Evidence in Science Requires Context

Suppose someone approached you and said, "There is a volcano close by." And when you ask them how they know that, they show you a piece of volcanic rock. Is that evidence that a volcano is nearby? It depends.

Where was the rock found? Was it close by? Are there other volcanic rocks in the area? Or did someone bring it into the area?

By itself a piece of volcanic rock is not evidence of a volcano. The rock has to be placed in context for it to be evidence of a volcano nearby.

This idea is easy to understand, but sometimes very hard to apply. Here I will give a few real examples of observations that when taken out of context can be considered evidence for a particular conclusion, but when put back into context do not support the conclusion.

In an article entitled Paleoindian ochre mines in the submerged caves of the Yucatán Peninsula, Quintana Roo, Mexico published recently in Science Advances, the authors were describing their work in a system of caves in Mexico. They found evidence of humans using the caves to mine ochre for pigment and paint. One of the things they had to determine was how long ago humans were using the caves.

They found charcoal in the caves near where the mining had taken place. If the charcoal was left there by the people who were mining the ochre then all they would have to do is use carbon dating to determine the age of the charcoal. The age of the charcoal should tell us when the mining took place. It would be easy to assume that the charcoal came from the people who were mining the ochre, but the full context must be taken into account before we can accept that conclusion. The age of the charcoal may not be evidence for the time when there was mining.

As the authors noted,

"Charcoal is a difficult medium for dating in the submerged caves of Quintana Roo because it may be produced by forest fires, then deposited by wind and rain, and remobilized repeatedly by floods during major storm events or, ultimately, by rising sea level. Archaeologists have often interpreted instances where charcoal concentrates in small catchment basins and litters cave floors as prima facie evidence of human activity. However, the mere presence of charcoal concentrations is insufficient to make this inference. Before submerged-cave charcoal can be interpreted as anthropogenic, it is necessary to establish that the sample materials are artifacts, that is, that they are representative of human activity and distinct from the products of natural processes."

In other words, the presence of charcoal is not automatically evidence for human activity. The charcoal must be considered in context.

In this case the authors could argue that the charcoal most likely came from human activity, and human activity at the time the ochre was being mined. To make this case they considered the broader context to see if there were other ways that the charcoal could get there, or if the cave formations showed that the charcoal had been there for a long time. Some of the charcoal was covered over by flowstone, which allowed the authors to get a rough date for when it was left there. This dating agreed with the carbon dating.

Only after all this could they use the carbon dating as evidence for when the mining took place. Before it was evidence for their conclusion they had to consider the evidence in context.

Now a second example. In a recent meeting at work we were discussing ways of detecting starburst driven galactic outflows using X-ray observations of galaxies. These outflows should produce strong X-rays which are easy to detect. The problem is that the things we were looking for are not thew only things that produce X-rays in galaxies. Just detecting a strong X-ray source is not evidence of a galactic outflow.

Before we could consider it to be evidence for what we were looking for we had to look at the context and see if other things could produce the X-rays and rule those out first. Only then we could use the X-ray detections as evidence for our conclusions. Just like the archaeologists with the charcoal in the caves, we had to consider the context.

Now a final example. In a discussion I had about the age of the earth, the person I was talking to brought up polonium halos as evidence of a young earth.

Polonium is a radioactive element and if polonium is mixed with melted rock it will collect inside micro-zircon crystals inside the rock. As the polonium decays the released radiation will "burn" the rock around it. This leaves a "halo" of scorched rock around the zircon crystal that held the polonium. These halos are very small and can only be seen under a microscope.

Young earth creationists argue that these scorched halos around zircon crystals are evidence of the rapid formation of the rock instead of the rock slowly cooling to its present state over thousands or millions of years. Their reasoning is that polonium has a very short half life (138 days) so the only way it can be in the zircon crystals is if the rock formed and cooled into its solid state in a matter of days. This fast formation would allow for the polonium to last long enough to freeze in the rock, and then burn the halo as it decayed.

There are a few problems with this, and all involve the context of these halos. First, assuming the source of these scorched halos is polonium, that would only show that the rock formed quickly, but it would not tell you how old the rock was. In order for the halos to be used as evidence for a young earth they have to show that the rocks are young, not just that they formed quickly.

Second, while polonium is highly radioactive, it isn't the only radioactive element. There are other elements with much longer half lives that can still do just as much damage to the surrounding rock. Most notably, uranium. Uranium is also found in zircon crystals. There is no proof that the scorched halos around zircon crystals were caused exclusively by polonium.

Third, even if the halos were caused exclusively by polonium there is more than one way to get polonium in the crystals without rapid formation. It turns out that polonium is a daughter product of uranium. In fact the only source of naturally occurring polonium is in rocks and ores with uranium content. So if the damage was done by polonium it could still have been done over millions and billions of years as uranium slowly decayed into polonium, and polonium quickly decayed into lead.

Young earth creationists argue that these halos around zircon crystals are evidence of a young earth. But when considered in context they cannot be used as evidence of rapid formation or especially young rock ages. In this it fails to be evidence for a young earth.

In these three real examples, before something can be considered evidence for a certain conclusion, it must be considered in context and scientists must ask the questions,

• How did it get here?
• Is there another possible source for it?
• Does its presence make sense in its environment?
• Does it actually support my conclusion?

If we do not ask these basic questions then we cannot claim that something is evidence for our conclusions.

Objectivity, Quantum Mechanics, and Bad Logic

Recently I read a paper where some physicists were testing interesting repercussions of quantum mechanics. Their work made eye-grabbing headlines such as Objective Reality Doesn't Exist, Quantum Experiment Shows. That's quite a bold claim considering the long history in philosophy specifically on the question of subjectivity vs. objectivity. Seeing them confidently dismiss objectivity I knew I had to see why they were so confident of their conclusions. Unfortunately the physicists walked naively into a well known philosophical topic, like a knitting club into a Black Sabbath concert.

So let us take a look at what lead them to their conclusion that objective reality does not exist. This may get a little technical, but stay with me.

They designed an experiment that could specifically test objectivity (O), locality (L), and free will (F). They point out that previous proofs have established L and F, and LF together, so if they test OLF then the experiment can establish or undermine the idea of objectivity (O).

In their paper the physicists defined objectivity as the existence of "observer-independent facts, stating that a record or piece of information obtained from a measurement should be a fact of the world that all observers can agree on—and that such facts take definite values even if not all are “co-measured”." Thus they are testing whether a measurement creates an objective fact for everyone or if the result depends on the observer.

Locality means each measurement must happen in such a way that the result only depends on local factors and not on any other measurement in the experiment. (In technical language the future light cone of one measurement cannot be in the past light cone of another measurement.)

The last assumption is free will. The people in the experiment must be free to make their choice and not have their choice predetermined in any way, either by the first measurement or any outside factors.

In the experiment they have someone (who they call Alice) who is given a choice. In a lab Alice has a friend making measurements of individual photons. The friend can turn on a detector, thus choosing to measure any photons that come through, or turn it off, thus choosing not to make any measurements.

Alice can check what her friend measured, but cannot know before hand if her friend even had photons to measure. So Alice might check on her friend and find they didn't make any measurements because no photons passed through the lab.

Alternatively Alice can check to see if a photon went through the lab and that her friend could have possibly measured it. But Alice cannot check if her friend actually measured it and check if a photon went through the lab (in technical language Alice can measure whether her friend is entangled with a photon or not).

So there are four possibilities. The friend can choose to measure and Alice looks and confirms that her friend made a measurement. The friend can choose not to measure and Alice looks and confirms that no measurement was made. The friend can choose to measure and Alice doesn't look but establishes that her friend is entangled with a photon that could have possibly been measured but doesn't know if her friend measured it. Or the friend chooses not to measure and Alice doesn't look but checks if her friend is entangled with a photon.

In the actual experiment the physicists didn't have someone checking in on their friend. Instead "Alice" was a series of polarization filters and a detector, and the friend was a separate set of filters and a detector.

To make sure they were measuring what they thought they were measuring, the physicists set up their experiment such that there were two sets of detectors, "Alice" and "Bob", each with their own "friend". The photons measured by the friends were entangled which means what one measures will be the compliment of the other. This symmetry allows for easier checking for statistically significant results.

What the physicists found after running their experiment for a few months is that collectively their assumptions were being violated. That is, OLF all together were not consistent with what was being measured. Because both L and F, and LF had been proven through other proofs that meant that O was the weak link.

If OLF all together was true then regardless of whether Alice or Bob checked if their friends made a measurement, or checked if they could have made a measurement, then there should have been confirmation that a measurement was made either way. If Alice and Bob never checked directly on their friends but only measured whether they had an opportunity to make a measurement then they could know just from that whether their friends made a measurement.

But their results showed that neither Alice nor Bob could tell if their friend had made a measurement without actually looking at their friend. They could not infer from the mere possibility of a measurement that a measurement had been made.

This sets up a paradox. The friends can make a measurement and know definitively what state the photon is in, but for Alice and Bob it is as if a measurement had never been made. That is, there is no way for Alice a Bob to know that a measurement had been made without actually measuring their friends.

The "facts" created by their friends (i.e. what they measured) cannot transfer to any other observer without a real transfer of data. If a measurement is made, that measurement does not somehow change the fabric of reality such that we can know that something was measured, even if we don't know what the result was. That information only stays with the first observer and does not transfer in any way to any other observer without the second observer observing the first. It is like there is no master list of all interactions and measurements in the universe that someone could hypothetically look at.

But the major assumption is that once something has been measured, that fact is established and everyone in the universe should, in principle, be able to agree with it. But Alice and Bob cannot establish if a measurement even took place, thus for them that fact does not exist. The interpretation given by the physicists is that two realities exist concurrently. One where a measurement was made, and one where it was not made. This, they conclude, shows that what is "reality" depends on what measurements were made by a subject. Hence everything is subjective and there is no objective reality.

Now the physicists do not make their boldest claims in their paper. They keep it strictly technical and straight forward. I can find nothing to disagree with in their paper. I may not know the technicalities of their set up, but their experiment is not something so unknown that it makes their work suspicious. It is an experiment that would probably be talked about in an undergrad physics class. So their set up is standard and well known. Their methods are standard and well known.

I find nothing wrong with their conclusions in their paper. But like I mentioned at the start, they walked naively into a well known philosophical topic, like a knitting club into a Black Sabbath concert.

In their writings outside their paper they make conclusions that are not logically backed up by their research, nor even backed up by logic at all. Their experiment does show something interesting that there cannot be a "master list" of the states of all particles in the universe. That is, when an observer makes a measurement, that does not change the universe in such a way that anyone else can know that a measurement was made, let along know what the value was.

This shows that all observers are independent subjects. Each of our observations are our own. But this does NOT disprove objective reality.

In setting up the experiment, even just as a thought experiment the physicists had to assume "objective reality". They first had to have "observers" that could be established as observers. They had to have photons and everyone agree, objectively, as to what a photon was, and how to measure it. All of these are objective and are necessary for us to even have the concept of subjective.

David Hackett Fisher, a famous historian, wrote an entire book berating historians for their use of egregious logical fallacies. Even though his book was directed at those of his own profession, its concepts apply to all areas of academic study. It should perhaps be required reading for anyone getting a PhD. In his book he takes a moment to comment on "subjectivity" vs. "objectivity".

"'Subjective'" is a correlative term which cannot be meaningful unless its opposite is also meaningful. To say that all knowledge is subjective is like saying that all things are short. Nothing can be short, unless something is tall. So, also, no knowledge can be subjective unless some knowledge is objective." -- Historians Fallacies by David Hackett Fischer, Footnote 4, page 42-43.

Essentially these physicists, though very gifted, stepped out of their field of study and made a freshman level mistake of logic. In their hyperbole they jumped to an illogical conclusion. As one of my philosophy professors might say, "They abused the fundamental definitions of the words such that the words had no meaning." They showed that subjective knowledge is a thing and then extended that knowledge to encompass all knowledge. They fell victim to my favorite logical fallacy.

Without thinking about it they set up an objective experiment to show that objective reality does not exist.

Normally this is the point where someone would say, "Don't step out of your own field!" but I think that is also a fallacy. Instead I say, "Before jumping to conclusions try to think critically about your conclusions to see if they make sense. If you think you have come to some major conclusion that entirely overthrows everything we know, 99.998% of the time you messed up somewhere."

Zeus and Aristotle: Explanations of Lightning

A while back I was reading some comments on a blog and someone threw out a statement that made me stop and think for a moment, but definitely not in the way the commenter intended. I wasn't particularly interested in the conversation due to the contentious nature and general lack of epistemic humility, but for some reason his comment interrupted my skimming and made me ask, "Wait, how do you know that?" The statement in question was taken as plainly obvious by everyone involved that even in a contentious online debate no one called him on it and questioned his characterization of historical thought.

It was something so taken for granted that if I tried to question his assertion I would instantly be denounced as ignorant, petty, and "changing the subject" even though his underlying assumption was central to his whole argument, so I chose not to say anything.

As this particular commenter was launching into an elaborate explanation of why his views were right and everyone else's were wrong he stated, "When ancient Greeks 'explained' lightning as coming from Zeus, they were wrong." It was this comment that made me stop and think, "Yeah, but how do you know that is how Greeks explained lightning?"

In context he was using that statement to establish a line of reasoning that went something like this:

• People in the past were ignorant and believed in mystical, religious explanations of natural phenomena.
• As science advanced we had less ignorant explanations of natural phenomena.
• We are enlightened now with our scientific explanations of natural phenomena so we can ignore all the mystical mumbo jumbo of religion.

For him there was an obvious progression from ignorance to enlightenment and the beliefs of the Greeks formed the first data point. But the problem was, how did he know that his first data point was correct?

To put it another way, his argument rests on the idea that people in the past were incapable of making rational, well thought out, scientific arguments, and that now through the redemptive, mystical power of science mankind has been transformed into a blessed state of rationalism.

But all that depends on his first data point being correct.

So how does he know that the Greeks relied on mystical explanations of natural phenomena? On a similar note, how do we know that people today don't rely on mystical explanations for lightning? If you ask the average person on the street today what causes lightning would their answer typically be any more or less educated than the average person's understanding in ancient Greece? What about the average college educated, or the ancient Greek equivalent, person's answer?

So how would an educated Greek respond to the question of what causes lightning? Fortunately we can actually have an answer to that because we have some of the standard science texts from ancient Greece! In a 1965 article by H. Howard Frisinger in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society entitled “Early Theories on the Cause of Thunder and Lightning” Dr. Frisinger briefly the different theories of how lightning worked that were taught by various Greek philosophers.

All of the views of how lightning worked were based on the standard Greek physics of the four elements, earth, water, air, and fire. The theories taught by the Greeks, and the answer that your average educated Greek would give, generally attributed movements of air to be the cause of thunder (just like we teach today), and the motion or effects of fire (sometimes aether) as it interacted with the water and air in the clouds. There was debate about what came first the thunder or the lightning, and there was debate about whether or not one caused the other or if they were entirely separate phenomena.

The most widely accepted theory came from Aristotle who wrote that both thunder and lightning are a result of motions of air colliding with objects, such as clouds or other masses of air. If there was sufficient fire in the clouds then a lightning bolt would be formed, and depending on the purity of the fire you either get a defined bolt or a diffuse flash of light in the cloud. He made his arguments by looking at the evidence, such as when a local temple was struck by lightning, or how lightning was know to burn some kinds of materials but leave others unblackened.

These theories were put into the standard science textbooks of the day and would have been expected reading for an educated Greek. Just like today there would have been people who had no idea what the standard "scientific" explanation of lightning was. Then there would be people who were exposed to people who were educated and they might hear the explanation or ask for it. Then there would be educated people who had read extensively, but maybe not books on the weather. Then there would be people who had studied those things specifically and would be considered very knowledgeable on the subject, with a very select few who would be called experts and authorities. Just like it is today.

But all these ancient theories relied on the idea of the four elements! Where our ideas today do not! Surely that proves the point that we have progressed from ignorance to enlightenment!

On the contrary, it shows that ancient Greeks did not rely on mystical, religious explanations of natural phenomena to the extent that people like the commenter think they did. The educated Greek would not likely appeal to Zeus as an explanation for the cause of lightning. They gave natural explanations. These theories, books, and explanations were considered standard and authoritative up until the 1700's when new technologies made it possible to explore electricity and lightning through direct measurements.

Before that people did what they have always done, they gave rational explanations based on their understanding of the universe. In many conversations, and from students that I teach, and even from some of my professors I have seen expressed the idea that as a whole we have progressed from non-rational thought to more modern, enlightened, and rational way of thinking. Certainly our understanding of the universe has drastically changed, but when I read historical materials I find no evidence that that has happened.

There has not been the assumed progression from less rational to more rational thought as is commonly asserted by those who promote science and eschew religion. The evidence does not support that theory.

My Favorite Logical Fallacy: The Suppressed Correlative

In a post that I wrote last year I noted how some paradoxes could be resolved if you just considered how there has been a subtle shift in the definition of a word. In the case of the heap paradox the word heap is inherently vague and has no exact number. But the paradox is created when the definition of heap is given an exact number, that is, the word is redefined to include additional information that was not present in the original definition. With the heap paradox the definition is narrowed, unknown to perhaps everyone involved, in the course of the discussion, thereby creating the paradox. It is precisely a paradox because the key word, term, phrase, or idea is modified without the knowledge of those involved.

Redefining words is not necessarily a problem. It is only a problem if confusion and misunderstanding results from the redefinition, or if by redefining the word something in our understanding is lost. The redefinition of words should only help increase understanding, not destroy it.

So if the heap paradox relies on narrowing the definition of a vague word, what about the opposite, extending or broadening the definition? The opposite falls under a group of fallacies related to what is called the correlative. For every defined word there is a correlative, or everything that is not covered by the definition of that word.

For example, the word cat refers to a type of four-legged, furry animal that eats meat. When I use the word cat what I mean by that is generally understood. This includes house cats, mountain lions, tigers, lions, lynxes, panthers, and all kinds of cats. Despite the word cat being well defined there is inherent fuzziness to what constitutes a cat. For example, should a civet fall under the definition of a cat?

A civet. Image from Wikipedia.

What about a mongoose?

Pictures of mongooses. Image from Wikipedia.

At this point it is stretching the definition of the word cat. There definitely are things that are cats and there are things that are not cats, like dogs, horses, rocks, and rivers. Between the two, cats and not-cats, there is a grey area where it is debatable whether or not the word cat applies. The ambiguity at the edge of the definition is not a problem, that is just the nature of language, but it is very clear that there are cats and not-cats, even if the dividing line is not always clear.

With the word cat there is a specific definition that is understood by everyone. Thus there are things that are cats. The correlative to cats are not-cats, or everything that is not a cat. If we take the definition of the word cat and broaden it so that it includes all four-legged, furry creatures then it includes things such as civets and mongooses, but also dogs, cows, and horses. By making the definition too broad we can include not-cats in the definition of cat. This is referred to as suppressing the correlative.

We can change the definition, or make it so broad that it begins to include things that should be part of the correlative. If taken too far we can shrink, or suppress the correlative to the point that the original definition becomes meaningless. Or in other cases we make the definition so broad that it subsumes the definition of another word, such as extending the definition of cat until it is practically synonymous with the word mammal. So by suppressing the correlative we include things in the definition that are not supposed to be there, and in some cases the definition is extended to the point that we already have a word for the broader definition.

Talking about cats and not-cats may seem a little ridiculous, and just a bit too theoretical. So are there real examples of someone suppressing the correlative? Yes! This is a real thing. People do it all the time. You would be surprised at how often it comes up. When I talk about the definition of the word cat and extending it so that it includes things like dogs and sheep it is tempting to say that no one would do anything so ridiculous. But they do. They do it all the time.

Real example #1 of suppressing the correlative: Bad definitions of socialism.

Recently I was having a discussion with one of my students and he casually stated that when it comes down to it any form of taxation and government spending is really just socialism. This idea has even been summarized in a meme that made the rounds last year.

A good example of suppressing the correlative. Relies on a bad definition of socialism.

According to this anything done by the government is a form of socialism. There are many people who would severely object to suppressing the correlative and calling a dog a cat, but would not realize that the above meme commits the exact same fallacy.

There are types of governments that are socialist, and there are governments that are not-socialist. What the above meme does, and what my student did, was to take the definition of socialism and stretches it beyond its original definition until the concept of not-socialism doesn't exist. Socialism by definition is when the means of production, distribution, and exchange is controlled by the government in a democratic system. This definition puts boundaries on what socialism is and is not. Under this standard definition of socialism fire departments, public schools, and highways do not fall under the definition of socialism (social security is in that grey area).

If we extend the definition of socialism to include these things then it erases the distinction between a socialist vs. non-socialist government. In the case of my student who took the definition of socialism so far that he defined it as all taxing and spending, then the definition became entirely useless because we already have a word for that, government. Because socialism is a form of government, that means there are governments that are not-socialist. If you extend the definition of socialism to essentially mean government, then you have included not-socialism in the definition of socialism, and have suppressed the correlative.

Real example #2: Taxation is theft.

Among strict libertarians there is a saying that "taxation is theft". Without going into too much detail this sentiment relies on the fallacy of suppressing the correlative. It takes the definition of theft and broadens it in such a way that it is rendered useless. Whatever their objections are to taxes and government in general, I would recommend that libertarians stay away from this particular logical fallacy. It never helps your cause to use particularly bad logical fallacies, because the type of people you will recruit to your cause will be those who do not mind, or do not know that they are using logical fallacies. It does not make for a rational movement.

Real example #3: Fake news.

Real fake news (yes that is a thing) is a real problem. But a certain politician and his copycats have taken to calling everything they don't like fake news. This was easy to do because fake news had a very vague definition to begin with, so unlike something like the definition of cat, it was very prone to be redefined. Unfortunately they have redefined it in such a way that the include not-fake news under the umbrella of fake news. And based on things I have seen shared on Facebook people actually believe this fallacy. See my comment about rational movements above.

Real example #4: A random discussion on Facebook about "Science".

Recently I came across this random discussion on Facebook about what constitutes science. One of the people involved (who I will refer to as Charles) made the error of suppressing the correlative and got called out on it (by someone I will call Daniel). What I find utterly fascinating about this discussion is just how beautifully "Charles" suppresses the correlative and is blissfully unaware of just how far he has gone. There was a lot more going on in the discussion but I will pick out the important parts below:

Charles: What's the alternative to science in obtaining knowledge? If someone believes there are better (or even alternate) methods for obtaining knowledge, the last thing I would say is "no there aren't". I would simply ask, "What are they?" 

Daniel: Personal acquaintance is a pretty good alternative. So is historical research. Mathematics isn't bad, either. Hearing stories. Listening to music. Reading novels. None of this is science. 

Charles: these to me are all science. 

Daniel: Then all true knowledge really IS science, just as -- if we define all sports as baseball -- all athletic activity is . . . cue drumroll . . . BASEBALL! (QED.) 

Charles: To me science is simply methodological measurement. The lack of methodological control in one's measurement makes something less scientific, but it also makes it less reliable.... "What was the size of the Roman army in 100BC?" is just as much of a scientific (measurable) question as "How are you feeling today?" 

Daniel: To suggest that Roman history is "science" is to broaden the meaning of the term "science" in a very unhelpful way. "Methodological measurement" has little or nothing to do with historiography, art criticism, understanding poetry, human acquaintance, music appreciation, or any other of scores of distinct fields of human knowledge. I'm reminded of Moliere's "Bourgeois Gentilhomme," who was astonished to discover that, all his life, he had been speaking PROSE! Most people, watching a "Jason Bourne" movie or reading a Charles Dickens novel, would be astonished -- and quite properly so -- to be told that, in doing so, they were doing "science." 

Charles: As I already mentioned, to the degree that someone is not being methodological with their categorization of information, they're NOT doing science. But I also fail to see how the lack of methodology in their information categorization can rightly be called knowledge.... Certainly there are other human activities that are not science. Without question.... Science is (and can only be) the only reliable method for obtaining knowledge. When we talk about music appreciation, it's either any random opinion being equal to any other, or it's based on a methodological categorization of information pertaining to music. I'm assuming people who earn degrees in this would argue true musical "knowledge" looks more like the latter. 

Daniel: Just as, in my view, you stretch the meaning of "science" so far as to compromise its usefulness, your overly board definition of "measurement" threatens to make the term useless. Anyway, in the same spirit, I might judge the essence of science to be close and disciplined observation -- rather like art appreciation. Thus, I think I'll argue that all true knowledge is art appreciation.

The essence of the fallacy, as pointed out by "Daniel" is that it takes a definition and stretches it to the point that it is no longer useful. The word was defined originally because there was a need to distinguish between A and not-A. When that necessary distinction gets washed out, and it results in a loss of understanding or confusion then it is a fallacy.

As I mentioned in a previous post, the purpose of recognizing logical fallacies is not so that you can go out and point them out to those who employ them, but rather so that you do not fall into that trap. Once you learn how to recognize this fault in thinking found in other people's arguments, you may be able to find it in your own thinking. Some other common places this pops up: the definition of faith, the definition of religion (especially those who try to call atheism a religion), and the definition of "theory".

PS: My observation that it is not a good idea to point out logical fallacies directly to other people (i.e. "Charles") is still true. I tested it, again, and yes I got the same result as before.

Cheating at Connect the Dots: Failing to see the whole picture of Mormonism

Recently I was reading an article by a historian of Mormon history and it got me thinking about playing connect the dots. You see, playing connect the dots is easy... if you ignore most the dots. Consider the image below. It contains a number of different color dots. The question is, can you see the star in the dots?

How about now? Can you see the star? All I have done is emphasize a few important dots, and now all I have to do is connect the dots.

With the dots now connected the star is easy to see. Sure the dots aren't perfectly aligned with the star but that's only because I didn't take the time fully flesh out the star. With a little more work the misalignment could be fixed and the minor discrepancies could be smoothed over. Only those who are extremely nitpicky will complain about the misalignment, and that only distracts from my point that there is a red star in there.

So why am I talking about a manufactured star and connecting the dots? As historians approach history, by definition, they do not have all the facts, nor were they impartial observers of the totality of events. It is the job of a historian to take as much information as possible and attempt to build a coherent image of the past, or at least a single person or event, based on as much information as possible. Historian effectively play an extremely complicated game of connect the dots.

Their work is very similar to mine, I cannot go directly and observe stars and galaxies close up, nor can I see how they behave over millions and billions of years, so I am reduced to playing a very complicated game of connect the dots.

But in these games there are certain rules. It is easy to connect the dots of history into just about any natural progression of events after the fact. But in doing so we have to be careful not to ignore those things that undermine the point we are trying to make.

For example, I could use the Declaration of Independence, Shays' Rebellion, the Whiskey Rebellion, the Civil War, and the modern Tea Party to make the case that the founding principle of the United States is rebellion and distrust of government. I could probably write a fairly convincing argument, backed up with quotes from Thomas Jefferson, centered on the idea that to be American is to rebel.

But in order to make this argument I would have to ignore many other important founding principles of American society, such as representative democracy, constitutional government, separation of powers, personal liberties, and English common law. A similar argument regarding many other aspects of American society showing a coherent progression of history culminating in the latest manifestation of that defining characteristic. In fact most modern political positions attempt to do just that by tying current debates to what are assumed to be foundational principles.

Whenever we do this we run the risk of taking a few minor points of history and trying to superimpose a particular overall shape or interpretation to it. This is even more tempting when a few of the points are not just minor, but seemingly dominate the historical map (just like in the second image above). If I were to make the case that rebellion runs deep in American society I could make that argument quite persuasively using well known events such as the Revolutionary War, but to say that the United States is founded on rebellion ignores the fact that the United States was not organized from rebellion, but under a constitution formed out of democratic compromise. And it ignores the fact that the vast majority of American history did not involve rebellion, but democratic debate and the application of constitutional law.

So when I recently read an article by Grant Shreve entitled How Mormons Have Made Religion Out of Doubt, I thought about how he was connecting the dots. In his article Shreve makes the case that "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was founded on the idea of an evolving scriptural canon." While this is certainly true because it is a large and important point in LDS thought, he connects this central idea to other contemporary and historical events in such a way that he is effectively playing connect the dots by blatantly ignoring other large and just as important parts of LDS thought.

Shreve uses the story of James Colin Brewster to try to show that "If the church seems to have lost its way, a new revelation may be just around the bend." and that "The legacy of James Colin Brewster and numerous other Mormon dissidents lives on in the Remnant, a diffuse international movement of disaffected Mormons." This Remnant organization that Shreve sees as a natural product of LDS though, "answers the doubts many Mormons harbor by offering more revelations and additional scriptures."

Thus Shreve takes the idea of an open canon and makes the case that these historical and contemporary dissident movements are simply a natural extension of LDS thought. But in making this argument Shreve ignores other important points just as integral to LDS thought. Points such as priesthood authority and keys, and church hierarchy. He does briefly acknowledge these things, but they are not mentioned as foundational and fundamental to LDS thought.

While Shreve uses the concept of the open canon to make his point he completely ignores the actual content of that new canon. Just as someone might argue that the United States was founded on rebellion, they would have to ignore the fact that the United States is actually founded on constitutional democracy. They would have to ignore the bulk of US history and law.

The concepts of priesthood authority and church hierarchy are acknowledged by Shreve, but he views these not as foundational but later additions where Joseph Smith sought to "consolidated revelatory power in himself and a select cadre of elites." Furthermore, the structure of the church is only described in negative terms such as "elaborate", "complex" and made of "byzantine bureaucracies" which "disrupted the mystical and communal experiences of Mormonism’s salad days."

Thus the point that Shreve is trying to make is that the impulse to have new mystical revelations is the natural state of Mormonism, with new prophets popping up "if the church seems to have lost its way" to provide new books of revelation. Thus, based on this reasoning, the Remnant movement is truly following the principle started by Joseph Smith, and the elaborate, complex and byzantine bureaucracies of the modern LDS church only serve to stifle the true expression of Mormonism.

Unfortunately this game of connecting the dots blatantly ignores much of the rest of the content of Mormonism. The "consolidation of revelatory power" was not a late development imposed by Joseph Smith, but rather was an early and foundational principle. If we ignore this fact, we fail to see the whole picture of Mormonism.

Please Don't Point Out Logical Fallacies

Pointing out logical fallacies is pointless. Though it is useful to study logical fallacies so that you can analyze your own thinking and make adjustments, but to point out the logical fallacies in someone else's thinking is entirely counter productive.

If you are in a disagreement with someone, by definition they do no view you as an authority on the subject and thus they are unlikely to accept your analysis of whether or not their thought process is fallacious or not. The reason why they think the thoughts they do is because they think their thought process is right, and no one likes to be told they are wrong.

The whole reason why they are disagreeing with you in the first place is because they think your thought process is out of order. So if you attempt to point out an error in their thinking they are not disposed to begin an introspective analysis of their thinking. Almost by definition, your thinking is in error, so any attempt to point out an error in their thinking will be rejected immediately. Thus it is pointless and counter productive to point out the fallacies in someone else's thinking.

This does not mean that you never point out logical fallacies, just do not expect the person you are critiquing to respond positively. It is also justified for certain egregious misuses of logic and reasoning, but not as a tool to convince those afflicted, but to warn those who are unconvinced and can be swayed by your reason, that is, those who have not taken a position yet.

But it is a very good idea to study logical fallacies so that you can improve your own thinking. A good place to start is by analyzing what other people say and see if you can pick out the logical fallacies. First start with arguments you disagree with. Those are the easiest. Next you move to arguments you have no opinion about one way or the other. This allows you to dispassionately assess the arguments. When you are comfortable with those you can move on to arguments that you naturally agree with. Those are the hardest arguments to analyze, with the exception of your own arguments. It takes a lot of humility to analyze your own thinking for fallacies.

Some good fallacies to start with are perhaps the most famous ones such as ad hominem, slippery slope, or the post hoc fallacy. Once you can identify fallacies in arguments that you already disagree with, then you can try moving on to something more difficult. Just remember that pointing out a fallacy in someone else's argument is (almost) never productive. I can think of one, and only one, case when I pointed out someone's fallacious thinking and it actually made an impact on them, and they admitted that I "got them" and for a moment their defenses were down and I was talking to a human being. Unfortunately it did not last.

Remember the point of studying fallacies is to eventually analyze your own thoughts and learn to remove fallacious thinking. When you do that then you can begin to build convincing arguments that can sway people to your position.

Ad Hominem Arguments vs. Ad Hominem Fallacies

In almost any internet debate there invariably comes a moment when someone will accuse another of using an ad hominem attack or argument. Unfortunately on the internet, any disagreement or attempt to disprove someone's argument is perceived as an attack on the person. But that fundamentally misunderstands what an ad hominem argument is. The key to identifying an ad hominem argument is to consider whether or not the response is responding to the original argument, or if it is ignoring the argument and responding directly to the source of the argument.

While it is common for people to mistakenly interpret an argument against their position as an attack on themselves, what is almost universally misunderstood is that not all ad hominem arguments are fallacious.

To put it simply, all ad hominem fallacies are ad hominem arguments, but not all ad hominem arguments are ad hominem fallacies.

What many people don't realize is that an ad hominem argument is a perfectly valid way of arguing. For example, say there was a video on the internet of someone dressed in University of Utah clothing giving a negative critique of BYU's football team. We could easily dismiss a negative argument about BYU football from the Ute fan based solely on the fact that they are a Ute fan, and not unbiased in their assessment of BYU football. Saying, "Well they are a Ute fan, so of course they will say that." is an ad hominem argument. It does not respond to what was said, but only attacks the person making the argument in order to undermine their argument. This can be a perfectly valid argument.

Now if the person in U of U clothing turned out to be the U of U football coach, then dismissing them as a Ute fan would turn the ad hominem argument into a fallacy. A football coach probably has a sound basis for his argument, and refusing to address his arguments would make it a fallacy.

Sound ad hominem arguments are used more frequently than people realize. Statements such as, "They are paid to say that." or, "They are an advocate for [blank] so of course they would say that." Looking at the source of an argument and dismissing it based solely on the source is an ad hominem argument. Whether or not it is a fallacy is another matter.

So despite what many people on the internet immediately assume, to be dismissive of someone because they lack the necessary expertise can be a valid argument, and is not automatically a fallacy. But if the argument is not considered at all you better have a good reason for dismissing the source and not considering the argument. If not you run the risk of committing an ad hominem fallacy in your argument.

The Dead Donkey: How seemingly unimportant facts lead to radically different conclusions

A little over a year ago the internet made a mountain out of a mole hill, like it always does, and expressed shock and outrage that the Google Street View car apparently hit and killed a donkey. We found out about this because the entire event was posted on Google Street View, or so it would seem. Below I have a few screen shots of the entire event.

Picture 1: Approaching the donkey.

Picture 2: The dead or dying donkey blurred under where the car is.

Picture 3: Looking back, the donkey roadkill now lying in the road.

There were several news sites (warning some of these links may lower your IQ) that devoted whole stories to the apparently deceased donkey. The whole thing really took off when "Dr." Sheldon Cooper tweeted about it. There were statements from Google, denials, counter arguments, conspiracy theories, accusations of a cover up, further denials, evidence sent to select people, but not released to the public, more accusations of secrecy and conspiracy, more denials and still more statements. The whole thing was quite comical.

So what actually happened? Did the Google Street View car run over the donkey? So consider this. The whole event happened in Botswana. So why it that important? Because in Botswana, unlike in the US, they drive on the left side of the road. That seemingly unimportant minor fact changes how to interpret what happened. Any US driver who looked at Picture 1 above would think that the camera view that I selected was the "forward" direction because it meant the car was driving on the right side of the road.

But because we know that in Botswana they drive on the left side that would mean Picture 1 is actually the image from the the rear facing camera, that is after the car passed the donkey. This mean that in Picture 3 above, which I gave the caption, "Looking back..." is not actually looking back but is looking forward and should actually be the first image in the sequence.

So some people, even people with advanced degrees, looked at the evidence and assumed that it clearly showed the Google Street View car hitting and critically injuring if not killing a poor defenseless donkey. Even after Google's explanation some people persisted in arguing that it clearly showed the death of a donkey. But just knowing that the pictures were taken in Botswana and that they drive on the left instead of the right means that what happened was the donkey was taking a nice dirt bath, getting a good backscratching, when it was disturbed by the oncoming Google car. When the car drove up the donkey stood up and walked off the road. You can go explore the whole Google Street View images here and convince yourself.

So what is my point in all of this? If I had wanted to share the story and not use it to make a point I would have just posted a link on Facebook and let people like it or ignore it. But I am writing about it on my blog which means that I intend to draw a conclusion and make a point with it.

The thing to remember is that by knowing one seemingly minor, but critical fact, the interpretation of what happened quickly changes. We were not there to witness the events and all we have are a few snapshots of what happened. At times we have a relatively minor cultural preconception (in this case, that the "forward" direction has the car on the right side of the road) that we use to orient ourselves when we first are given the evidence. But sometimes this minor cultural preconception, while very useful, if not necessary in our own culture, causes us to look at the sequence of events and draw an incorrect conclusion (i.e. the donkey dies).

But if we consider the same evidence, but this time in context, and with a few minor and seemingly inconsequential pieces of information, the conclusion we arrive at is very different (the Google car interrupted a nice dirt bath). So there are times when we are confronted with certain problems and while they may seem very unsettling or faith shattering at the time, if we stop and take the time to orient and reorient ourselves properly, what we previously viewed as a problem suddenly becomes a non-issue.

There are many times people are confronted with problems or issues in regards to their faith and their religion that seems to be unsettling or maybe a bit shocking at first. But if we take the time to understand what is going on, to know the context, and to listen when someone gently points out that they drive on the left side instead of the right side, that seemingly minor fact may be the key to reorienting ourselves so that we can clearly see that what was a problem before, really was not a problem. Sometimes it is easy, other times it is hard and takes time, but there are answers and there are explanations that will come. But we need patience, humility and a particle of faith, and the answers will come.

[Extra credit: Try and figure out this apparent murder in Google Street View. Hint, look at how the cars are parked and then go up and down the street and look at the "murderer" and the "victim" from different angles (points in time) to reconstruct the sequence of events. Which images came first and which images came later? Think traffic laws.]

Stories from My Mission: "It seems you have a lot of doubts"

This experience comes from my first area in the town of Bella Vista, Corrientes. I was with my second companion Elder Bullock (we also happened to have graduated from the same high school). One day while out tracting we ran into a man who did not seem interested in talking to us at that time but was very enthusiastic about us coming back later that evening. Because we didn't have anything else that evening we agreed.

A few hours later we arrived at his house and he was still eager to talk to us, and demonstrated his interest by bringing out a few books to use in the discussion. In retrospect I don't think any first discussion I had on my mission ever went well when the person was excited to talk to us. The discussion started like just about any other discussion. We talked about the Church and Joseph Smith. At one point we read a scripture from the Bible and the guy asked if he could see my companion's Bible. As missionaries we were aware of the common criticism against the Church that we use a different Bible (we don't, at the time we used the Reina-Valera 1960 version) so my companion handed over his Bible so the man could see for himself that we have a standard Bible.

The man quickly took the Bible, opened his own and began to compare the title page of his Bible to ours. He began counting the number of books and because he was comparing our Protestant derived Bibles to his Catholic Bible he came up with a different number of books (seven to be exact). Whereupon he handed back my companion's Bible and declared that it was wrong because it was incomplete. To which my companion replied, "Oh really? Do you know which books my Bible is missing?"

"No." he replied.

"Do you know what is in the books that your Catholic Bible has that mine doesn't?"

"No." again was the reply.

"Then how do you know that our Bibles are wrong?"

"But your Bibles don't have the correct number of books!"

"But if you don't know what is in those extra seven books then how do you know that we are actually leaving out something important?"

Realizing that this line of attack wasn't getting him anywhere and that it was actually demonstrating his ignorance rather than ours he switched tactics. He changed the topic by bringing up polygamy. He said that we could not be Christian since we practiced polygamy. My companion assured him that we do not currently practice polygamy. The man insisted that we still do practice polygamy.

Intrigued my companion asked where he was getting his information. At this point he pulled out a little book from his stack of books. Essentially it was a primer on different religions written from a Catholic perspective. The section on Mormons was, shall we say, severely lacking in logic and relevant factual information. He read us a few paragraphs from his book and in that selection he read a quote that essentially stated something to the effect, "There are X number of polygamists living in Utah. Of the people in the state Y% are Mormons. Therefore Mormons still practice polygamy."

Even at the tender age of 19, without ever taking a class on logic, I knew this was bad logic. I pointed this out to him and he became defensive. My companion, a bit amused at his lack of logical rigor, asked where his book got the quote from. He said something that neither one of us could understand. He read the source again from the book but we couldn't make out what he was saying. I asked to see the book and he handed it over. I found the quote and read the source. It was from the Ladies Home Journal, from the 1920's or 30's. At this point my companion laughed out loud much to the confusion of the man we were talking to. My companion had to explain what the Ladies Home Journal was to him (I think my companion called it "Chisme de las mujeras." "Ladies gossip."). Our adversary was beginning to realize that he probably hadn't picked the best resource for a gospel fight. He was about to learn that he was seriously spiritually out gunned.

We went back and forth for a bit but we realized that we weren't getting anywhere. He offered a few more arguments, but eventually his arguments devolved into general objections against religion and not just our religion in particular. He was also realizing that he actually didn't have any good arguments.

It was at this point that my companion commented and said, "It seems like you have a lot of doubts."

He hung his head slightly and admitted that there was a lot of things he had doubts about.

What followed was one of the most powerful testimonies I ever had the opportunity to hear on my mission. My companion leaned forward and said, "I know that what I believe is true. I know that what we have in the scriptures is the word of God. I have no doubt in my mind that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God and that he translated the Book of Mormon. There is no doubt in my mind about God and His Church on the earth. You may doubt but I have no doubts about what I know and your doubts and what you don't know can never change what I do know and what I don't doubt."

The man, struck by the forcefulness of my companion's testimony compared to the weakness of his own doubts quickly shot back and threw up a defensive wall of, "No! I actually do know things!" and "I don't have any doubts." But it was to no avail we both had heard him say in all honesty and sincerity that he was full of doubts. We wished him a good night and left.

Justifying Profanity Through the Suppressed Correlative and Other Logical Fallacies

The other day I came across a quote in a news article that caught my eye. The story involved a case where someone had been issued a citation for "profanity". One of the lawyers involved in the case was quoted as saying,“I have no idea what is indecent or is profane, and nobody else does for that matter.” I thought that was a very interesting statement to make.

The first part of the statement is particularly interesting because it would seem that the lawyer is admitting his ignorance as to what it means to be indecent or to use profanity, but I do not think that that is how he meant it. I think it is more an indictment of the state of our society rather than an expression of personal ignorance. He is in a sense saying that there are no words that could be considered to be profanity or indecent. The fact that we live in an "anything goes" society with no checks, either personal or legal, on behavior is an indication of a larger problem in society. Because there is neither a personal morality nor a public ethics that dictate a limit on what is considered civil indicates that as a society we are wholly incapable of restraining criminal or anti-social (meaning against, or destructive of, society as opposed to individualistic) behavior.

But the second half of his statement I also found odd because while he is at first insisting on his own (or society's in general) ignorance of what constitutes profanity, he then extends that ignorance to everyone else. He is in essence saying that because he his ignorant of something, everyone else is too. This is a classic case of a deductive fallacy, where the subject (the lawyer in this case) assumes knowledge of what everyone else knows based on what he knows. This is to say that everyone else is ignorant of what is indecent just because he is. This seems rather presumptuous. To be honest I do not think that was what he meant by his statement, but my argument still holds because he is still making the assumption that because he cannot pin down the definition everyone else is wholly incapable of defining it either. He is essentially saying that because he holds a particular world view everyone else necessarily holds that same world view. This seems rather presumptuous.

So leaving behind the deductive fallacy, let us look at the ideas that prompted him to make this statement in the first place. In referring to profanity and indecency he is recognizing that there is a measure of vagueness in what constitutes profanity. I will admit that there is some vagueness in whether or not some words, or a single word in particular, can be considered profanity. I have known some people that would use certain words without thinking twice about it, while other people would blush when the same word was used in their presence and would never even think of using the word themselves. Thus for the two different people the same word can at the same time be considered profanity and a natural part of the conversation. I am not referring to words that are used differently in different countries, I am talking about the same words used in the same country. But now that I mention that I can also point out that there is a word that when it is used in Mexico it is a terrible swear word, but the same word in Argentina is used commonly by most people, including nice, little, old grandmothers who would never use foul language. Coincidentally there is also a word in Argentina that is never used in polite society, yet the same word is a common verb in other countries and is regularly taught to first year Spanish students in the US.

So yes there is some vagueness as to what can be considered profanity, yet that does not create the fallacy. The fallacy comes from the assumption that just because something is vaguely defined, it automatically has no definition. For example, the edge of the earth's atmosphere is not sharply defined yet there is no doubt that there is a difference between outer space and the atmosphere, because if there were not discernible difference then we would not use the terms in the first place. The mere fact that the terms exist is an indication that there is a distinction and that at least someone understands it. How we define the transition is a separate matter, but it is still a fallacy to deny the distinction just because there is some ambiguity in how to define the transition. We can also debate the usefulness of using the distinction, and this is also an important question in some situations, yet in the case of profanity and indecency there is still general acknowledgment in our society that profanity exists (and in some cases they are trying to come up with new definitions, laws and punishments for it). So to deny at least the existence of a definition is disingenuous.

Almost all the arguments I have encountered about why profanity should be acceptable and not punished/looked down upon either use the vagueness argument, or they use an argument that uses a fallacy known as the suppressed correlative. Essentially individual words which at one point were considered profanity are successively defined as not being "bad", or come into such common usage so that no one (or very few) considers them to be profane. After changing the definition to the point that all words that were profane are no longer, the definition becomes pointless (i.e. the empty set) and it is logical to do away with the definition. Strictly speaking this is a kind of a reversed suppressed correlative, but it applies. Still, as long as the word remains in common usage then it still has a definition that can be applied, even in a court of law.

There are some considerations that we have to take in to account. We do not want an overly broad definition because that would mean we are guilty of the reverse, yet at the same time because the distinction exists and it is up to our judgement to figure out where the line is drawn. To deny the existence, like the lawyer did, of the distinction between what is profane and what is not, is for me an acceptance that we cannot, or do not desire, civility in out society. And for me that is a terrible fallacy.

"If only 10% is true...": One thing to consider when presented with a host of arguments

This post grew out of my thoughts that I had when I was reading a post on the Mormanity blog. In the post the author, Jeff Lindsay, shares an experience that he had where someone he knew was struggling with her testimony about whether or not the Church was true. At one point she pointed to an anti-Mormon book and asked the question, "Even if only 10% of that book is true, that's enough to prove the Church is false." Jeff then went on to explain in the post the fallacy of quantity versus quality. Which is, mistaking the fact that there are a lot of arguments for the fact that the arguments are not valid. He explained that one of the common themes of anti-Mormon literature is they always present a host of arguments, most of which can very easily be debunked, in the hope that people will be overwhelmed by the seer volume of arguments rather than being convinced by the quality, or the veracity of the arguments. In other words, they want to convince people by using a lot of words, and are not concerned about whether or not the words are correct.

As I was reading the post I started thinking about how I would respond in that situation. One of the points that Jeff mentioned was that in some cases there are so many arguments against the church that it would be a full time job to respond to all of them. Some of the arguments can easily be discounted as they are quite silly, but there are others that take more thought and more research to explain. And then there are others that are not disputes about certain events, or even the interpretation of certain events, but are theological disagreements that are not so easily settled through argument and may require other means before they are settled. But in some cases when we are presented with a very large number of arguments then there has to be some way to sort through the large volume of arguments to determine if the arguments are of sufficient quality to even consider. So in the case when we are confronted with such a large number of arguments we must look at the sources and determine if the sources of the arguments are trustworthy. This approach is especially helpful if we are confronted with a number of arguments that we would have a difficult time answering, explaining, or even understanding.

If we take the case mentioned by Jeff and are confronted with a whole host of arguments where we would have a hard time determining their truthfulness, we can see that many of the arguments are rather disingenuous, but the question is whether or not that "10%" might exist that will disprove our beliefs. So if we take that number, 10%, as a starting point, we can say that if we are presented with a host of arguments and most of them are rather poor quality, then we say that at most 10% of the arguments may have merit. This is to say that at least 90% of the arguments presented by the source are complete bunk. Thus if we are presented with a host of anti-Mormon arguments, for example, and we can readily discern that about 90% (+/- 10%) are of questionable quality, then before we ask about whether or not we should proceed and investigate the remaining 10% we must first ask the question, "If our source is of such questionable trustworthiness that he has no problem making his case where at least 90% of his arguments are untrue, then why should we believe the other 10%?" If our source for these arguments is willing to give us a host of arguments where the vast majority of them are questionable, then what does that say about his intentions? Surely they are not honorable. You would think that if he were so intent on convincing us of the "truth" of his position and of the falsity of ours, then you would expect him to present arguments that have been checked for their validity and soundness. The presence of a lot of false arguments casts serious doubts as to his devotion to the "truth" of the matter.

If we look at it in this light then we see that the burden of proof has shifted from us to our source of anti-Mormon literature. It becomes necessary for him to produce a coherent and rational argument, and we do not have the duty to respond to all of his arguments, or even to consider them. If our source is willing to throw out any and every argument he can think of, even if it is easily falsifiable, then if we are to take him seriously then he must first attempt to show some minimum commitment to using valid and sound arguments. If not then there is not much reason to listen to what he has to say.

I should point out that while this method works for most of the anti-Mormon material out there, there are some that do not fall victim to the fallacy of quantity over quality, but those tend to be more rational and open to a reasonable dialogue.

You Sir, Mr. Spock, are Most Illogical

It would be hard to grow up in America today and not know who Spock is. Even though he is a fictional character he is probably more well known than Franklin Pierce (who is Franklin Pierce you may ask? my point exactly), who is not a fictional character. The real question is why? Why is he so famous?

Part of the reason why Spock is so well known is that his logical approach to things resonated with a lot of people. When people watched Star Trek they were able to connect to the characters in one way or another. The personalities of the characters was intentionally chosen to represent common stereotypes that we have as a society, and furthermore they were chosen to portray and extreme representation of the stereotypes. Thus in our society while we do not typically find people that are actually as logical as Mr. Spock, we still connect to him because to some degree we act like that. In short, Spock is well known and looked up to because we see our own thought processes in his manner of thinking.

While logical thinking is generally a good thing, Spock does make a few fundamental flaws in his thinking that make his basic approach self-contradictory and therefore illogical. My motivation in writing about this topic is not based on a nerdy desire to split hairs about how the writers of Star Trek (and to a large degree Leonard Nimoy) represented a logical character like Mr. Spock, but rather to point out a flaw in many people's thinking that is very pervasive in our society today. So while the logical nature of Spock is admittedly an extreme archetype, his personality is exhibited throughout our society to a lesser degree in most individuals. This means that all aspects of his personal philosophy, and therefore logical flaws, are reflected in our society.

There are many aspects of Spock's approach that are not problematic, such as his analytical approach to problems, and his desire to make the correct, or the most expedient decision, given the circumstances. But the problem arises in his basic approach to achieving these desirable goals. His basic method in achieving these attributes is to disassociate himself from all emotions. The relative merits of ridding one's self of emotions and passions can be debated but where Spock's contradiction comes in is in his denial of emotion as nothing more than an illogical aberration. At many points in the show and in the Star Trek movies, Spock reacts to the emotions of others as "most illogical". With this I admit Spock does have a point, to some degree. There are those who take actions based on their emotions, of hate, fear or greed, that lead them to do or say some rather irrational things, but the problem arises when Spock asserts that people (primarily himself) should not have emotions.

It is one thing to ague about the relative merits of how our emotions influence our decisions, but to assert that logic demands that we not have emotions, or that our decisions should not be dictated in any way by our emotions, is to deny reality. And denying reality is by definition illogical. Logic does not determine how things should be, but how we approach them.

Let me use a simple example to illustrate this. This example is a type of a reductio ad absurdum argument. Consider two towns, Fairfield and Halifax, on opposite sides of a mountain.

Now we might say that logically the quickest and shortest path between two points, in this case the two towns, is a straight line. But the only problem is that there is a mountain in between the two towns. Surely it would be illogical to say that logic dictates that the mountain should not be there because it prevents travel between the two towns by the most expedient and logical path, a straight line. If someone from Fairfield (the local logician perhaps) stood at the base of the mountain and proclaimed to the mountain that it was illogical and it would be better if it just went away, then after a while the local authorities would probably send someone (with a white coat) to go collect him.

The problem here is that the "logical" person is not using his logic to figure out how things work, or how to get from Fairfield to Halifax, but rather to make a statement to the universe in general that, "I think things would be better and easier if the universe worked in such and such a manner. Until then I will claim that the offending mountain [emotions] is illogical and an obstacle to reality."

It is one thing to say that it would be easier to travel from Fairfield to Halifax if there were no mountain in the way, it is another to say that the very existence of the mountain is illogical simply because it makes the journey difficult or even impossible. It is the same way with emotions. People who make decisions based solely on their emotions, or an emotional response, rarely make a rational decision. But to say that emotions themselves, or rather the existence of emotions, is inherently irrational and illogical is to deny the very existence of emotions, which by definitions is illogical.

Again I emphasize the point that the role of logic is not tell us how the universe should be, or how things should act in the universe, but rather how things relate to each other. As the ghost of Christmas past put it in A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens, “[Things] are what they are, do not blame me!”

So let us consider what we have. We must acknowledge that people have emotions. On this point both Spock and I are in agreement. Where we disagree is in the implications of these emotions. To Spock, ideally people should not have emotions because it causes them to make seemingly irrational decisions. Thus the ideal case for Mr. Spock is to get rid of his (and everyone else's) emotions. But this view is inherently illogical because it is just like our logician from Fairfield, standing at the base of the mountain saying to the mountain, "You are illogical!"

It makes more sense to not just acknowledge that people have emotions (or passions, if you prefer) but to work with and interact with that reality. For Mr. Spock there is a whole segment of reality of which he is denying its existence and is refusing to interact with it (a rather ironic statement to make about a fictional character). Just because we acknowledge that people make decisions based on their emotions does not mean that we think that they will always make rational decisions, but rather it is an acknowledgment of the fact that they will make irrational decisions.

The key difference here is that in the approach taken by Spock, all emotions must be done away with (i.e. the logician wants to tear down all the mountains). But in reality emotions cannot be done away with, and they must be incorporated into our logical understanding of the world. Perhaps I can make this point with a quote from Richard Feynman:



[Transcript of the critical part: "You will have to accept it, because it is the way nature works. If you want to know the way nature works...we looked at it carefully, that's the way it looks! You don't like it? Go somewhere else. To another universe where the rules are simpler, philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy. I can't help it! OK?! If I'm going to tell you honestly what the world looks like to the human beings who have struggled as hard they can to understand it, I can only tell you what it looks like, and I cannot make it any simpler."]

My point is, while dealing with human emotions may be very frustrating, and while they may lead people to make seemingly irrational and illogical choices, they are still part of reality and therefore it is illogical to deny them or to refuse to work with them. As Dr. Feynman puts it, "You will have to accept it, because it is the way nature works."

This does not mean that we just have to accept our emotions the way they are, because we also learn from experience that we can change and affect the way our emotions work. We are not completely at the mercy of a set of random emotions, or biological impulses. We have the power to change that, but we must also realize that we are what we are and we cannot change reality. Now as I mentioned at the beginning, the degree that we should let our emotions or our passions have rule over our decisions is open to debate, but to deny them completely, as Mr. Spock does, is most illogical.

Every Once in a While...

Every once in a while I run across a statement that is truly, well...um...unique. I came across the following comment on YouTube actually. It was in response to a video that you can find here.

"Why is liberalism evil and conservatism good? There is no good or evil. That gives your arguments a religous tone that has no place being there. It is about freedom.

That is what this nation, and all of its greatness, is about at it's core.

It is not about good vs evil. Right vs Wrong. It is about free or slave.

Anyone can say that their own view is right and someone elses view is wrong, but to date..no one has proved it."

As in cases like this I really can't think of a good response to this comment. I think the comment itself does an adequate job of disproving itself. Despite that I would like to take a moment to point out that this comment does a perfect job at demonstrating the prevalence and pervasiveness of moral (and ethical relativism) in our current society. If this quote makes no sense to you it may be because you recognize that there is good and evil and that there is right and wrong. It is already hard enough to teach people what is right and what is wrong, but when they begin to deny that there is even right and wrong, then things become truly difficult.

Even in attempting to deny there is right and wrong, good and evil, the person making the comment gives a standard for good and evil, right and wrong. Thus we see the underlying problem of moral relativism, even by rejecting clear morals or any moral foundation they must put in its place some other moral standard, in this case freedom. Thus by rejecting all moral and ethical axioms they create a new one, that there should be no axioms. This logical inconsistency leads, or can lead to many problems. Anything that is inconsistent with reality can only bring trouble and heartache.

Arguing Past Each Other

When I read comments that are left in response to certain articles, I frequently notice a particular logical fallacy that people fall victim to again and again. The fallacy tends to follow a simple form:

Person 1 makes general statement G about group A.

Person 2 argues that G is false because they are a member of group A (or they know a member of group A) and statement G does not apply to person 2 (or their acquaintance).

For example:

People from UNC are big basketball fans.

I attend UNC and I am not a big basketball fan, therefore people from UNC are not basketball fans.

Granted this is a rather extreme example and most people would quickly point out the fallacy and most people would not use this type of argument (I may be making some hasty generalizations here, but I think this is an accurate one). Still this form of logical fallacy is so prevalent that it forms the basis of a great many arguments. Because the forms of this fallacy are so varied and numerous, logicians have grouped them into an entire class of logical fallacies known as Inductive Fallacies.

As my above example shows these class of fallacies can be rather humorous and even form the basis of many jokes and satire. These fallacies are heavily used by comedians such as Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart, and it is precisely these fallacies that make their material so funny. But unfortunately not everyone is in on the joke and some try to use these fallacies as the basis for some rather serious arguments. In other words, what should be funny is no longer funny because the people that use the fallacious argument are very serious, and get offended when no one takes them seriously, or when people ridicule their argument for being fallacious. This action and reaction is the basis for a lot of contention on subjects for which we should not contend about.

For example (I did not come up with this example, it comes from several letters to the editor in the UNC student newspaper):

Student 1: The college dropout rate for blacks in the UNC system is higher than the dropout rate for whites. Therefore blacks are not as prepared for college as whites are.

Student 2: I am black and I graduated top of my class. I work hard and I get straight A's in my classes, therefore you have no basis for saying that blacks are not as prepared for college as whites.

General responses: Ridicule and derision of Student 2's logical fallacy and general lack of understanding and misrepresentation of the issue at hand.

Result: Race relations are not improved, and are even hurt by the actions of Student 2 and all those who respond negatively to their remarks.

An interesting point in all of this is that logical fallacies in and of themselves are not bad. They can be funny and bring laughter into the world, but when we treat them as true, and insist on their veracity, and base our morals, ethics and lives on them, then they sow the seeds of contention and hatred that so often brings heartache and sorrow to our selves, others and our society in general. When we place logical fallacies, or any kind of untruth, as the standard of truth, it is no wonder that we find so much confusion in our arguments and cannot find any rational basis to solve the problems of our society. I should warn that merely recognizing the fallacies and pointing them out is not enough, and can even been detrimental, but rather the bast response to a logical fallacy is to ignore it, or to not participate in it. Then when the fallacy is past, it can be used as a tool from which to learn, so that we can avoid the same fallacies in the future.