Logic Problems to Overcome
Below is a look at the problems that we need to overcome in the Decision Website regarding the poor logic, inadequate communication, and detrimental techniques that we see in our current debates or discussions.
Fortunately, many of these problems are mitigated right away in the Decision Website by adding diverse participants, using writing instead of speaking, and the fact that no opinion will go unchallenged. AI will also be able to assist by detecting problems in logic.
The list below is an interesting read as we see these problems appear in every-day discussions, in social media, and in other media.
Superlatives / Absolutes / Labels / Credentialism / Personality / Expertise / Cherry Picking Data / Dunning Krueger / Lumping / Knowing more than me / Begging the Question / Limited time / Generalizations / Motives / Biases / Stereotypes / Low-hanging fruit / Strawman / Seeking simplicity / Moral Equivalence / HAVE to do something / Circular Arguments / Slippery slope / Anecdotal evidence / Roadblocks / Baggage / Cognitive biases / Confirmation bias / Truth vs winning / Lenses / Working together / How we look at one another / False Equivalence / Edited videos / Accuracy and overstating / Gestures / Cause and Effect / Ad hominem / False Dilemma / Ridicule / Good faith / Rebuttal / Microphone/ Fallacy of a Fallacy / Emotional appeals / More
Superlatives:
Superlatives words like best, worst, nothing, dumbest, craziest, biggest, most ridiculous, cheapest, bravest, easiest, or greatest are fine words in themselves. However, they do not express the complexity nor the nuances that are apparent in many issues and scenarios. Therefore, when used, they reflect a description that is somewhat less accurate. We simply need to be aware of how these superlative words often are exaggerating.
[Participants in the Decision Website will point out the exaggeration until writers become used to communicating more accurately.]
Absolutes:
Much like superlative words, absolutes often show a level of inaccuracy. For instance, not all Democrats are socialists and not all Republicans are gun lovers. The truth is usually somewhere in between. We use absolutes to strengthen our arguments. This is an example of how we need to put searching for the truth above our desire to win a debate.
[Absolutes will be challenged in the Decision Website. Eventually the debate tone will change as participants realize they are not simply trying to “win” a debate.]
↑ TOP
Labels:
Labels are basically stereotyping, but often with a very negative intent. Bleeding heart liberals, gun loving right wingers, men-hating feminists, chauvinistic men, privileged white men, snowflake hippies, greedy capitalists, redneck southerners, spendthrift democrats.
It does not matter how much truth is there. It is stereotyping and a negative discussion technique. It lacks real integrity.
[The Decision Website will negate this kind of language as it gets down voted out of the conversation.]
We ascribe more “truth” to statements depending on their source. This is proper in many cases, as when we evaluate comments from a climate scientist on climate change. But do we go too far? Couldn’t the scientist be missing a component to their analysis that is outside of their expertise?
We abdicate our own analytical responsibility when we ascribe too much authority. Consider how you respond more positively when you “heard it on the News,” or “someone important” like a professor said it. What if a famous person said it? Ascribed authority can sometimes keep us stuck and prevent us from thinking in new ways or exploring alternate directions.
Another example is how when folks heard something from “QANON”, they attributed authority to it because “Q” claimed to be a whistleblower on the “inside”. Someone on the inside has more authority. And yet Q’s identity was unconfirmed.
[The diversity of people contributing to the Decision Website debate will overcome this problem. Experts will not have the free rein of authority that they might have experienced in the past.]
Personality:
People use their charisma and notoriety to gain influence. It’s silly how much leeway we give to these folks and their opinions. Even if you have the gift of public speaking, it does not mean your opinions are any better. Even if you are a good conversational debater with amazing recall and quick construction of logic, it still does not mean that your perspective is correct. If you are a famed lovable actor, your rhetoric is still biased and needs critiquing.
[We may make participation in the Decision Website anonymous. But even if not, our copious and intelligent debaters will not be fooled. And for the eloquent public speaker… we are writing instead and it’s different.
↑ TOP
Expertise:
How far does a person’s expertise go? Don’t scientists, doctors, and professors also have personal biases? Of course they do. Do we really understand what their degree or specialty implies? A biologist, albeit a scientist, is not a meteorologist, a chemist, or an anthropologist.
In general conversation, people have a way of talking – tone and confidence, superlatives and absolutes – that propagandize you into thinking they are more authoritative about a subject than they actually are.
[Expert challenging expert… that’s what happens in the Decision Website.]
Using only data or examples that support your position and ignoring all other available data.
Overstating Our Expertise:
People naturally overstate their own expertise. It’s called the Dunning Krueger effect. People internally assume that they are more of an expert than they really are. The effect occurs more often when a person only has moderate knowledge about the subject. That is, they have not reached Einstein’s quote of “the more I learn, the more I realize how much I don’t know.”
Other people’s confidence that they “know what they are talking about” needs to be tempered with our understanding of this psychological tendency.
[This will be enlightening in our debates. People will get tested on the extent of their knowledge and will need to take a more honest approach to their opinions.]
We lump things together. If one or more points of an opinion are true, not all of the points are necessarily true. As we listen to someone, if some of the points resonate with us, we gradually begin to treat everything said as being correct without applying proper scrutiny.
[We are so easy on each other as to proofs during a conversation. In writing, no one gets that easy treatment.]
↑ TOP
Knowing More than Me:
We give add-on credit to someone because they know more than us about a subject. For instance, if they say that “I know what happened because I was there.” It does not mean that they saw or understood everything that took place. Yet we so often give them that leeway. We simply need to apply more scrutiny across the board.
[Someone may know more than me, but do they know more than the other thousand people in the conversation?]
Giving proofs that simply assume your original premise is true. “The iPhone is the best phone because Apple makes great devices.” Both comments say the same thing without any real proof
Limited Time:
We all have a limited amount of time in our days. Even experts, while usually very smart, are limited to their field. And often their own specialty requires constant learning to keep up with changes and new information. No one has a comprehensive knowledge base, nor has integrated the knowledge they have acquired into a perfect world view. This is why we need all of us to pool our knowledge and perspective together.
[This is such an important element that the Decision Website overcomes. Our debate will take as long as is needed.]
“Biden signed # executive orders on his first day. Here comes the dictator.”
Motives:
Motives equal bias. Whether pride, defending a long standing belief, material benefits like money, feeding our ego, career paths, hiding embarrassment, on and on. Unfortunately, it is hard to honestly see our own motives and we definitely lack the inside knowledge to know the motives of other people.
[The debate in the Decision Website should do a good job of balancing out the hidden motives because we are focusing on logic, requiring proofs, and challenging inconsistencies.]
↑ TOP
Biases are tricky and subtle. They are personal to us. If we are outdoorsy people, then maintaining nature is a top priority. If we are social folks, then community becomes central to what we want to build. If we tend to be spiritual, then a bias will exist. If we have a knack for making money, then we want a world where that skill is paramount and well rewarded.
The trouble is that the world should not revolve around you. It should be built to benefit all of us. All of our perspectives count.
[Wow! This could be eye-opening to find out how much we have been conditioned by our upbringing, and culture. The diversity in the Decision Website will be invaluable in this respect.]
Stereotypes:
Stereotyping is not just about race. It’s blanket statements. Are all Republicans white nationalists because white nationalists tend to be Republicans? Are all Democrats socialists because socialists tend to be on the left? If a Democratic politician makes a statement about pro gun control, are all Democrats against the 2nd Amendment? Or as it more likely would be stated, “The Democrats are coming for your guns!”
If an illegal immigrant commits a crime in the U.S., are all illegal immigrants bad people? Are most? That is, are 51% of undocumented immigrants prone to criminal behavior? And if you just said to yourself that maybe it’s only 20%, where did you get that number? If you don’t have a solid statistic to back that up, or you don’t critique people’s comments, then you will be susceptible to accepting the “most are criminal” statement.
[I don’t think we know the extent of our stereotyping. The balanced debate in the Decision Website will good for us.]
Low Hanging Fruit:
Media pundits will often look for the easiest statement or fact to sensationalize to their advantage. For example, if a Republican mayor makes a public comment that is insensitive to Mexicans, then left leaning pundits try to make it represent all republican thinking.
[If every opinion is faced with a critique, and we have a diverse group of debaters, then all of this poor logic falls apart and we move towards the truth.]
↑ TOP
This logical fallacy involves attacking the weakest aspect of the other person’s opinion and often something they are not really advocating. It tends to be inaccurate, disingenuous, and not in good faith.
Examples: Socialism let’s all of the lazy people sit at home. Feminism will put your daughters on the front lines of war. Medicare For All will let politicians make your health decisions.
[Like so many instances in an debate, all that’s required for accuracy is to be diligent and dig in with further logical thinking. This is why time restraints don’t work. We need to give every debate all the time it needs.]
We Crave Simplicity:
We want simple answers. But simple answers do not usually fit most situations. The world is too complex, too nuanced, and interconnected. For instance, we are not going to fix our problems merely by getting our guy into the white house, or getting our party into power.
We need to be aware of our tendency to grasp at the simple way of looking at the problem. It’s not just building a wall and it’s not just easing border crossing. It is complicated.
[This is a primary benefit of the Decision Website. We need more robust discussions to match the complexity of this world.]
“Trump is a nationalist and so no better than Hitler.” We have to do better thinking than this.
We HAVE to Do Something:
This is our reactive tendency in society. The problem is that we often pursue laws and regulations that do not really help the problem we are trying to solve or the broad brush of a law has negative consequences. Our reaction has more to do with desperately “needing to do something” or CYA by a Politician to prove that they did respond to a problem.
A circular argument presents something as true which then, as the argument continues, comes back to rely on that original assumption as proof just because there is a connection between them. As an example, “She’s a lawyer. What she says about the legality of this issue must be true.” While that sounds good, it’s not a proof. The legality of the issue should be based on its own merits and not a simple reference to some credential. Another example is, “We can’t let 3rd party candidates into the debate because they don’t have public support.” That problem is obvious, eh?
Slippery Slope Defense:
When changes are being suggested, opponents like to throw out the slippery slope defense. For example, if you pass this law on an issue, then you will later pass the next and next one. The opponents are looking down the road and their claim may have some merit.
The first problem is that no one can really predict the future, and often there are nuances to consider. Second, using the slippery slope defense operates like a showstopper. That is, they insinuate that the discussion cannot continue. A better response is to recognize the trend, step back, and begin to create new possibilities outside of the current thinking.
[The slippery slope will have some legitimacy at times. But it doesn’t mean that it’s a showstopper. What the Decision Website can add comes from the sheer quantity of contributors that are far more likely to think outside of the box and innovate with creative solutions.]
↑ TOP
One person’s experience does not equate to a statistic. The fact that your home was robbed does not prove that crime is on the rise, or that your neighborhood is going downhill, or that people are generally bad. Your one case is a single point in a statistic. There is a well-defined science in determining how many sample points are needed to claim a solid statistic. And each point must be qualified to prevent bias.
Our experiences are part of all of our biases, and we cannot shake loose of them. What we can do is cultivate more critical thinking so our bias is not set in cement. Plus we need to take other people’s anecdotal evidence as an isolated incident to be considered in your analysis.
[Anecdotal evidence should serve as an example of an aspect in the debate. It requires some critique to determine how much weight it should receive and how much representative it is. This is why debate needs to be slow and continually correcting for accuracy.]
Road Blocks:
We all do this. As we read articles or listen to media, we take a piece of information that supports our current opinion and remember it for the purpose of throwing it into the mix in our next debate. If it’s common sense information, then that’s fine because both sides can equally debate the logic. But if it’s a more obscure event or statistic, unverifiable at the moment of the debate, then one side has a distinct advantage. That is, the other side is stalled because they cannot evaluate the claim at that moment.
We should utilize the information we gather. However, there is a way that our information can be used that doesn’t constitute a road block. You know how thrilled you are when you throw out this type of information. It feels like a win. And yet if you are debating in good faith and searching for the correct perspective on an issue, then you can temper your information by noting that it is currently unverifiable.
[Contributors will throw out plenty of road blocks in the Decision Website. But they will be answered, unlike they are in conversational debates.]
Baggage:
Every labelled concept will come with baggage. A “Democrat” carries with it the baggage of every Democratic politician. So is it fair to pile that baggage onto a person talking about an idea that is espoused by the Democratic Party? Shouldn’t we rather focus on the merits of the specific idea being described? For instance, communism and socialism have the baggage of the authoritarian Soviet system.
Isn’t it in our best interest to analyze concepts rather than simply shutting them down based on this baggage?
[Baggage is a real burden to all debates including those in the Decision Website. It requires a real change in thinking for all of us to separate out the historical baggage from the label it is attached to. We have the right as creative thinkers to devise new philosophical platforms that borrow premises from all of the past thinking, but don’t have to follow a related historical platform.]
↑ TOP
These are preconceived notions that people adhere to, but whose proof has not been thought through, which often results in erroneous beliefs.
Imagine your world view or belief system as a structure built on premise after premise. Each premise or assumption is often a foundation for other beliefs. If one of your premises is faulty, then subsequent ideas could be faulty as well.
Consider how much of your world view was taught before you had good critical skills. Think about how much leeway you give to authority figures. Then there is herd mentality, peer pressure, and the perspectives you desperately “want” to be true.
This is all of us folks. No one is exempt. All we can do is understand that our structure of beliefs should be routinely questioned by… ourselves. If you get accused of being illogical or inconsistent, then be willing to step back and take a look with new critical eyes. It takes courage. This is the honesty we need to have with ourselves.
[We need each other to challenge us on our beliefs. We need to hear from people in other cultures, other predicaments in life, and other ways of seeing the world.]
Confirmation Bias:
This is simply our tendency to seek out information that supports our existing belief. Conservatives watch FoxNews and liberals watch MSNBC. We choose our videos and news articles to strengthen our positions. If we read an opposing view, it is normally cast aside as soon as we find a so-called “error”. You think that your position has overwhelming support because that’s all you see.
The answer for ourselves is simple. Consider the value of the opposing view, recognize that information supporting your position has biases as well, and understand this tendency.
The answer for other people is simple as well. Keep in mind the effects of this tendency. We are not all hearing the same information and coming to different conclusions. Relax and search for what information they might be missing, just as you seek what you are missing.
[Just imagine what will happen when citizens make our Decision Website the go-to place for information. They get views that are forced to be balanced and they will see points of view that they have never seen before. And those points of view will have been vetted and clearly presented. Our thinking as a group could have a meteoric trajectory.]
Truth vs. Winning:
Debates are meant to find the truth or the best solution… not to win. Winning a debate is a school sport, a way to feed your ego, or a way to gain some personal benefit (e.g. political debate).
[We desperately need Decision Website style debates.]
↑ TOP
The problem is that everyone looks at life through their own lenses. These lenses were molded by our culture, up-bringing, experiences, religious beliefs, personality, societal pressures, etc. It’s why people uniquely process information like they do.
We need to relax at our differences and try to understand which influences are keeping us apart.
[The lens that you look through have validity. But they don’t necessarily have validity for everyone. When we discuss issues as a society, we need to keep this in mind. In fact the more lenses we look through in a debate, the better our solutions will be.]
Working Together:
It should be you and me versus the problem. Not you versus me about the problem. We’re all on the same side – not ideologically, but we should both be trying to discuss things in good faith
[This is why we need to tackle all of these problems in our logic and in our debate techniques. Only then will we start to see that we are all trying to reach a similar goal for the good of all of us.]
How We Look at Each Other:
This plays a massive role in how effective a conversation will be. Are they the enemy? “I will not let that person win!” “This argument is my signature belief, so I cannot lose.”
[The Decision Website removes the personal aspect of debates and shifts us to looking at the pure simple reasonableness of an idea.]
False Equivalence
Two things can share a common characteristic, but that does not make them equal or equivalent. For example, “The president ordered a drone strike that killed civilians. So the president is no better than a serial killer.”
Edited videos:
Doctored videos are of course a problem of deception. But editing video clips to alter the context or distort the emphasis is also wrong.
↑ TOP
We often let our statements have inaccurate implications. For instance, if one or two people threw bottles, then we say, “the crowd was throwing bottles.” Accuracy matters and we should take accountability for how our statements are construed.
[Overstating is used to “win” a debate. The idea of winning will plague us for some time. But we should at least begin the process of changing our thinking so we can someday debate in good faith. The Decision Website can help.]
Gestures:
Eye rolls, chuckles, tsk-tsk, and shaking your head are all meaningless comments that have no place in a debate.
[Fortunately, the writing method used in the Decision Website will negate this element.]
Cause and Effect (Causal Fallacy)
“Trump tightens the border so now migrants are coming in waves.” “Biden loosens the border so now migrants are coming in waves.” While there are causes and effects everywhere, we have to be careful not to simplify our very complex world just because we like easy answers.
Ad Hominem – Attacking the Person:
This is where we attack the person (i.e. debate opponent) rather than debating the ideas. Ideas and personalities are not the same. The saddest use of ad hominem is when we simply use name calling. But often it is an attack using unrelated connections like, “Are you going to let an actor run your country?” Then there are the subtle forms where we negate a person’s credibility because they are poor, or have lots of piercings, or because of some negative event from their past.
A subtle variation is when we can prove that one point being made is wrong, we assume that the person is untrustworthy and so everything else is wrong as well.
[Once people awaken to the fact that they are wrestling with ideas and not people, then the debate will take on a new tone.]
Provides only two choices. “We either close the borders or we can kiss this country goodbye.” Really, no more options than that?
Ridicule:
People like to ridicule the other side by using catchy words. “The Big Lie” or “The Big Steal”. The result is the opposing side is offended and digs in their heels even more. Plus it is quite childish.
↑ TOP
What is debating in good faith? Isn’t it a recognition that both sides deserve to be heard? If one side is not letting the other side fully express their opinion, then how is that a good and fair debate?
Then there is the problem of people not willing to address the challenges to their position. Stating your opinion and not being willing to discuss its critique is a common pattern. It does not mean that the person is wrong, but that they are unable or unwilling to accept the challenges.
Debating in good faith requires that we understand how none of us will ever have all of the answers, nor have all of the needed knowledge. It should encourage exploration and scrutiny.
[The Decision Website will purposely and naturally push contributors to argue in good faith.]
The Rebuttal Process:
Even if both sides have a rebuttal process, like in a trial or presidential debate, you still don’t hammer out the differences. You have no power to force the other person to address your concerns or challenges. Each side continues to simply restate their perspective.
[There will be no “5 minutes for rebuttal,” in the Decision Website. The debate goes on until everything has been explained, defended, and revised.]
The Microphone:
Holding the microphone (i.e. your turn to talk) too long disrupts the flow and the fairness of a discussion. When a person talks too long, there is a subtle sense that their position has so much backing.
Consider that talk radio is really one person holding the microphone and never letting it go. Talk radio is rarely a balanced dialog.
[This will be an interesting element in the Decision Website. First, everyone has the microphone for as long as they like. But in fact, long windedness will likely disappear as well. An effective debate will require that opinions are broken apart into manageable pieces.]
You find a fallacy in your opponent’s argument, and so then throw out their conclusion. The conclusion could have been right even though they included some poor logic along the way.
↑ TOP
Emotional Appeals:
An emotional appeal may be true, but it gives the argument extra weight that may not be warranted. For instance, expressing an opinion for immigration policy by describing someone destitute at the border, is at the same time valid and imbalanced.
Moving the Goal Posts
Making impossible expectations for proof or for action.
Answering your own question
Bandwagon
A patriotic American would want Trump as president.
Red Herring
Old growth forests are important, but loggers will lose their jobs.
Appeal to Ignorance
I’ve never seen a ghost, so I don’t believe they exist.
You Too
“Biden signs lots of executive orders, but so did Trump.” The questions is really should a president utilize executive orders, not who did it.
Appeal to Pity
↑ TOP
