Hello everyone and welcome to improve your thinking. I’m your host Kevin Browne and today I want to talk about cogent biases and fallacies.
Here’s an example of something you’ve probably done before. You’re shopping at Amazon.com and you have $30.00 worth of merchandise in your shopping cart. When you check out your total (with shipping) comes to $37.00. You can get free shipping if you spend at least $35.00 so you look for another item to add to your cart. You find one priced at $12.00 and add it. Now your total (with free shipping) comes to $42.00. So, have you saved any money? No! You’ve spent more merely to get free shipping. This is a perfect example of what economists call irrational behavior. You were trying to save money and in the process ended up spending more. The interesting thing about this example, and many others we could cite, is that they are predictable. That is, we all are susceptible to cognitive biases, but our responses to them are not random. We are, to use the title of Dan Ariely’s book, Predictably Irrational. A common viewpoint students express in the classes I teach is that everyone thinks differently. Within a narrow range of options, this is true. But, in the larger scheme of things, it is very definitely false. Ariely’s research shows that the kinds of mistakes we make in our reasoning process are not random and not all that variable. In fact, the entire idea of cognitive biases is based on the idea that our thinking patterns have more in common than they do differences. There should be nothing very surprising about this since we are all wired up the same as human beings. Our brains are configured pretty much the same and the variations occupy a relatively narrow range. So, if you’re like most people you don’t think you’re like most people. But, you’re wrong about this! Here are some other things you probably think about yourself that you are quite likely wrong about. Don’t feel bad about this because you’re not alone. We’re all wrong about many of these things and we’re all wrong in basically the same way. You probably think you’re an above-average driver. In fact, the majority of people think this. But, it can’t be the case since “above average” is a category the majority cannot fit into. You may also think you have above-average intelligence and are above average in how you look. Again, most people think this way and most cannot be right about it. If you’re like most people you probably overestimate how well you can plan things, underestimate how much time you will need to get a given task done, and procrastinate more than you think you do. What behavioral economists like Dan Ariely do is to study how we are predictably irrational and how to improve our decision making given our propensity to succumb to cognitive biases. Finally, if you're like most people you easily fall prey to confirmation bias. This is one of the most important cognitive biases to understand and guard against. It is the propensity we all have to only look for evidence in favor of our beliefs and ignore the evidence against our beliefs. This occurs in most areas of debate. If you follow political discussions you have seen this (and probably also fallen prey to it). You know the arguments for your belief and you think they are good arguments. You also "know" that the arguments for the other side of the debate are bad arguments and the people who hold these beliefs are ill-informed. But, this is what the confirmation bias leads us to think. In fact, most people don't have a clear understanding of both sides of whatever issue they are debating. They don't realize that there are good arguments for the other side and that people hold these positions for good reasons. That doesn't mean that all arguments are equal and that there aren't bad arguments. But, we tend to see the bad in ideas that other people hold, not our own. This can be very dangerous, especially when this bias leads us to make bad decisions in our own lives or our social policies. In light of this, let’s consider some common mistakes in reasoning; what we call fallacies. We should attend to these for two reasons. First, we want to be able to identify these mistakes if they occur in arguments we hear. Second, we should familiarize ourselves with fallacies to avoid committing them ourselves. I won’t address all of the fallacies usually covered in a logic course but here are four of the most common. 1. Ad Hominem: (Sometimes referred to as argument against the person) In this fallacy, the arguer attacks the person instead of attacking the person's argument. It is often very difficult to keep these two separate. Does the following seem like a good argument? Bill Gilmore has argued for increased funding for the disabled. But nobody should listen to that argument. Gilmore is a slob who cheats on his wife, beats his kids, and never pays his bills on time. In fact, it is not a good argument because instead of criticizing Gilmore's argument for funding the disabled, the criticism is about Gilmore himself. In fact, it is irrelevant to his argument whether he does any of those other things. While they are reprehensible, the fact that these things are true does not necessarily mean his argument for increased funding for the disabled is a bad argument. If you listen to political arguments you often hear people criticize others for their motives, call them evil, or just insult them. All of these are examples of the argument against the person fallacy. While this can be an effective tactic for motivating people who already agree with you, it does nothing to address the real arguments on any given issue. 2. false dichotomy is a fallacy that relates to arguments that contain two choices. For example, Either I get into law school or my life is over. This would be an example of a false either/or statement. Usually, it is obvious what conclusion should be drawn so often the argument is not completely stated. Many political issues are framed as either/or choices. You’re either pro-life or pro-choice, you’re either for gun control or against it. framing arguments this way is very persuasive but also often misleading as they hide the possibility of a third option that might be both more reasonable and more achievable as a solution to the problem. 3. Begging the question: occurs in two ways. First, it can occur when you leave out a questionable premise in your argument, a premise that is required for the argument to work. Here’s an example from a logic textbook, “It’s obvious that the poor in this country should be given handouts from the government. After all, these people earn less than the average citizen.” This argument is not answering a key question. In other words it is begging the question. In this case the question is: Just because the poor earn less than the average citizen, does this imply that the government spoiled give them handouts?” Notice, that the answer to this question could be yes or no. The problem with the argument is that the question is not addressed at all and so no examination of the evidence either way has been considered. A second way this fallacy is committed is by arguing in a circle by having the conclusion of your argument serve as one of the premises as well. This is often referred to as circular reasoning. Here’s another textbook example: Capital punishment is justified for the crimes of murder and kidnapping because it is quite legitimate and appropriate that someone be put to death for having committed such hateful and inhuman acts. This argument might sound persuasive until you examine it closely. To say that something is justified is the same as to say it is legitimate and appropriate. Claiming that something is legitimate and appropriate is not proving that something is justified merely restating it. 4. Red Herring: In red herring what usually happens is that the critic just drifts away from the original subject; hoping that the audience will forget what the original argument was! Here's an example: Environmentalists argue that the use of pesticides on fruits and vegetables is dangerous to our health. But, fruits and vegetables contain many essential nutrients that can prevent disease and promote health. According to the FDA, one of the best sources of vitamin C is orange juice, and vegetables like broccoli contain a healthy dose of minerals such as iron. Clearly, fruits and vegetables are important to our health. Now, what was the original argument? It was about pesticides. But, then look what happens. The critic proceeds to change the subject to talk about vitamins and minerals. This has nothing to do with whether the environmentalists are correct about the dangers of pesticides! Classic red herring fallacy. There are many other fallacies but these are some of the most common ones you’re likely to hear in political debates. Identifying them is an important step in the process of thinking like a philosopher which means that you ask more questions and demand better answers. You also demand that arguers stop using these fallacies and address substantive arguments and evidence. If you’ve enjoyed this episode I invite you to subscribe and visit me online at kevinjbrowne.com. Thanks for listening and I’ll see you on the next episode.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
kevin j. brownePhilosopher | Educator Archives
July 2022
improve your thinking: The course |