Science Rules -- Science and Critical Thinking

There are no two ways around it: in order to be a critical thinker, you need to have a basic understanding about how the universe works. Humans, we crafty little buggers, have developed a method by which we can describe the universe, and thereby come nearer to understanding it. That method is called science, or the so-called "Scientific Method."

There are basic tenets of science, founding principles really, which have been developed and proven in experiment after experiment for many years now. Science, much like the law (insert ironic coughing here), acts like a self-referential sounding board to not only prove these basic tenets, but to prove and refine the proof, increasing the reliability that the tenets actually describe the actual universe actually -- "peer review."

How fine the basic nature of these tenets gets depends a lot on your personal expertise. A mathematician may have cause to question, for instance, whether "1 + 1" actually equals "2," and what "1" means anyway, but that level of inquiry is inefficient for the bulk of us. On the other hand, as to most of us, the fact that the universe is expanding is enough to know, but that may not be an assumption an astrophysicist might want to make in her work.

What is the point, you may ask, of bothering to know much about science. The answer is that a knowledge of basic science can keep you from expensive mistakes. For instance, if you're wondering if someone is selling a useful (product, political system, food replacement therapy, overly expensive water purification system, religion, "alternative medicine" (aka "SCAM"), or power enhancing bracelet), a good first step is to compare the claims to certain tenets and see if the proffered thing meets the sniff test. If it does not, place your wallet firmly back into your pocket. [Interesting: google "how to stop getting ripped off" and you'll be able to spend your hard-earned money on books which teach you the same. Ironic?]

Another, related, answer is that a knowledge of science can help you navigate our technological world. Every day we're heaped with new and better stuff, gizmos, and thingymabobs. Each of them has (a group of) scientists working on the science behind them: materials researchers, computer scientists (said with feeling), electrical engineers, technical support/writers, and even packaging engineers! If you know the basis for the science behind the things you use, you can become a better consumer...besides, its just neat! (No, your iPhone does not work by magic, and is not going to give you cancer.)

Yet another reason to know these things is that it makes you a better person. Smart people are savvy people are people who can speak intelligently on all manner of topics. Smart people can make better choices because their brain is functioning, churning out neurons in an effort to keep up, making more room for more information, and (so I've heard) staving off diseases like Alzheimer's. Smart people can, for instance, differentiate between political rhetoric and political discourse. Smart people can choose the lesser of two evils. Smart people are compassionate and moral.

To come...links to the above points, and an actual LIST of the tenets of science every person should know!

Summary of Logical Fallacies

Why do we study logical fallacies? The reason is simple: to avoid making them, and to avoid being duped by them! I've been writing about those fallacies that have come up in my work, but here is a taxonomic chart of "all" the logical fallacies categorized by type.

Enjoy it, and see if you can find and correct a logical fallacy in your work today.

Correlation Does Not Equal Causation

Among the easiest logical errors to fall into is to assume that because one event followed another, it must have been caused by the first. That logical fallacy is called post hoc ergo propter hoc, or "after which therefore because of". However equally fallacious is the idea that because two events are related in some way, there is a causal relationship between them, which is, instead cum hoc ergo propter hoc ("with this, therefore because of this"). Succinctly stated:

Because two events are related in some way, does not imply a causal relationship among them.

This sort of fallacy comes up in medical practice and statistics frequently. However, it is just as frequently seen in legal arguments -- and as I've mentioned before, we must keep a watchful eye on both our own arguments and those of our opponents.

I often see the case where because an employee was terminated, and because the employee happens to be a member of a protected class (race, sex, disability, etc.), the employee will raise a discrimination claim. The law and logic require more to prove discrimination (as it turns out, the law and logic share a lot in common): there must also be a correlation between the protected class and the termination. The law calls this correlation a nexus ("bond"), defined as a connection between two things.

As always, contact me for more information.

Arguing the "Straw Man"

In any debate, two sides argue from two points of view. However, for the debate to be meaningful, the argument must be about the same topic. As such, in order to undermine an opponent's argument, nefarious arguers will try to manipulate the topic, rather than improving their underlying logic.

There are several ways to do this. The most straightforward, and not a logical fallacy itself, is arguing about how to frame the discussion: framing the debate is a threshold issue. However, when the topic itself is co-opted by one side, anything argued by that side thereafter is fallacious, because it does not flow from state premises.

One way of doing this is to argue against a position not taken by your opponent. That is the straw man:

Arguing against a distorted, exaggerated, conclusory, or manufactured position.

The name probably derives from the fighting a man of straw is easier than fighting a real one. But the concept is: if you can frame your opponent's position, you can make him appear foolish while attacking him (and not his arguments). As such, a straw man is a type of ad homenim ("against the person") attack -- I'll write about that one soon.

The employment setting is ripe for straw man arguments. Often employees feel wronged but are unable to articulate why. Similarly, employers just want to get the job done, and so they can easily overlook employee's legitimate needs. Whenever we find ourselves arguing as if the other side had state a position, its important to go back and see what exactly they are saying. On the other hand, being aware of this type of error will prevent the issues being co-opted which can easily misled a busy third party (like the court!).

False Dichotomy

In any debate, including employment litigation, the parties must state their premises. When put to the task, there is not limit to the mistakes -- both deliberate and inadvertent -- which can skew an argument. As such, litigators must be on the lookout for logical fallacies in both opponent's and their own writing and oration. As a primer, I will work on one such fallacy each week.

When stating the premises, the arguer might say something like "If its not A, it must be B." Unless both A and B have been established as the only alternatives, then this statement is false. That is called a false dichotomy or false dilemma. Stated succinctly:

Arbitrarily limiting a range of possibilities to only two is a false dichotomy.

Similarly, Arbitrarily limiting a range of possibilities to a subset of the whole is a false dilemma. See another definition here.

For instance, if an employee's performance become suddenly erratic, and workplace issues are eliminated, presuming the employee has a drinking problem presents a false dichotomy: either the employee had a workplace problem or a drinking problem. On the other hand, when an employee attributes "stress" to his job without proper medical examination: the employee is assuming that work must be he cause, since his home life is good.

The results of an argument from false premises is also false, so be on the lookout for this sort of thinking!