RECOGNISING DODGY ARGUMENTSHOW VALUES, BIASES AND DODGY ARGUMENTS MISLEAD US

TAKING SHORTCUTS IN RESPONSE TO INFORMATION OVERLOADAdvances in communications technologies mean that we are bombarded with more information than ever before and have less and less time to analyse it.

This means:

> Mental shortcuts replace careful scrutiny of information (So we haven’t lost the ability, we have lost the time to use our ability),

> it is easier to become a victim of misinformation and wonky logic.

Mental shortcuts are ways we handle complex information with minimal effort, such as using intuition or stereotypes. They work well most of the time, but sometimes they can make us overconfident in an idea that is based on faulty logic.

And although most of us like to think we consider things reasonably, our fears, faiths and beliefs can sometimes have too strong an influence on our thinking.

Unfortunately it is easier to recognise this in others than ourselves.

This booklet will help you assess the information and arguments that you face daily in modern society. Thinking critically lets you find flaws in claims and arguments and to determine logically whether statements are valid or need challenging.

?Fe

LOGICAL THINKING

“Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end.”

Commander Spock, Star Trek

Many issues are science-related; think climate change, stem cells and genetically modified foods. This booklet considers critical thinking as it relates to these and other areas of scientific debate.

Scientific reasoning attempts to rely on critical thinking, using evidence and logic, not emotion, to test ideas and reach conclusions. But it is human nature to use a mix of logic and emotion in forming our opinions. And unfortunately these elements may work against each other, and we can emotionally reject an argument despite logic showing it to be true.

Psychological studies show we tend to be selective with the information or evidence we accept or reject. We accept information that supports our existing beliefs or values and reject everything else regardless of how scientifically robust it is.1 So when we think we’re reasoning, we’re often rationalising.

The following are examples of wonky logic that you may encounter.

1 Binder, Scheufele, Brossard, & Gunther, (2011). Interpersonal amplification of risk? Citizen discussions and their influence on risk and benefit perceptions of a biological research facility. Risk Analysis.

A VALUABLE ARGUMENT?

The decisions we make are to a large extent determined by the values we hold – how we think things should be.

Our values can often conflict with evidence, resulting in a decision based on what we’re most comfortable with, and not a careful weighing up of the alternatives.

An example of this is in the debates over genetically modified (GM) foods and crops.

Many people’s position on GM crops is based on how they value things, such as ‘natural’ versus ‘artificial’; or anti- or pro-commercial companies involvement in the technology, or general concerns over the rapid pace of adoption of science and technology in society.

“No mistake is more common and more fatuous than appealing to logic in cases which are beyond her jurisdiction.”Samuel Butler, Novelist

Because of these values, people may ignore evidence and logic, such as the argument that modern breeding also creates artificial plants, or evidence that commercial monopolies influence which GM plants are commercialised.

Be careful that you’re not falling victim to the mental shortcut of simply agreeing with a position that aligns with your own values, or that you are filtering evidence on the basis of those values.

In science, there is a useful approach known as falsification. Consider your position and try to find evidence or arguments to challenge it. If it holds up despite this challenge, you can be more confident about it.

GETTING PERSONAL

“Truth starts with truth and ends with truth.”

Santosh Kalwar, Author

Some arguments focus on the person rather than on what they’re saying. You may trust the opinions of someone you know, or like. Conversely, you may

reject arguments simply because they are from someone whose reputation you question or who

represents an organisation or an interest group whose values you don’t share.

GETTING PERSONAL

A sporting analogy is ‘playing the player instead of the ball’.

The debate over climate science is a prime example, with believers and detractors citing the credibility of spokespeople whose values they align with, rather than citing the credibility of their data.

Suggesting a conclusion is logical because an expert made it is a poor argument. Climate change is a concern not because the experts say so, but because the scientific evidence indicates that climate change is a real concern.

Why a man of straw? Think of the traditional scarecrow: its purpose is to scare birds away from crops by looking like a person, but up close it can be easily picked apart.

Straw man arguments seek to discredit an idea by exaggerating, simplifying or subtly twisting the premises in the idea, then forming an argument that attacks this false representation.

An example might be citing a study that found one type of GM food that had failed a safety test, then using that as evidence that all GM foods are dangerous. This is a straw man argument that seeks to support a conclusion which is both exaggerated and over-simplified.

“People without brains do an awful lot of talking, don’t they?”The Straw Man, The Wizard of Oz

MAN WHO WASTHE

STRAW

Another might be misrepresenting or cherry-picking data. For example, a number of experts have looked at global temperature data and found evidence for cooling, but others pointed out that the data was over a limited time period and didn’t consider all the data.

You should also be mindful that these arguments can be deceptive or misleading, and couched in terms that dissuade you from considering other options or solutions.

How to recognise straw men? Have a close look and try to take apart their arguments, or consider other people who disagree and look at the logic and evidence of both. Which is more solid?

MADE OF

A PR

ECAU

TION

ARY

TALE

Some arguments against the introduction of new technologies can be based on a lack of 100 per cent certainty that a technology is safe.

There are many examples. These include the regularly raised question of whether electro-magnetic radiation from mobile phone handsets causes cancer, or whether nano-sized particles in consumer products can cause harm.

“If e

very

con

ceiv

able

pre

caut

ion

is ta

ken

at fi

rst,

one

is o

ften

too

disc

oura

ged

to p

roce

ed a

t all.

”

Arch

er J

. P. M

artin

, Nob

el L

aure

ate

The precautionary principle as it relates to the environment states that where the scientific evidence is uncertain, decision-makers should take action to limit continued environmental damage and should err on the side of caution when evaluating proposals that may seriously or irreversibly impact on the environment.2 But proceeding with caution is not stopping.

Many opponents of individual technologies take the precautionary principle to extremes, claiming that any uncertainty warrants a moratorium on activity or development until there is complete proof of its suitability and safety.

Scientifically, complete proof is impossible, as you can prove that something is safe several times, but you can’t prove it will always be safe.

Erring on the side of excessive caution affects technological progress. In the case of mobile communication technology, this would mean mobile phone development would still be in its infancy. In other fields, it would mean fewer health and medical advancements and fewer agricultural technologies for food production.

You, like society as a whole, need to consider what risks are worth taking for what benefits.

2 http://www.aph.gov.au/Library/pubs/rn/1997-98/98rn04.htm

AN INDEFENSIBLE DEFENCE

“To argue with a person who has renounced reason is like administering medicine to the dead.” Thomas Paine, Author

Human psychology is a peculiar thing. Experiments show that we first seek out information that supports our existing positions and dismiss or ignore information that goes against them, and second, when we adopt a position on anything we are very reluctant to give it up – even in the face of solid evidence that contradicts that position.3 Indeed, in many cases, being shown contrary evidence can make people more strongly defend their original position.4

So how do you challenge people’s wonky logic?

The most effective methods rely on:

> framing messages that align with the values of the person you are talking to,

> keeping facts simple (and simpler than the statements of faulty logic),

> keeping your arguments free from your own emotional biases,

> talk about the outcomes of research, not the processes,

> Referring to spokespeople those you are talking to trust, and

> using pictures and graphs to reinforce a factual argument.

It also helps to be respectful of other people, particularly of their values, and to allow yourself to learn from other people’s perspectives, all the while keeping a watchful eye on logic and evidence.

3 Druckman, J. & Bolsen, T., (2011), Framing, Motivated Reasoning, and Opinions about Emergent Technologies. Journal of Communication.

4 Nyhan and Reifler, (2010), When Corrections Fail: The persistence of political misperceptions, Political Behavior.

www.technyou.edu.au

http://education.technyou.edu.au/critical-thinking

www.youtube.com.au/techNyouvids

www.facebook.com/talkingtechnology

Authorised by the Australian Government, Capital Hill, Canberra. Printed by SOS Print & Media, 65 Burrows Road, Alexandria, 2015.

SUGGESTED READING:Blur: How to Know What’s True in the Age of Information Overload, By Bill Kovach and Tom RosenstielSlow thinking, fast thinking, by Dan KanehanThe Debunking Handbook, by John Cook and Stephan LewandowskyTribal Science by Mike McRae

Printed and Freecard Media Australia All Rights Reserved 2012 #16297 Distributed: 55% Recycled + Carbon Neutral www.avantcard.com.au