Tag Archives: Global warming

Do humility and logic go together?

3 May

 

Good and upright is the Lord;
therefore he instructs sinners in his ways.
He guides the humble in what is right
and teaches them his way. Ps 25:8-9

Danger alert!

Logic can destroy humility.

How can that be?  I thought clear rational thinking was the entire point of this blog?

Yes, but learning to use skills of rational, deductive reasoning can cause us to grow smug. And SMUGNESS reeks of pride, arrogance and insufferableness.

I am a Biblical Christian who loves words and takes God’s Word seriously. Therefore, I believe whole-heartedly that the original text of the Bible is accurate and free from error. Why?  because I accept as true that God superintended its transmission to the authors through His divine Spirit. After all, the God who SPOKE the universe into being can certainly insure the accuracy of the original writings.  Beside that, He even says that His Word is true. Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth. John 17:17

Here’s the snare.  I can be arrogant and prideful when I think I am right.  Why do I think my views are correct?

  • Because I am a born-again Christian who has been given a new and different nature
  • Because I have learned some logical thinking principles, which empower me

God, however, isn’t content to leave me equipped with ‘right’ thinking, whether content or method.

The message God seems to be sending me through daily Bible reading and various prayers is that since we humans are created beings, there is NO way in God’s kingdom that we finite creatures can be all-seeing and all-knowing.  Those ‘omni’ qualities belong to God alone who is perfect.

How that should translate into my life and perhaps yours, if you agree, is that we can be wrong!  Maybe our conclusions from the evidence WE SEE and KNOW are rightly deduced, but the presupposition behind the syllogism is huge.  Namely that we see and know ALL the facts.  Could there be, perhaps, more to meet MY eye and awareness?

I work amidst kind and friendly colleagues in a middle school in Asheville, NC.  I’m the only one, I imagine, who doubts some of the ‘givens’ about global warming and its attendant problems.  What I’m trying to practice during our lunchtime, round-table informal chats is to listen for the BEST arguments to support their views regarding this climate situation.

Wanting to understand the other side depends first on the recognition that I might not be right. Oh, maybe given the circumstances and facts I’ve seen and read, I can make a case for what I believe and why.  But the possibility DOES exist that I might actually have a blind spot.

This God-worked humility in me, through life’s hardships and knocks and my daily reading of His Word, has initiated a less sure, less-exalted view of how ‘infallible’ or correct I might be.

I believe, that our world needs more ‘Logical Joes and Janes’, but ones who humble themselves enough to listen with care to others’ views.

Logical Gal and what’s so wrong with a polemic?

18 Feb

Have you noticed how one can hardly open one’s mouth before being accused of offering a ‘wrong’ opinion?

It’s like the public climate has grown so childishly sensitive as not to be able to be in the presence of a differing point of view.

Yet, why should we expect everyone to think like us?  Where did that pre-supposition come from?

When berated by someone who holds a counter view, I would appreciate the opportunity to explain why I hold my belief. A friendly exchange of ideas would benefit both of us.  But time doesn’t allow for it these days.  The tendency seems to be this:

  • I can’t be bothered to invest MY time and energy into paying attention and following your line of reasoning.  It’s easier to just dismiss you and your _____view, and hold fast to mine.  In other words, it’s easier NOT to think.   Thinking requires I say no to skimming what’s new and breaking and concentrate on what you’re saying. That takes effort. Can’t be bothered.  So long!

But that’s not all!  Not only are thinking people who advance a minority view not given the opportunity to supply evidence and reasons for their opinion, thus forming an argument, they are also met with incredulity that they even HOLD such a belief.

A while back my husband created an instructional video on how to use a decision-making model.  He chose global warming as a complex, contemporary issue.  A viewer took exception with some of the alternative pathways offered in the model.  This man left a dismissive comment to the effect, “This is pure polemic masquerading as instruction!”

A drive-by comment leaves no room for dialogue.  Had my husband been able to respond in person, I think an appropriate remark would have been a question-laden invitation such as, “So… your point is???”

But the viewer was off and running to the next opportunity to drop in and leave his calling card.

Makes me wonder about Americans who once stood for hours, even in the rain, to follow attentively the logical discourse of those Lincoln-Douglas Debates back in the late 1850s.

Lincoln Douglas

 

 

 

Logical Gal and False Authorities

5 Nov

I recently encountered 2 examples of the same fallacy – appealing to authority to avoid making a case for one’s point of view.

This is the essence of a fallacy – trotting out a false argument that either is irrelevant, claims too much or is a distraction.

Shrinking Polar Caps

The first was anecdotally reported to me. A small aircraft pilot was recounting the time he flew over the polar ice cap and noticed what he considered to be shrinking icebergs. He then reported, “Yep, global warming is for real, I saw it!”

Let’s take a look at his thinking:

  • P1 – If I see diminishing icebergs, then global warming is happening
  • P2 – I saw diminishing icebergs
  • C –  Therefore, global warming is happening

His syllogism is logically valid in that the form of the argument is correct. But are his premises true? There’s the rub.

Our pilot friend has opened himself up to be shot down easily. Some questions one might ask?

  • Have you measured the shrinkage? For how many years?
  • How do you know that the shrinkage is due to global warming? Could there be other reasons?
  • How did you get your scientific expertise in the area of global temperature studies?

He has appealed to himself as an authority RATHER than building a case. This man was an expert pilot, but not a trusted source of scientific analysis.

*

The other example of an appeal to illegitimate authority is found in the Gospel of John.  In Chapter 7, toward the end, the soldiers return to the Pharisees and Chief Priests empty-handed.  They had been sent to arrest Jesus.  When questioned, they explain that ‘this man’ speaks like no one else they have ever heard!  The religious leaders smirk:

 Has any of the authorities or of the Pharisees believed in Him? (John 7:48)

The implication is that they don’t need to examine the claims of Jesus to verify if they are true.  It’s enough that THEY have not ‘fallen’ for them.  They are setting themselves up as arbiters of truth.   This is an appeal to an authority and expertise that they don’t have. It’s immaterial to the verification of Jesus’ identity WHO they are.  The claim is either true or false no matter WHO believes it.

20 million Frenchmen can't be wrong

Can a lot of people be be wrong?  YES!

Yesterday many elections were held around the country.  Wildly unsubstantiated claims and accusations were made in all that very expensive advertising.  Today we’re breathing a sigh of relief that THIS season is over.  But campaigning is part of our landscape.  The next time someone makes a claim or an attack on an opponent, use questions to gently guide them back to the claim.  Whoever MAKES a claim needs also to defend his or her case with REASONS.

Yes, it gives one pause to go against a majority, but a majority can be dead wrong!  Think through arguments and look for rational support for the claims made.  That’s how to inoculate oneself against folly, no matter the source.

 

Logical Gal – it must be true if 97% of scientists agree

9 Jun

Truth by consensus!

97 % of scientists

Now there’s a stable foundation for science and public policy!

When someone making an assertion offers as support the fact that the majority of experts back his view, then you know the arguer has no argument.

People resort to fallacies (false reasoning) for one or more of the following  reasons:

  • they haven’t thought through a proper defense of their point of view
  • they KNOW they don’t have any legitimate reasons resilient enough to respond to critique
  • they are lazy and rather just bash their opponent by appealing to a variation of that old song lyric ‘50 million Frenchmen can’t be wrong‘!

50 million frenchmen

But science has always progressed by being dragged forward by a few brave souls going against the ‘party line’.

So what is driving the forceful and almost shrill proclamations that the ‘debate is over’?

Like so much in life, I think it’s……… the money.

In today’s local Sunday paper, hope for new jobs permeated an unabashedly eager article about Asheville positioning itself to sell tech solutions to our ‘climate problem’ Article link is here.   This was in the same issue that gave editorial space to syndicated columnist Leonard Pitts who mockingly derided climate deniers who should do the math and get on board. See if you can spot his use of Mob Appeal cum Appeal to Authority fallacies

What frightens me is that the ‘average Joe or Jane’ DOESN’T take the time to read, study and think through issues.  And to be honest, one has to pick and choose just which topics one is going to investigate.  There was a time when the Fourth Estate, the ‘soi-disant’ independent media, played that role in society, keeping the other three estates in check (traditionally – the nobility, the clergy and the commoners….perhaps in 21st century America – the government, business and the little people).

But today, a FIFTH ESTATE has arisen – us, the counter-cultural voice of independent media, bloggers and certain talk-show hosts.

For more information click here

We CAN make a difference, one step at a time.  My small piece in that unorganized but powerful force is to encourage average Joes and Janes to practice clear thinking.  Acquiring logic is a useful tool to that end!

Question:  Which issue is number one for you?  the one that is worth your time and concentrated energy

  • to study
  • to be able to articulate both sides
  • to come down on one side and be prepared to give a defense

 

 

Logical Gal challenges ‘experts’

25 Apr

More and more we are being subjected to a one-line argument called ‘settled science’ as announced by those advocating drastic counter-measures in view of what they perceive as ‘human-induced’ climate harm.

Settled Science & Al Gore

 

This way of arguing is actually a fallacy.  It’s the opposite of the Ad Hominem attack.  That particular fallacy bypasses  all the reasons supporting a claim to attack the nature  or character of the one advancing the argument.

In contrast, the fallacy I want to address today is the tactic whereby one skips reasons and plays on the credentials of the proponents.  This fallacy is called the Argument from Authority.  We see this often in commercials for toothpaste (‘Brand X is the one favored by more dentists in America’) or for peanut butter (‘Choosy moms choose Jif!’)

Choosy moms choose Jif

As you probably have noticed, this appeal to an authority takes the place of an appeal to REASON!

So, too, with the climate change issue.  Those who clamor for countries to DO SOMETHING have demonized those who push back and ask for supporting evidence.  Appealing to the authority and intelligence of a group of scientists does not satisfy for 2 reasons:

  • Scientists are known to have been wrong in the past  (think of the Flat Earth view or the Earth as the center of the solar system)
  • If the case for anthropogenic climate change (brought on by humans) is so strong, scientists or policy-makers should not  be afraid to provide the evidence APART from computer models of what MIGHT happen

Finally, here is a caveat to those who by nature are skeptical and question authority (nothing wrong with that!), don’t yourselves either appeal to or attack the character of the one making the argument.   Be considerate and calm when you push back gently, requesting proof, evidence and reasons.

Remember, the burden of proof is on those who advance a position.  All YOU have to do is ask the WHY questions. But do so with gentleness and respect!

Kind rather than Right

Question:  Where do you encounter these Appeals to Authority?

 

Logical Gal – When someone changes the subject

24 Mar

Change subject - Jedi Mind Trick

Many people you talk with do not employ Jedi finesse.  They abruptly change the subject from the issue at hand, often to an ad hominem attack.

Let’s imagine a conversation about how best to address recent changes in global temperatures. The discussion débuts well, terms are clarified. When positions begin to be articulated, the going gets clouded by a sudden attack on a different issue, to wit:

Global Warming ‘Fear-Monger’: You only advocate a ‘wait-and-see’ approach because you’re one of those Christian fundamentalist, head-in-the-sand deniers!

Global Warming ‘Denier’: Whoa…wait a second!  You just changed the subject from what to do about elevated temperatures to WHY I might advocate a position.  Can we go back to the original argument? I’d like to present my reasons for my position.  And I would like to hear yours! How does that sound?

It is EASY to get drawn down a different path.  With such an insult to one’s character, I have often succumbed to the temptation to defend WHY I believe something.  However, the BEST move is to shift the conversation back to where it was.  There was a single issue and either you or he were attempting to defend a course of action with REASONS.

Changing the subject

Why might someone want to play ‘switch-a-roo’ with you?  It could be that they have NOT thought about their position and have no reasons to back up their assertion.  It takes time to study issues.  We live in a culture enamored with and satisfied by shallow 140-character sound bytes.  That allows NO time for developing a case.  But quick pointed jabs might be enough to send one’s opponents packing.

Quid faciam?  What to do?

Be kind but direct.  Try at least twice to move the conversation back on track, to the topic at hand.  If after the second time, your interlocutor purposefully shifts again, then gently terminate the discussion.  It’s a waste of your time and his.

You might not gain ground with this person, but your refusal to take the bait will make an impression on him.  It might actually get him to study the facts for himself!

Back on Track

Logical Gal and Confirmation Bias

24 Jan

Confirmation Bias – “the tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses” Wikipedia link

I ran across this term the other day in a dissection of what Jesus taught about faith.   Instead of analyzing the content of the explanation on its own merits, it apparently was easier to accuse the author of having committed confirmation bias.   This form of bias seems to say that people look for evidence to support their already-formulated position INSTEAD of following the evidence wherever it leads.

Looking at the variety of contexts that employ this term, it’s easy to spot how people from all sides of any issue assume and accuse others  of this practice.

Let’s look at the first of two images: 

In this poster, the conclusion is that a Christian is someone who has an explanation for the NOs or non-responses from God when he prays.  In other words, Christians always give God an ‘out’.

The above global warming baseball bat suggests that global warming advocates don’t follow reason, but they just beat the so-called ‘deniers’ over the head with forceful rhetoric.  Being closed to evidence, they surround themselves with those who share their views.

So, can we escape this faulty way of thinking? Can one actually, objectively, follow the evidence wherever it leads?  Can facts, evidence or proof be neutral?

Two incubators of bias come to mind.  There might very well be more, but these are a start:

  • the words we choose for a term describing a concept
  • the context we place an issue, the way we ‘frame’ it, the story we build around it to offer explanations

Terms do carry baggage.  I can describe someone either as ‘poor’ or as  ‘constrained by resources’.

And since we value our time and that of our listener/reader, we often use the shortcut of borrowing an accepted analogy or context that we assume all will understand.  For example, terms such as ‘pro-life’ or ‘pro-choice’ bring to mind real-life people or situations.  We then just cobble information onto that picture to flesh it out, reenforcing what we WANT to think about the issue.

For a help in understanding our lack of neutrality, you might like to read the hyperlinked blog below where the author distinguishes between INFERRING from evidence and seeking to RATIONALIZE an already held position.

Blog about how we treat evidence

So what can we do to mitigate this Confirmation Bias?  One technique that takes EFFORT might help. When we communicate with others, we could choose to use a fresh analogy to explain what we believe about something.  That would help us and the other person to think originally.  It’s like not allowing someone to always slip on their Birkenstock sandals.   You know – those German shoes that have a ‘Fussbett ‘or foodbed that eventually conforms to the wearer’s particular foot shape?

If you shaped them when you had a growth on your foot and still wear them long after the growth has been removed, they wouldn’t fit you so well any more.

Likewise, you might be misinformed about an issue and need to start fresh without prior assumptions.

Question:  where do you see how you might be suffering from Confirmation Bias?