I teach a class called “Effective Thinking”. It’s a little ironic, given that I am constantly arguing against traditional psychology’s view that our brains are computer-like information processing organs. In my view, the behavior of all organisms is emergent. It is the unconscious product of our biomechanics and sensory systems coupled dynamically with the environment. We should only point to deliberate conscious thought as a causal explanation after exhausting those alternative explanations. This is not to say we don’t think. We do, as does every animal. It’s just that assuming all (or even most) behavior originates from intellectual top-down information processing is demonstrably false. However, when we do engage in conscious reasoning, we like to think we are logical. Unfortunately, there are several ways logic fails to be useful.
One of the common failures of logic, and one I think can easily be avoided with some practice, is called the Straw Man fallacy. The Straw Man fallacy happens when you or your opponent in discourse fail to comprehensively understand the other’s argument and therefore argue against pseudo tenets of the position. The opposing ideas are just caricatures of the real argument. Examples of this failure are ubiquitous. Even amongst popular lecturers, it is commonplace. Sam Harris is venerated by many intellectuals as a careful thinker and for his disdain of religion. You can judge for yourself. He and I likely reach similar conclusions on some topics. However, in my experience with Harris, he regularly uses Straw Man arguments and analogies. He argues that humans can reach objective morality simply by judging on a scale of human suffering. Less human suffering is more moral, more suffering is less moral. While that sounds great (and obvious), for about 20 seconds, it runs into many problems. This post isn’t about Sam Harris, so in order to avoid falling into my own Straw Man fallacy, I will stop here.
How can we avoid the Straw Man fallacy? The key is being sincerely desirous of understanding the opposing view, rather than only looking for a win. Respect for the other is key. If you are not in direct dialogue with an intellectual adversary that can be difficult. They are not there to defend or clarify their position, so it is easy to misrepresent them. Language, while often helpful, is a major source of misunderstanding. It is essential to agree on the definitions of all terms in an argument and make clear all implicit assumptions to avoid Straw Man arguments. Many opponents only realize after debate is over, that their views were not that different from one another, simply because they failed to establish those guidelines.
Analogy is a technique often used in debate. While analogies can help clarify ideas, their use as proof in an argument is fallacious. A common American example is the saying that squeaky wheels get greased, therefore if you need something, you should speak up. In Asia, what appears to be the converse is argued - The nail that sticks up is the one that gets pounded down. Of course this is all nonsense. What does it mean for a wheel to be squeaky or a nail to stick up? Maybe the wheel needs to be replaced and the nail needs to be removed. I could go on, but I won’t. When analogies are simply used as justifications to support a conclusion already held, they are useless. It is not difficult to find just as many ways an analogy doesn’t fit the argument as it does.
A few useless but illustrative analogies I use to show the weakness of analogy:
Analogies in argument are as beautiful as they are useless. They are fine of course for other inconsequential matters, like poetry.
Using an analogy to support an argument is like using sawdust to support a roof. (which is an analogy for the uselessness of analogy, so by definition it is useless)
Analogies are for arguments what sex is for advertising.
Often in debate we get confused about the difference between truth and validity. A disappointing fact about logic, is that the relationship between truth and validity is not necessarily positively correlated. The tables below show how truth and validity in argument are related. Notice it is possible to have true or false conclusions using either valid or invalid arguments and true or false premises. Only when an argument is valid and the premises are true can we be certain of not reaching a false conclusion.
While there are rules about what is and is not a valid form of deductive argument, establishing the truth of premises is an inductive process that involves empirical verification. Philosopher David Hume called this the problem of induction. We can only know with probability whether an observation is repeatable. Some of those seem very certain - like the earth rotating so we see the sun tomorrow - but they are not deductively and certainly true as established by some all encompassing law or rule.
Intellectuals tend to be very good at the mental exercise of deductive logic as they love any mental puzzles and games. They often assume that if their argument follows a valid form, their conclusions are unassailable. As the table shows, this is a fallacy. The truth of premises must be established as well. As I argued in another newsletter, this is where intellectuals are particularly inept. Their detachment from reality often means they have little personal experience with which to verify truth. Their approach is setting up an extensive study in a laboratory simulation rather than gaining real experience. Thus, they tend to accept as true whatever argument seems to have a valid form, or research that is only a simulation of reality.
It’s not that intellectuals can’t determine truth, it’s just that they are disadvantaged differently than non-intellectuals. Non-intellectuals may not expertly engage with math, logic and other activities of the intellect, but they do have a contact with reality that seems to confer to them a natural selection advantage. The reason I am relentlessly dogging intellectuals is not because reason is worthless. However, I think reverence for intellectualism is misguided and thus it has a disproportionate position of power and authority in society. Non intellectuals, as caricatured by Forest Gump, often don’t seek to control others in order to shape the world into some unattainable utopia. They are busy living. They assume (and I think correctly) that solutions to problems will emerge from the dynamic of empiricism and reason; solutions that intellect alone can not imagine, let alone predict.
I am certainly not alone in criticizing intellectualism. Economist (and intellectual) Thomas Sowell, for one, has done so his entire career, including writing the book, Intellectuals and Society. However, today anti-intellectualism has become synonymous with all sorts of Bogeyman ideas and movements. It has been twisted into a Straw Man, a euphemism for Neanderthal stupidity. I think Forest’s mom was right, stupid is as stupid does.
If you think others might like my musings and rants, hit share.
Share this post