Thanks for the presentations this morning. Very interesting and enjoyable...and I like this video!
Well done all.
Showing posts with label arguments. Show all posts
Showing posts with label arguments. Show all posts
Friday, September 21, 2012
The Examined Life Video Presentation
Thanks for the presentations this morning. Very interesting and enjoyable...and I like this video!
Well done all.
Monday, March 02, 2009
Worst Argument Result...
When I went to cover a RPE101 (Philosophical and Ethical Arguing) class in December, I chatted with the students about fallacies and bad arguments – and was reminded of an in-class exercise I often did with students. This involved taking in a pile of the day’s newspapers and the class, in groups, hunting through them for examples of various fallacies (Straw Man, Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc [and causal fallacies in general], shifting the burden of proof, and the like). This was always fun, but I thought that our blog might be the means for a more ambitious version of this activity…
So in December we asked for submissions for our Britain’s Worst Argument competition. As you can see from the comments left on the blog – we had a lot of response – and lots of submissions also came by email. The one that received the most comment was the Atheist’s Nightmare – possibly due to the comic connection of fundamentalist creationism and a banana – but this was American and not eligible. We did have quite a crop of submissions relating to creationism and the Design Argument (for God’s existence), but most of these were from across the Atlantic.
I think one of my favourites, and it was sent anonymously so I cannot say where it hails from, was:
I got this one from a hairdresser when inquiring about a shampoo against hairloss:
Hairdresser: "It has been thoroughly tested and it works on 30%"
Me: "Well,... that sound good, but do you have one with more percentages?"
Hairdresser: "No,... but think again, there's a fifty-fifty percentage change that it will work on you?"
Me: (I teach statistics)"How's that?"
Hairdresser: "Well, that's obvious, either it works on you, or it doesn't!"
No need to say, I bought the shampoo right away.
This makes a great point about people’s (mis)understanding of probability and statistic, and also really made me smile. However – this is a competition – and needs a winner… (drum roll…) – and I think the worst argument we encountered (from more than one submission) is the nationalistic deployment of bifurcation. It was captured by Shelley Campbell (one of our postgraduate students) when she wrote (in response to the original post):
Politicians use this one - if we are not heart-throbbing nationals then we are traitors. For example, "If you are not for us, you are against us."
Bifurcation is where you present the reader/listener with only two alternatives, and imply that if they reject/are not aligned with one, they agree with/are aligned with the other alternative by default.
I could speak to a student: are you going to do that essay today, or be a life-wasting loser who never achieves anything? It is not uncommon in many settings, and is a way of trying to preclude the discussion of other possibilities (are you going to give up your job, or do you not love me? - there are states of affairs that might combine some of the two? or third options?).
The argument is more sinister though when used to dismiss political views by claiming they are insufficiently patriotic / pro-British (in this case). In the recent discussion of 'British Jobs for British Workers' it was hard (should one have wished to do so) to criticise the protesters without seeming unpatriotic or anti-British: in cases of war, this can lead not only to faulty reasoning - but to death and loss of life...
What is so bad about bifurcation?
• It is effective – in the heat of an argument we often fall for it: thinking that if there are only two options, we must defend one – even if absurd – rather than allow the one we dislike to dominate.
• Often the person using it does not really see things in such stark terms themselves.
• It is ‘bad’ because it is used effectively all the time in politics – witness the scramble to prove oneself patriotic in the US elections.
• Beyond nationalism, bifurcation impoverishes political debates all around us: “if you disagree with me, you are an extremist of some sort” – this is a common, dangerous and fallacious strategy: the worst argument (in the broadest sense) that we came across…
So in December we asked for submissions for our Britain’s Worst Argument competition. As you can see from the comments left on the blog – we had a lot of response – and lots of submissions also came by email. The one that received the most comment was the Atheist’s Nightmare – possibly due to the comic connection of fundamentalist creationism and a banana – but this was American and not eligible. We did have quite a crop of submissions relating to creationism and the Design Argument (for God’s existence), but most of these were from across the Atlantic.
I think one of my favourites, and it was sent anonymously so I cannot say where it hails from, was:
I got this one from a hairdresser when inquiring about a shampoo against hairloss:
Hairdresser: "It has been thoroughly tested and it works on 30%"
Me: "Well,... that sound good, but do you have one with more percentages?"
Hairdresser: "No,... but think again, there's a fifty-fifty percentage change that it will work on you?"
Me: (I teach statistics)"How's that?"
Hairdresser: "Well, that's obvious, either it works on you, or it doesn't!"
No need to say, I bought the shampoo right away.
This makes a great point about people’s (mis)understanding of probability and statistic, and also really made me smile. However – this is a competition – and needs a winner… (drum roll…) – and I think the worst argument we encountered (from more than one submission) is the nationalistic deployment of bifurcation. It was captured by Shelley Campbell (one of our postgraduate students) when she wrote (in response to the original post):
Politicians use this one - if we are not heart-throbbing nationals then we are traitors. For example, "If you are not for us, you are against us."
Bifurcation is where you present the reader/listener with only two alternatives, and imply that if they reject/are not aligned with one, they agree with/are aligned with the other alternative by default.
I could speak to a student: are you going to do that essay today, or be a life-wasting loser who never achieves anything? It is not uncommon in many settings, and is a way of trying to preclude the discussion of other possibilities (are you going to give up your job, or do you not love me? - there are states of affairs that might combine some of the two? or third options?).
The argument is more sinister though when used to dismiss political views by claiming they are insufficiently patriotic / pro-British (in this case). In the recent discussion of 'British Jobs for British Workers' it was hard (should one have wished to do so) to criticise the protesters without seeming unpatriotic or anti-British: in cases of war, this can lead not only to faulty reasoning - but to death and loss of life...
What is so bad about bifurcation?
• It is effective – in the heat of an argument we often fall for it: thinking that if there are only two options, we must defend one – even if absurd – rather than allow the one we dislike to dominate.
• Often the person using it does not really see things in such stark terms themselves.
• It is ‘bad’ because it is used effectively all the time in politics – witness the scramble to prove oneself patriotic in the US elections.
• Beyond nationalism, bifurcation impoverishes political debates all around us: “if you disagree with me, you are an extremist of some sort” – this is a common, dangerous and fallacious strategy: the worst argument (in the broadest sense) that we came across…
Friday, February 06, 2009
Worst Argument - result soon - snow permitting..
Well, chaos here due to snow and ice (we can't cope in the UK with this weather) meaning two days of cancelled lectures, and a conference tomorrow.Nonetheless, the results of the 'Worst Argument' competition will be announced on this blog in the next few days...
d.
Monday, February 02, 2009
Worst Argument?
Click here: http://r-p-e.blogspot.com/2008/12/britains-worst-argument.html if you are looking for the 'worst argument' competition: we will be announcing a winner around the end of this week..
Cheers
Dave
Cheers
Dave
Monday, December 01, 2008
Britain's Worst Argument?
Following from some exercises I have done in classes, and after a chat with the RPE101 students I had a week or two ago – I have decided we could look for Britain’s Worst Argument.
This could be a formal fallacy of some sort - such as:
All philosophers are strange
Jeremy is strange
Therefore, Jeremy is a philosopher
As all students will recognise – this is an invalid piece of reasoning. The first statement only tells us that all philosophers are strange – not that all strange people are philosophers. Jeremy might be a strange plumber – a possibility left open by the first line (premise).
We may find more informal errors – such as people claiming that a point of view is correct because it is new, or indeed ‘ancient’ (as in ‘Ancient Wisdom), or popular.
Another popular approach is to suggest that someone is wrong due to their faults. My friend may be an ugly, smelly, and overbearing individual – but my telling him that does not mean that his argument about the matter at hand is wrong.
We might presume (often wrongly) that because one event precedes another – it causes the latter. E.g. I wore odd socks yesterday, then won at tennis: therefore my sock-wearing led to my victory - - this type of causal fallacy is often the basis for superstitions…
I would like to ask students – and other readers of this blog (anyone really) – to find us the worst pieces of reasoning they can find. International examples are welcome – but we will pick the winner from the British examples submitted…
Use the comment facility on this blog ( www.r-p-e.blogspot.com ) to submit them – or email them to me at dwebster@glos.ac.uk (say if you’re happy for me to post the argument on the blog when you email it).
We may even find a prize under some of the piles of books in my office…
We will post a blog story reporting on out findings (and the winner) in the New Year…
Happy hunting
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Need some help / examples?
See http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html
This could be a formal fallacy of some sort - such as:
All philosophers are strange
Jeremy is strange
Therefore, Jeremy is a philosopher
As all students will recognise – this is an invalid piece of reasoning. The first statement only tells us that all philosophers are strange – not that all strange people are philosophers. Jeremy might be a strange plumber – a possibility left open by the first line (premise).
We may find more informal errors – such as people claiming that a point of view is correct because it is new, or indeed ‘ancient’ (as in ‘Ancient Wisdom), or popular.
Another popular approach is to suggest that someone is wrong due to their faults. My friend may be an ugly, smelly, and overbearing individual – but my telling him that does not mean that his argument about the matter at hand is wrong.
We might presume (often wrongly) that because one event precedes another – it causes the latter. E.g. I wore odd socks yesterday, then won at tennis: therefore my sock-wearing led to my victory - - this type of causal fallacy is often the basis for superstitions…
I would like to ask students – and other readers of this blog (anyone really) – to find us the worst pieces of reasoning they can find. International examples are welcome – but we will pick the winner from the British examples submitted…
Use the comment facility on this blog ( www.r-p-e.blogspot.com ) to submit them – or email them to me at dwebster@glos.ac.uk (say if you’re happy for me to post the argument on the blog when you email it).
We may even find a prize under some of the piles of books in my office…
We will post a blog story reporting on out findings (and the winner) in the New Year…
Happy hunting
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Need some help / examples?
See http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)