An example:
John was about four years old when he noticed two kookaburras sitting together on a fence and laughing. Two adults also saw the kookaburras. One adult said, "That means it's going to rain soon". John accepted this information because it was said by someone that John respected, and both adults seemed to take the statement seriously.
Even after John had gone through school and had been taught about the weather, in John's mind, it could still be true that kookaburras can foretell rain because animals are more "in tune" with such things whereas, scientists are still unsure. There is no cognitive dissonance [1] in John's mind because even the teacher said that our understanding of the weather is limited, as shown by our inability to accurately predict the weather. So in John's mind, the kookaburras could still be predicting rain.
There are of course many other more important issues and problems in John's life; he is after all an adult now, so his kookaburra theory is relegated to a pile of other less important ideas. Sometimes, when it has rained, John is pretty sure that he can remember hearing at least one kookaburra laughing a few days before. If he can't remember hearing any then he's sure that kookaburras must have been laughing when he wasn't around to hear them. Sometimes, John has heard the kookaburras and told himself that rain is imminent but soon forgets the forecast. In hindsight, he is pretty sure that it did rain soon after. John has even told children the theory and other adults have just smiled, so he concludes that the adults must know the theory as well.
Ken is an acquaintance of John, and when the two of them were walking along a country road, John hears some kookaburras and says to Ken, "Hear those kookaburras? We'll get rain soon". It is only when the kookaburra theory is challenged (possibly laughed at) for the first time that a cognitive dissonance becomes vaguely possible in John's mind. Other people have scoffed at his idea but John remains unconvinced by their arguments, he has used a number of defences, but now Ken is challenging his kookaburra theory.
At this point in time, John may either;
defend -
1) Argue that many other people agree with him, oror retreat -
2) Relate stories of how it's happened before, or
3) Argue that it is a very old, well known principle, or
4) Argue that nobody has ever been able to disprove it, or
5) State that he was four years old when he heard it, or
6) Argue that animals are more "in tune" with the environment.
7) Avoid further discussion by pretending that it was meant as a joke, or
8) Change the subject to something vaguely related, e.g., "I hope it doesn't rain, I've put washing out to dry", or
9) Imply his belief as still plausible by doubting (or dismissing) Ken's refutation, e.g., "Oh, you could be right", or
10) Ignore Ken's refutation by not responding.
The six defensive arguments could be used either individually or in combination. Which ones he uses and how vehemently he defends his theory may depend on the strength of John's belief, John's opinion of Ken, and how Ken responded when John mentioned the theory.
If John thinks highly of Ken and he thinks Ken is knowledgeable then John may soften his argument and give only one explanation. In this case, John is hoping that if Ken counters this explanation, then John still knows more (as yet undisclosed) reasons that support his theory, or he could always use argument 9 to escape any further dissonance.
If John thinks Ken is not quite as knowledgeable as himself, he may defend his claim far more vigorously using all six arguments and possibly go into greater detail by citing previous experiences, trying to convince Ken.
If Ken laughed at John's claim and John respects Ken's opinion then John may be more likely to try one of the four remaining arguments. If John uses arguments 7, 8, both, or just 9, then he is unwilling to defend his claim because Ken may prove his claim is wrong. These three techniques (if used) confirm that John has had other people dismiss the theory but John has remained unconvinced.
Alternatively, if John does not respect Ken's opinion, to avoid conceding a point to Ken, John may use argument 4 or 6. These may also explain why John remains unconvinced that the theory is wrong. John may think these are his strongest arguments, because he is now challenging Ken to prove the unprovable. Or, John could just apply argument 10 and ignore Ken's response. This last argument might cause Ken to ask himself, "What does John think of my opinions? Can't be much, if he just ignores them". Ignoring someone is possibly the rudest tactic to avoid dissonance.
All of the arguments are informal fallacies, for example,
1) An appeal to the people, bandwagon fallacy.Over the years, John has not really challenged his theory, because to question the idea might discredit a long held belief and John's current model of the world fits nicely together. Instead, he has built up a series of defence mechanisms to protect his model. It is how John deals with cognitive dissonance that defines whether he is reasonable or unreasonable.
2) Anecdotal evidence. (A fallacious generalizing on the basis of a story that provides an inadequate sample.)
3) The fallacy of traditional wisdom.
4) An appeal to ignorance [2] (Not knowing that a statement is false is taken to be proof that it is true). John is also trying to transfer the burden of proof.
5) Whilst true, if used by itself, is a Non Sequitur [3] . If used in conjunction with another argument it is also the other argument's fallacy.
6) Assuming the answer (The thing to be proved is used as one of your assumptions). Obscurum per obscurius (Explaining something obscure or mysterious by something that is even more obscure or more mysterious.)
7) An appeal to humour (if Ken just laughed and said "Yeah sure, ha ha ha", and then John chuckled as well.)
8) Distraction, changing the subject, misdirection, diversionary tactic, digressing.
9) Appeal To Complexity (If John doesn't understand the topic, he concludes that nobody understands it. So, his opinions are as good as anybody's.)
10) Willed ignorance (I've made my mind up, so don't confuse me with more information.)
If John can't question his long held theory then he is not being reasonable, he is simply being dogmatic. Sometimes, people will go through their whole lives clinging to their beliefs despite contrary evidence. For people like John, science and logic are just matters of belief, like a religion, and those beliefs should never be challenged because doing so causes cognitive dissonance. They have reasons for holding to their beliefs, so they will assert that their beliefs are sensible.
Hopefully, John will challenge his theory and examine his ten arguments. He will recognize that they are all logical fallacies and will conclude that his theory is probably wrong. He should however keep open the idea that animals are more "in tune" with their surroundings because quite frankly, their lives depend on that awareness. Furthermore, if he is going to relate the kookaburra theory to children, he should do so as a story with a moral - Always question your beliefs. Listen to others but don't necessarily believe everything you're told.
It should be noted that nine of the ten arguments (except 6) are generally fallacious arguments irrespective of the subject matter. The falsity of these arguments is universal in that, it doesn't matter whether the theory under discussion is true or false, the arguments themselves are generally invalid. Argument 6 is an exception only because it is specific to the theory under discussion; however it is still fallacious regarding kookaburras announcing imminent rain.
To evaluate any opinion or belief, write down all the arguments that you would use (or others have used) to defend that belief. If any argument resembles a logical fallacy then discount that argument. If there are no arguments left then it's time to reconsider that belief. Never resort to any of the retreating tactics, they are rude and deceitful. If an argument is put to you that you cannot counter then at least say, "Hmm, that's a good point. I didn't think of that." and then do it!
[1] Cognitive dissonance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
The term used in modern psychology to describe the feeling of discomfort when holding two or more conflicting cognitions (e.g., ideas, beliefs, values, emotional reactions) simultaneously. In a state of dissonance, people may sometimes feel surprise, dread, guilt, anger, or embarrassment. The theory of cognitive dissonance in social psychology proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by altering existing cognitions, adding new ones to create a consistent belief system, or alternatively by reducing the importance of any one of the dissonant elements. It is the distressing mental state that people feel when they find themselves doing things that don't fit with what they know, or having opinions that do not fit with other opinions they hold. A key assumption is that people want their expectations to meet reality, creating a sense of equilibrium.
[2] Appeal to Ignorance http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/
The fallacy of appeal to ignorance comes in two forms: (1) Not knowing that a certain statement is true is taken to be a proof that it is false. (2) Not knowing that a statement is false is taken to be a proof that it is true. The fallacy occurs in cases where absence of evidence is not good enough evidence of absence. The fallacy uses an unjustified attempt to shift the burden of proof. The fallacy is also called “Argument from Ignorance.”
[3] Non Sequitur http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/
When a conclusion is supported only by extremely weak reasons or by irrelevant reasons, the argument is fallacious and is said to be a non sequitur.
No comments:
Post a Comment