Tips on Arguing: Inductive Reasoning

In ancient Greece, philosophers and thinkers invented a process for arriving at truths about the world that we know today as deduction. These processes relied on taking general statements about the world and applying various logical rules to them in order to answer particular questions.

Deduction was enormously useful, especially in mathematics. It is deductive reasoning that led to the Pythagorean theorem, a general statement that works with every right triangle you will ever encounter.

Deduction had weaknesses, however, because it could give you answers that did not fit your observations. That was what drove the seventeenth-century English philosopher Francis Bacon to popularize a new way of organizing thought: induction.

Inductive reasoning takes deduction and flips it around. Instead of inventing axioms and applying them to specific observations, induction worked by collecting numerous observations and then deriving general principles from the amassed observations.

By giving precedence to observations over theories, Bacon's empirical approach provided a springboard for a great leap forward in the study of the natural sciences. If you collected 100 observations and 99 of them could not be explained with your current theory, the theory would have to be changed.

The modern scientific method is dependent upon inductive reasoning. However, Bacon himself warned against equating the two. Induction is only half of science. Eventually, enough observations have been collected to develop a strong theory.

At that point, the theory becomes the standard for future observations, thus allowing us to once again use deduction. Our observation of a heavier-than-air jet does not lead us to conclude that gravity is being violated – we know that the plane is in fact operating according to the rules of gravity. We also assume those rules are consistent, or else we could never be sure if the next jet would get off the ground.

Induction is incredibly versatile, and it encourages a healthy skepticism about statements that can't be verified by facts. If used properly, this form of reasoning is one of the best ways to align your ideas and beliefs with empirical reality.

Tips on Arguing: Admit When You're Wrong

-->

We’d all like to win our arguments. We’d all like to believe that our positions are the “right” ones. We’d all like to have the facts on our side.

           

But life isn’t that simple. Circumstances change. New facts are discovered, and sometimes they challenge even the staunchest of beliefs. “Truth” rarely remains unchanged over the long run. To be able to argue effectively, you have to be prepared to be wrong.

           

That’s easier said than done, though. Even if you recognize on an intellectual level that your statements and beliefs are subject to change, actually admitting and acting upon it can have some unpalatable consequences: embarrassment; suspicion from others; loss of one’s job; legal action.

           

In the long term, however, refusing to admit a mistake or clinging to an outdated notion is a losing gambit.

           

Consider the Toyota recall debacle that began in late 2009. It was revealed that Toyota had been neglecting safety concerns in several of its models long before it recalled any cars. The public backlash was devastating. Within two weeks, research by Kelley Blue Book estimated that “27 percent of those who said they were considering a Toyota prior to the recall now say they no longer are considering the brand for their next vehicle purchase.” Of those disillusioned car buyers, about half said they weren’t sure if they would consider buying a Toyota after the company’s problems were resolved.

           

It was a huge hit for Toyota, which still had to recall over 6.5 million vehicles and temporarily shut down several North American plants.

           

The damage to Toyota’s brand – and the deaths caused by its negligence – could have been minimized if the executives had been willing to recognize their errors. The company didn’t escape the negative consequences of public apology, either. Embarrassment, mistrust, and legal penalties were all amplified by Toyota’s inaction.

           

It can be hard to be open about your failings. It can be hard to abandon your established beliefs, especially if they’re central to your life or work. Eventually, though, it’s always much harder not to admit when you're wrong.

Tips on Arguing: Argument from Authority

If someone told you that alchemy must be a legitimate science because Isaac Newton practiced it, would you start trying to turn lead into gold?

Of course not. Yet that is exactly how the argument from authority works – by replacing logic and evidence with the name of a respected or powerful person.

Whenever your hear such a name used to back up an argument, you should immediately ask yourself two questions:

First, is the named person a relevant expert on the topic? Francis Crick is a legitimate authority on genetics. Oprah Winfrey is not. If, however, you are discussing media entrepreneurship, Winfrey's perspective could offer valuable insights.

Second, does the authority's position make sense? Although Isaac Newton had reasons to believe alchemy might be true in his day, the evidence has since led us to abandon transmutation for modern chemistry. It does not makes sense to practice alchemy based on Newton's stance on the matter.

The inherent caveat of any argument from authority is this: no matter how high on the totem pole a person may be, no matter how much expertise on a subject he or she may have, it is always possible to make mistakes. Even the brightest of us is still only human.

Whenever someone flashes a big name to boost an argument, always be suspicious. Names are only as good as the ideas behind them.

Tips on Arguing: Necessary and Sufficient Conditions

The phrase “necessary and sufficient conditions” is one of those pieces of jargon that are used across a wide range of fields. It pops up in papers on science, philosophy, mathematics, and even social issues. Knowing what it means can save you a lot of undue confusion.

Although the terms “necessary and sufficient” are often used together, they are really two separate things: necessary conditions, and sufficient conditions. Each has a distinct function.

Necessary conditions are required for an effect to take place. However, they do not guarantee that the effect will occur. In logic, they can be phrased as “without x, there can be no y.”

For example, a temperature of 32 degrees Fahrenheit or below is a necessary condition for snow, because anything warmer will result in rain. But a cold day doesn’t always bring snow. It could just as easily be cold and sunny.

Sufficient conditions, on the other hand, do guarantee that an effect will occur. They can be phrased as “if x, then y.”

With a sufficient condition, though, the same effect can also occur for some other reason.

If, for instance, the president signs a bill given to him by Congress (a sufficient condition), it automatically becomes a law (the effect).

However, it doesn’t have to happen that way. The president could veto the bill, and Congress could vote to override his veto. In that case, the bill still becomes a law, even though it wasn’t signed.

The difference between the two types of conditions may seem subtle, but the distinction has profound implications. In the situation of the bill, the president’s signature is not a necessary condition, because it can be overturned by another branch of government. Our entire system of “checks and balances” depends on these careful divisions of necessary conditions and sufficient conditions.

If you are trying to convince someone of your position in an argument, you usually want your conditions to be both necessary and sufficient. It is the strongest indication that two events are causally linked, because this kind of condition always leads to the effect, and the effect cannot happen without it.

The application of heat is both a necessary and a sufficient condition for cooking. You can’t cook without heat, and heating food guarantees that it will cook. Cooking is, in fact, defined as what happens to food when heat is applied to it. They always occur together.

If you take a little time to learn some common academic expressions, you’ll be more prepared when you inevitably encounter the seemingly impenetrable language of many documents.

Tips on Arguing: Primary and Secondary Sources

When you’re conducting research for an essay, a debate, or a report, you will often come across multiple sources of information about the same event or topic. How can you tell which of these to use?

One of the most tried-and-true methods for “ranking” information is to distinguish between primary and secondary sources.

A guide to research published by the University of Maryland says that primary sources “are from the time period involved and have not been filtered through interpretation or evaluation. Primary sources are original materials on which other research is based.”

Examples of primary sources include things like eyewitness accounts, photographs, newspaper articles from the time and place you’re researching, and physical objects (bones, pottery, coins, and so forth).

Primary sources are considered the gold standard in all academic research, as well as in journalism. The reason is simple: if you get your facts second-hand, you have no way to be sure that they’re accurate.

Secondary sources do have uses, though. Encyclopedias like Wikipedia are considered secondary sources; they pull information together from primary sources to give an overview of a topic. In this way, secondary sources can help someone to learn the basics of a new subject.

These kinds of sources are also great places to get commentary and analysis, because they often draw from multiple viewpoints or discoveries and make connections between ideas.

The quality of a secondary source can be tough to judge, which is why citations are so vital. If there are references, then the reader can go back and look at the primary sources that were used to find out whether or not the secondary source is accurate.

A simple example is Wikipedia’s entryfor “primary source.” The first sentence of the entry says, “Primary source is a term used in a number of disciplines to describe source material that is closest to the person, information, period, or idea being studied.” After that, there appear two citations: one links to the University of Maryland’s definition. You can go to the original definition, and see that although Wikipedia’s wording is slightly different, the idea is accurate. You can be confident in this case that Wikipedia didn’t just make it up or leave out important information.

As the entry goes on, it offers more citations – 31 in all, plus links to other outside sources, similar entries, and so on. This robust suite of references is what makes Wikipedia a valuable tool, because you can find hundreds of primary sources collected in one place.

Teachers have probably warned you against citing Wikipedia. They’re right to do so, but not because Wikipedia is deceitful or inaccurate (it does occasionally make mistakes, but so does everyone). The reason you shouldn’t cite it is that it is academically lazy not to read the primary sources for yourself.

Tips on Arguing: Vet Your Facts

Vetting your facts simply means looking into them. It may sound like this should go without saying, but failing to double-check a source is one of the most common ways that misinformation spreads.

Internet databases and search engines have given people access to more information than ever. But not all information is created equal. Public relations departments disguise their self-advertising to look like news stories. Poltical groups shape the presentation of facts to fit their agendas. Groups peddling pseudo-science publish their own journals, and conspiracy theorists sometimes make stories up out of whole-cloth.

Even if you are using a well-respected source, there is always a chance that human error will creep in. If you read New York Times articles that are more than a few days old, you may see corrections posted at the bottom of the page. It’s not because they weren’t careful the first time around – it’s because new information has overturned a previous statement, or new sources have provided further details.

There are several ways to get your facts straight, though none is foolproof. Whenever you can, you should always use a primary source over a secondary one. Primary sources tend to be more accurate and deliver more nuances.

Cross-checking is a simple way to make sure your facts are legitimate. If one source says A is true, find a different source – one that is independent of your first source - and see if it says the same thing. If your second source says that B is true, you’ll have to do more research to figure out which is closer to the truth.

If you’re drawing facts from scholarly journals or books, go through their references. Did the “fact” about Thomas Jefferson’s beliefs come from a document he wrote or from Wikipedia? If it came from Wikipedia, it might be correct – but the chances for error are higher.

Another tool often used by researchers to determine whether a given scholarly article is widely accepted by the academic community is to find out how many times it’s been cited by other papers. The more citations, the more likely it is to be useful information.

Unfortunately, there is no perfect way to vet your facts. Eyewitnesses remember things inaccurately. Typing, writing, and speaking mistakes are common. Personal biases can cloud even the most intelligent person’s assessment of a situation.

Vetting your facts is, however, the best way to minimize your own errors. It doesn’t mean that you’ll get everything right, but it will prevent you from getting a whole lot of things wrong.

Tips on Arguing: The Moving Goalpost

Imagine that you’re playing a game of football, and you make a field goal from the 10-yard line. Now imagine that the referee decides not to count your kick. Instead, he orders the goalpost to be moved back an additional ten yards. You make the goal again. He decides it’s still not good enough, and has it moved back another ten yards.

Would you think this was fair?

In argumentation, “moving the goalpost” refers to a similar tactic. Your opponent gives a certain criteria for you to meet, or asks for certain evidence. Then, once you provide it, he or she changes the criteria. It’s an extremely common fallacy, and one that can perpetuate a false controversy for years.

Perhaps the most famous modern example of moving the goalpost exists in the anti-vaccination movement. Concerns over whether vaccines cause autism actually began in the late 1990’s, in Great Britain. According to Michael Fitzpatrick, a British physician and author of several books and articles on the subject, the controversy began with a research paper published by a gastroenterologist named Andrew Wakefield and twelve co-authors (ten of whom later issued a partial retraction) in the journal The Lancet (which formally retracted the entire article last year).

The study looked at twelve children, nine of whom were autistic, who had experienced a form of intestinal inflammation that Wakefield speculated during a press conference was caused by the MMR vaccine. The media seized on it. Many subsequent studies thoroughly debunked his claims, but by then it was too late – the seeds had been planted in popular culture.

As the aftershocks of Wakefield's claims rippled through the U.K., he brought his concerns to the U.S. Only this time, the blame wasn’t laid on MMR; it was placed instead on a preservative called thimerosal, which contained a small amount of mercury. The argument was that because mercury is a known neurotoxin, it could be causing damage to a child’s normal development. This neglected the fact that the dose of mercury was well below dangerous thresholds. It also ignored the fact that there was no causal evidence to suggest a connection.

But that didn’t matter. The goalpost had effectively been moved.

Despite further research that found no link between thimerosal and autism, the U.S. government finally conceded to have the preservative removed from most vaccines in the early 2000’s. Autism rates, as one would expect, were not affected.

Eventually, critics of vaccines had to drop this second line of argument. That hasn’t made them any more reasonable, however. Over the past few years, they’ve built a whole new campaign around the idea that vaccines contain a debilitating cocktail of “toxins.” Antivaccinationists now target this brew as the cause of autism.

In a 2008 article for the blog Science-Based Medicine, surgical oncologist David Gorski unpacked, piece-by-piece, the emptiness of that approach: “for example, they either ignorantly or willfully confuse ethylene glycol (antifreeze, which is not in vaccines) with polyethylene glycol (a polymer of ethylene glycol, a chemically different compound which is in some vaccines and is also in a number of skin creams, tooth paste, and medications, including laxatives)…they’ll also rant on and on about formaldehyde, neglecting the fact that most people are exposed in a single day to more formaldehyde…than babies are exposed to from their entire vaccine schedule.”

Although Gorski and others have the facts on their side, they’re unlikely to convince the opponents of vaccines, no matter how much proof is provided. As long as the goalpost keeps being moved, it remains impossible to score.

Tips on Arguing: Decorative Statistics

At the end of 2008, National Public Radio commentator Frank Deford railed against a growing trend among sports aficionados that he found downright annoying.

“It's getting harder for the statistics freaks in all sports to dream up anything original,” he said. “And so I began to notice that a whole new category of stupid records was now being created.”

Deford went on to list some of the most convoluted stats he had come across, such as the following:

“’He's the only pitcher in’ - get this – ‘the last 4,113 to debut with 10 strikeouts and no walks.’”

Whoever came up with the above statistic had to work hard to make it sound impressive. And it might be effective for the casual observer, who is likely to see the words “only pitcher” followed by a large number and assume that this “record” is significant.

But look a little more carefully, and the emptiness behind the number becomes apparent.

The most glaring problem here is the seemingly arbitrary range of 4,113 pitchers. This pitcher’s record would be meaningful, if, say, it was the first time it had ever happened. That’s apparently not the case, or else the author of the statistic would have said so. Chances are that the reason the statistician picked 4,113 as a starting point is that pitcher number 4,114 had the exact same record (or better).

It turns out that 4,113 isn’t even a big number when put into context. The website MLB.com lists over 1,100 current pitchers in Major League Baseball alone – never mind the other leagues. Granted, not every one gets replaced every season. Still, it only takes a decade at most to see 4,113 new pitchers.

That’s the nature of all decorative statistics: they’re relatively mundane numbers that are tweaked to look more impressive.

Decorative statistics are rife in the sports world, but they can be found in other arenas as well.

Take movies. The 2009 film Avatar was heralded as the highest grossing movie of all time, at approximately $761 million in domestic sales, according to Boxofficemojo.com.

It is the highest, until you adjust for inflation. Measured in today’s dollars, Gone with the Wind weighs in at over $1.6 billion in domestic sales, blowing those Na’vi out of the water. Avatar doesn’t even make the top ten.

Tips on Arguing: Don't Exaggerate

Image by Brandon T. Bisceglia.

Arguments lend themselves to hyperbole, especially when they become heated. You’ve probably had an experience similar to this: you’re trying to prove a point to a friend who refuses to see the err of his or her ways. Out of frustration you begin to exaggerate the details of the situation, until your case begins to look like a matter of life-and-death. You finally convince the other person.

But as you walk away, a voice in the back of your mind tells you that your friend now has an over-inflated and oversimplified sense of the argument – that you’ve given him or her an inaccurate picture.

There’s a real danger to allowing the facts to get blown out of proportion. Like the children’s game of telephone, the next person your friend talks to is likely to get an even more warped version of the story than the one you told. After a few iterations, the idea itself may become utterly ridiculous to those who hear it – and the people who tell it may look like nuts.

Debates in the summer of 2009 over the nature of government-sponsored health care are a classic example of this. Folks on the political right who could have made viable arguments to defend their beliefs based on economics, constitutional principles, and common sense instead turned to exaggeration in order to rile the emotions of the electorate.

The result? Comparisons of president Obama’s administration to Nazism. Claims that Britain would have allowed Stephen Hawking to die, rather than pay to treat his amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) – despite the fact that Hawking is British. Protests about non-existent “death panels.” And ultimately, the complete loss of respect for the legitimate activists in the conservative arena, whose well-reasoned objections got drowned in the din.

It can be difficult to rein your arguments in when you feel passionate about something. If you don’t do it, though, you run the risk of undermining the validity of your entire position. Staying rooted firmly in the facts and avoiding uninformed speculation will, in the end, do more of a service for your argument than any overblown rhetoric.

Tips on Arguing: Avoid Hypocrisy

Hypocrisy is generally defined as saying one thing while doing something that contradicts it. It can be summed up in the phrase, “practice what you preach.”

Safeguarding against hypocrisy is a boost to any argument you make. When you profess to believe in something, people will look for concrete examples of that belief. If they see that you aren’t following your own example, then they may conclude that you have some other motive for what you say, such as getting money or support from a certain group.

Just because someone acts hypocritically doesn’t mean that his or her argument is invalid. A smoker who discourages her children from smoking has good reasons for doing so. Those reasons are not cancelled out by the smoker’s habit.

Hypocrisy does, however, tend to undermine the arguer by complicating his or her claims, and that’s why it helps to avoid acting contradictorily.

Avoiding hypocrisy can be more difficult than it sounds at first. In the course of our lives, we frequently change our positions on multiple issues. Someone who is a heroin addict at 18 but becomes a drug counselor at 28 might be accused of hypocrisy. Strictly speaking, though, the accusation would be wrong – the former addict’s change of action would be consistent with his change of opinion.

There are also different levels of hypocrisy. For example, the Connecticut Post published an assessment of Bridgeport Mayor Bill Finch’s “greenness” on Earth Day. Finch was quoted as saying that he liked taking the train to keep his carbon footprint low. Yet according to the article, Finch had opted to fly (a much less fuel-efficient method of travel) on three out of five trips over the past year to Washington, D.C. He only took the train twice.

If this is a major hypocrisy, another note from the article could be thought of as a minor contradiction: Finch’s family composts most of their biodegradable waste. On the day that the reporter was in his home, though, there were some cornhusks in the trash.

If the occasional item misses the compost pile, does it negate the vast majority that makes it in?

Finch admits that he’s “not perfect.” Perhaps in the quest to eliminate hypocrisy, it’s best to realize that his statement applies to all of us.

Tips on Arguing: Quote Mining

Quote mining is the alteration of the meaning of a person’s quote by taking it out of context or removing sections of the quote. It’s a disingenuous way to make it look like something someone said supports your position when, in fact, it does not.

Quote mining is easy to do if you’re creative about it. Consider the following passage:

“One day when we were kids, Charlie spent the afternoon stepping on ants in the driveway. He came into the house that evening with a guilty expression on his face. When his mother asked what was wrong, he admitted, ‘I’m a horrible person. I committed murder today! Poor ants.’”

In context, this passage is about an innocent child coming to terms with the world beyond himself.

Suppose now that you wanted to make Charlie seem more nefarious. By cutting out just a few choice sections, you could twist the meaning:

"He [Charlie] came into the house that evening with a guilty expression on his face. When his mother asked what was wrong, he admitted, ‘I’m a horrible person. I committed murder today!'"

Technically, the new quote is correct - the words are the same as the original. But notice how choosing to remove certain contextualizing phrases has corrupted our understanding of Charlie as a "murderer."

Academic creationists have become notorious for quote mining - so much so that the term came into popular language among scientists in the 1990's to describe how their own quotes were being dishonestly used to suggest that they had doubts about the validity of evolutionary science.

In 1996, biochemist and high-profile creationist Michael Behe published a popular book called Darwin's Black Box, which argued among other things that evolution could not account for certain biological structures, such as the bacterial flagellum. These parts, he claimed, were "irreducibly complex" - that is, if you removed any one piece, the whole thing would cease to function (a presumption that was promptly debunked by other biologists).

Behe tried to shore up his case by including numerous quotes in his book from evolutionary scientists that seemed to show how shaky the science of evolution was. On page 29, he quoted from a paper co-authored by Professor of Evolutionary Biology Jerry Coyne:

"We conclude--unexpectedly--that there is little evidence for the neo-Darwinian view: its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak."

Coyne responded quickly. In the February 1997 issue of the Boston Review, he wrote, "I went back to see exactly what Orr [Coyne's co-author] and I had written. It turns out that, in the middle of our sentence, Behe found a period that wasn't there."

What the paper had originally said was: "Although a few biologists have suggested an evolutionary role for mutations or large effect (Gould 1980; Maynard Smith 1983: Gottlieb, 1984; Turner, 1985), the neo-Darwinian view has largely triumphed, and the genetic basis of adaptation now receives little attention. Indeed, the question is considered so dead that few may know the evidence responsible for its demise.

"Here we review this evidence," the paper continued. "We conclude--unexpectedly--that there is little evidence for the neo-Darwinian view: its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak, and there is no doubt that mutations of large effect are sometimes important in adaptation."

Coyne added, "By inserting the period (and removing the sentence from its neighbors), Behe has twisted our meaning. Our discussion of one aspect of Darwinism--the relative size of adaptive mutations--has suddenly become a critique of the entire Darwinian enterprise. This is not sloppy scholarship, but deliberate distortion."

Quote mining is effective because few people ever go back to read the original sources. It's easy to do, since all quotes require selecting certain sentences to keep and others to omit. The goal, however, should always be accuracy. Mining for quotes does disservice to the reader, misrepresents the person being quoted, and makes the quote miner look more like a dishonest ditch digger.

Tips on Arguing: Naturalistic Fallacy

Image by Brandon T. Bisceglia

“Whether it’s motivation or some invigoration that you’re looking for, Cell-nique assists in detoxifying and alkalizing your body naturally to enhance your spirit and drive.”

That’s one of many claims made by a “super green drink” manufacturer headquartered in Weston, CT. It’s the kind of claim that we hear more and more these days: “natural cures” are offered in place of scientifically-backed medicines. Foods tout the fact that they contain no preservatives or artificial flavors. Even some cleaning products distinguish themselves as being made from “natural chemicals.”

All of these advertising schemes play on the assumption that because something is natural, it must be better somehow.

But does nature always offer the best solution? Probably not.

First, it helps to realize that the word “natural” simply means “not man made.” If a human modifies it, it becomes artificial.

With that definition in mind, imagine that you want to cross a deep river. You have two options: you can hang on to a piece of driftwood floating near the riverbank, or you can build a raft.

The driftwood might get you to the other side, and it’s definitely natural. But your chances of making it are much, much better with the artificially-made raft.

All-natural clearly isn’t always the most effective or useful policy. Making tools to overcome the limitations of what the natural world can offer is one of humankind’s greatest assets. No one would advocate for going back to all-natural knives (rocks), or all-natural toothbrushes (fingernails).

Nor does all-natural mean healthy. Just consider the fact that cyanide and uranium are both naturally occurring substances. Yet one is a deadly poison and the other is highly radioactive.

Even the claim that some food producers make about using all-natural ingredients is hard to back up. Agriculture is a man-made invention that has literally changed every crop into something different from its wild counterpart through selective breeding over the thousands of years that we’ve been farming. Unless the manufacturers plucked their ingredients from a forest, they too are engaging in an “artificial” process to make their products.

So what does it mean if a product is advertised as natural? Most of the time, absolutely nothing. It’s just another gimmick to hook consumers into paying an extra buck.