Series: Logic and Critical Thinking

Problems of Philosophy: MIT Lecture Notes Available

This entry is part 12 of 12 in the series Logic and Critical Thinking

Butch found something we might want to explore. MIT Open Courseware Lecture Notes from Problems of Philosophy. Here are the topics covered and available (in pdf format):

Reason to Believe: Does God Exist?

Rationality and Belief

Mind and Body

Freewill, Determinism, and Responsibility

Morality and Right Conduct

In glancing over the different notes, I noticed they build on each other, so it might be best, if we’re interested, to go in order. There are other titles listed on the page, but they don’t have any links to pdf files, unfortunately. Is anyone interested? If so, what meetings would we have for these subjects? Your thoughts are welcome.

An Alternative to the Santa Lie For Secular Parents

This entry is part 11 of 12 in the series Logic and Critical Thinking

I know it’s Spring and no one wants to be thinking of christmas this time of year, but Joe sent me a paper called Ho, Ho, Hoax: The Case against Santa Claus by Ernâni Magalhães, Visiting Assistant Professor at WVU. It makes some excellent points which really got me thinking.

Before I read this paper, I thought Dale McGowan‘s take on Santa to be the best way to handle it. In a nutshell, he says Santa is a dry run for letting kids reason their way through the fact that Santa is a myth, to then figuring out that religion is mythical, as he puts it, Santa is “the ultimate dry run for a developing inquiring mind”. It makes sense in a way. But then Joe told me about his experience as a kid.

Joe really believed in Santa, the Easter Bunny, etc. Then one day a kid in the playground told him it was all a pack of lies. Joe believed him and went home crying. He was devastated. When Joe and I talked about the McGowan philosophy of Santa, I figured out that in theory it seems like a great idea, but maybe in practice it could backfire and cause a lot of unhappiness and pain for kids who don’t get to reason it out for themselves but are told by other children.

And is it necessary to lie to children about a mythical jolly old fat man? Does it increase their happiness, improve their moral fiber? Does it make them better little people, or better adults down the line? And is there an alternative to lying about Santa?

First, there are 3 alternatives, according to Ernâni:

Disbelief: The parent tells the child Santa Claus is not real
Neutrality: The parent does not inform the child one way or the other
Pretense: The parent invites the child to pretend there is a Santa Claus.(page 13)

…inviting to pretend there is a Santa Claus is morally superior to encouraging to believe. (14)

I never thought of this as an option, but it makes sense. You get all the good fun of Santa but you don’t get the lies and beliefs in those lies.

What about short term pleasure and pain? Here is what Ernâni has to say:

The extent to which the pleasure of children and adults justifies the Santa Claus lie depends on the amount of pleasure available from non-deceitful alternatives. The alternative that most closely replicates telling children there is a Santa Claus involves inviting children to pretend there is one. Although pretending something is real is fundamentally different from believing it is, as I have argued, many of the emotions evoked by an object believed to be real are also evoked by objects supposed to be fictional. Children and adults derive great pleasure from creatures of their imaginations, as witnessed by the large crowds at movie theaters. Children who are old enough to know she is fictional still derive great enjoyment from the pretense that Cinderella is a real person with real hopes. And, it is easy to replicate the gift-giving aspect of the Santa experience, which is surely a significant factor in the child’s enjoyment. (15-16)

Interesting and thought-provoking, don’t you think? This is even more important: Read the rest of this entry »

Here Be Dragons: An Introduction To Critical Thinking

This entry is part 10 of 12 in the series Logic and Critical Thinking

Brian Dunning offers this 4o minute video to introduce critical thinking. From his site he says, “Most people fully accept paranormal and pseudoscientific claims without critique as they are promoted by the mass media. Here Be Dragons offers a toolbox for recognizing and understanding the dangers of pseudoscience, and appreciation for the reality-based benefits offered by real science.”

Thanks, Gerald!

2012 Doomsday Fast Approaches!

This entry is part 9 of 12 in the series Logic and Critical Thinking

OMG, yo! Hide the good silver! Run for your lives! The Mayans say the world will end December 21, 2012 and that’s only 2 years and a month away! Whatever will we do?!

Of course the Mayans themselves didn’t survive till 2012, so maybe they aren’t the best group to ask about such things.

Recently a friend of mine mentioned the 2012 phenomenon as if it were true. Unfortunately I didn’t have the hard facts at my disposal so I told him it’s not going to happen and left it at that. But I thought I’d look up some more information so when your mother starts talking about the end of the world, you will have some facts to back you up.

Lucky for me, NASA and Wikipedia have pages to explain where the concept came from and what scientific basis there is for it (none, thank you very much).

Some people seem to love the idea of predicting cataclysmic events and the destruction of the world. Of course, since we’re still here, so far they have been wrong every time. That’s something in itself to consider.

NASA explains it all very succinctly in FAQ form:

Q: Are there any threats to the Earth in 2012? Many Internet websites say the world will end in December 2012.
A: Nothing bad will happen to the Earth in 2012. Our planet has been getting along just fine for more than 4 billion years, and credible scientists worldwide know of no threat associated with 2012. Read the rest of this entry »

Some Great Advice by Robert Gula

This entry is part 8 of 12 in the series Logic and Critical Thinking

Today (November 15) is our final look at Nonsense: Red Herrings, Straw Men and Sacred Cows: How We Abuse Logic in Our Everyday Language by Robert J. Gula.

I really wanted to share part of chapter 17 with you. Mr. Gula lists the most important principles to be gleaned from the rest of the book. I highly recommend getting the book and reading it. It has really helped me think more logically. The other thing it’s helped me with is to realize when someone has used a logical fallacy on me. I might not remember the name, but I remember that it is nonsense. It sort of gives me a red flag when someone uses bad logic in an argument. I think that’s pretty invaluable.

So here’s the list of important principles from Robert Gula: Read the rest of this entry »

Logical Fallacy: Correlation Does Not Imply Causation

This entry is part 7 of 12 in the series Logic and Critical Thinking

Here are several examples of people trying to use the logical fallacy of Correlation and Causation which is loosely defined as follows: Just because two events occur together does not mean that one caused the other. Or just because two variables have a connection does not automatically imply that one causes the other.

1. From a creationist website:

1. “All crime is a result of sin, and of course there was crime before Charles Darwin promoted evolution, but as the theory increased so did the crime rate. Today Creation is not taught, even as a theory, in our schools, therefore children have nothing to base their morality upon. As God has been removed from the classroom, so all kinds of evil has multiplied on our streets. Remove the Bible and you take away the conscience of the nation. Evolution has absolutely nothing to offer with regards to morality, no wonder then that our leaders have no answer to societies problems.”

In fact crime rates have been going down in recent years. Other western nations teach evolution, and they have lower crime rates than the US. Historically the south is the most anti-evolution of geographic regions. The south also has the highest crime rate of any region in the US.

Crime statistics by country
Crime reporting in the US (pdf: see pages 9 and 10, especially) Read the rest of this entry »

Logical Fallacy: Appeal To Emotion

This entry is part 6 of 12 in the series Logic and Critical Thinking

OK, we’ve all seen the ads on TV for some alarm company where some creep is watching an innocent woman or child or both and kicks open their front door in broad daylight. All of a sudden, an alarm shrieks to life, the criminal makes eye contact with his intended victim and runs off.

I can’t tell you how much these ads offend me. First of all, anyone psychotic enough to kick in the door of someone’s home in broad daylight is not going to turn tail and run off just because some alarm goes off. The first thing they are going to do is get hold of their victim to control their movements, that way they can keep them away from any exit or phone.

The next thing they’ll do is bind the victim with something so they can be controlled with minimal effort. So by the time the company monitoring the alarm system lets the phone ring the required number of times, they then have to determine whether it’s a genuine emergency or someone’s talking on their phone & just doesn’t want to answer the call-waiting signal (I do that all the time), they then call 911 to alert the authorities. You think the cops are going to show up in time to save you? Ask Nathan Lee how that worked out: 5 Calls To 911 Does Nothing To Help Except To Convict The Killer Read the rest of this entry »

Logical Fallacy: Cherry-Picking

This entry is part 5 of 12 in the series Logic and Critical Thinking

Cherry-Picking is when you count the hits and ignore the misses. It is used when only certain quotes, data, studies or research are used to support an argument while ignoring other valid and credible quotes, data, studies and research. In my personal experience, cherry-picking is rampant in the religious population.

Examples:

When christians speak of the bible, they invariably cherry-pick the parts that support whatever they are trying to get across. Homosexuality is a prime example (leviticus mentions it twice). Of course they don’t mind eating shellfish or wearing a poly-cotton blend shirt, which is expressly forbidden in subsequent chapters. We’ve all dealt with the hypocrisy of the old testament, especially the homosexuality issue. Instead I’m going to share a bit of the new testament, which most people use to show how kind and loving jesus was. I’ll stick to the gospels for this exercise, to make my point:

Here are a few examples of nice things that are in the bible.

Matthew 7:3-5: jesus says to avoid hypocrisy. Consider your own faults rather than criticizing others. Don’t tell your brother he’s got a mote in his eye when you have a beam in your own eye. (not an original idea, really, but it’s a good lesson)
Matthew 19:18-19: jesus talks about the commandments (notice he mentions 6 instead of 10, and the last one is not in the old testament. Also these are all secular commandments, not religious) Don’t murder, don’t cheat on your spouse, don’t steal, don’t lie, honor your parents, love your neighbor as yourself. (these are basically good rules, also not original)
Luke 6:31: The Golden Rule. As you would have others treat you, treat them likewise. (not an original idea, either, but a good way to live)

Of course, most christians ignore the more hateful things and skip over them, or apologetically dismiss them using other logical fallacies. Here are just a few: Read the rest of this entry »

How To Argue

This entry is part 4 of 12 in the series Logic and Critical Thinking

We’ve begun talking about logical fallacies and different arguments here and at the Freethinkers Morgantown Book Club. So hopefully this will be interesting and helpful to you.

Almost all of us argue or have discussions. But there’s actually a right way and lots of wrong ways to go about it. As an ethical person, I don’t really want to do it wrong because that’s being dishonest and unfair. I am definitely not a debater, which is where people actually use logical fallacies on purpose to win an argument. I don’t really care for debates because they seem forced to me. It’s about winning, not about finding out the truth. I think the main reason I hate arguing is because most people fight dirty. I am sure I’ve done it too, mainly out of ignorance. Now, with the following information, we can argue more logically.

Here is a pretty close transcript of a Skeptic’s Guide 5×5 podcast episode. It’s not exact, so you can listen to it to get everything I left out, which was where someone started a sentence or a thought and didn’t finish it, stuff like that. I also turned it into more of an article and less of a conversation. So really, it’s a companion to listening to the podcast (which is about 6 minutes) and for your convenience.

How To Structure A Logical Argument
by the Skeptics’ Guide 5×5, Episode 62, March 19, 2009 Read the rest of this entry »

You Are Wrong Because:

This entry is part 3 of 12 in the series Logic and Critical Thinking

Here’s something Rachel over at Morgantown Brights shared with me since we’ve been talking about logical fallacies lately.

Nothing can reduce your happiness faster than an argument with an irrational co-worker. You can’t win irrational people over to your side by your superior reasoning abilities. And you can’t talk them into getting inside abandoned refrigerators and closing the door to see if the light goes out. There simply aren’t that many abandoned refrigerators. If you use the refrigerator in the break room, everyone will start whining about how there’s no room for yogurt. Until there are more refrigerators, or less yogurt, you will find yourself in frustrating discussions that can have no good endings.Trying to win an argument with an irrational person is like trying to teach a cat to snorkel by providing written instructions. No matter how clear your instructions, it won’t work. Your best strategy is to reduce the time you spend in that sort of situation.

I have developed a solution to this problem. It is based on the fact that irrational people are easily persuaded by anything that has been published. It doesn’t matter who published it, or what the context is, or how inaccurate it is. Once something is published, it’s as persuasive as anything else that’s ever been published. So I figure that what you need is a publication that supports all of your arguments no matter what they are. This is that publication.

I have collected the most common arguments made by irrational people into a handy reference guide and titled it “You Are Wrong Because.” Circle the irrational arguments that apply to your situation and give a copy to the person who is bugging you. Look smug, as though this were conclusive evidence of your rightness. A rational person might point out that just because something is written down doesn’t make it so. But since you’re not giving the list to anyone with that much insight, it doesn’t really matter. What matters is that you will feel as though you brought closure to a potentially frustrating situation.

You Are Wrong Because:

For your convenience, I have circled the brain malfunction(s) that most closely resemble(s) the one(s) you recently made on the topic of (fill in topic): Read the rest of this entry »

Problems of Philosophy: MIT Lecture Notes Available

An Alternative to the Santa Lie For Secular Parents

Here Be Dragons: An Introduction To Critical Thinking

2012 Doomsday Fast Approaches!

Some Great Advice by Robert Gula

Logical Fallacy: Correlation Does Not Imply Causation

Logical Fallacy: Appeal To Emotion

Logical Fallacy: Cherry-Picking

How To Argue

You Are Wrong Because:

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Pages

Meta

Categories

Series

Subscribe to and Contact Us

Get Email Updates

Tag Happy

Links

Where To Find Us

Atheist Associations