower.
It must be frustrating when your evidence is dismissed because of the Fallacy of Personal Incredulity (Citation 1, 2, 3).
Scientists have spent their careers collecting the data. They have checked their results over and over to ensure they save face when they write an article in a peer reviewed journal.
The purpose of the article is to present an argument for a piece of evidence. Cover all their possible problems in advance, explain their possible error or biases. Explain exactly every step they took to get that data. Explain what they think the results mean.
Then it’s peer reviewed. The review isn’t a slap on the back to say good job. They scrutinize every point. They try to rip it to shreds. They actually try to prove it wrong. After all the scrutiny if they deem it valid, it’s still not evidence yet. Now they need to duplicate it. They duplicate it several times by several people.
Each one of these duplicated studies are also peer reviewed and the scrutiny is conducted over again. Once it passes this level then it becomes a consensus that this test or experiment can be used as evidence to prove a specific point.
The results can be confirmed through experiment and it usually has a predictive model that can predict future events which are later confirmed which in turn strengthens the original hypothesis or theory.
That’s why advanced technology works, it’s Science BITCHES. (Citation 1)
In the future if new evidence is put forward to discredit the original evidence it has to be exceptional evidence to the contrary. The work has already been done and it stands on it’s merit. The new information needs to be bold and it requires a model, a large body of data that shows the error in the previous data.
That 3 % has not been very convincing to the Scientific or Skeptic community . You need to go where the evidence goes if you want to discovery new knowledge about our reality.
Small points showing slight inconsistencies are not good enough for us to throw out a large body of evidence pointing in one direction.
I’m planning on writing several more posts about Critical Thinking, Logical Fallacys, Cognitive Bias and Skeptical Thinking. Writing down what you learn helps you to internalize the information. It helps you to calculate the validity and question it. It’s a means for establishing truth.