Will a different brain help avoiding logical fallacies?

[DJEN]

It seems that the majority of logical fallacies are created due to the limits of human cognitive ability and human instincts. Now, would a "inhuman" brain with higher cognitive ability and different instincts solve this problem for good? Now, please discuss with care. For this is a topic related to "Transhumanism," a topic that has invoked several flame wars in the Two SF Forums.

[phoenix_ca]

The vast majority of logical fallacies are created by lack of education on the topic. Socrates showed us all very clearly that a new brain isn't required to think logically. What is required is proper education in how to think rationally, in understanding the limits of human cognitive ability and to work around them.

Really, the solution to this is to teach children philosophy, at the very latest by high school, as a mandatory course just like science or math, not as an optional course in post-secondary school.

[DJEN]

The vast majority of logical fallacies are created by lack of education on the topic. Socrates showed us all very clearly that a new brain isn't required to think logically. What is required is proper education in how to think rationally, in understanding the limits of human cognitive ability and to work around them.

Really, the solution to this is to teach children philosophy, at the very latest by high school, as a mandatory course just like science or math, not as an optional course in post-secondary school.

It seems that your comment is valid.

However, I must ask; isn't it the human mind's inability to think twice and make suspicion of itself the reason for logical fallacies? For example, there's cognitive dissonance, which is created by the human brain overloading due to the inclusion of unexpected contrary data.

If I happen to be wrong, care to enlighten me.

Edited June 4, 2014 by DJEN

[EdFred]

If the human brain had a complete inability to avoid logical fallacies, no one would have been able to define and describe logical fallacies. And since we have identified and defined them...

[lajoswinkler]

I think it would, but the resulting persona would not be human like. We owe a lot to those fallacies.

The vast majority of logical fallacies are created by lack of education on the topic. Socrates showed us all very clearly that a new brain isn't required to think logically. What is required is proper education in how to think rationally, in understanding the limits of human cognitive ability and to work around them.

Really, the solution to this is to teach children philosophy, at the very latest by high school, as a mandatory course just like science or math, not as an optional course in post-secondary school.

We had philosophy in gymnasium as a compulsory class. It lasted for one year and it was great. I agree with you.

Edited June 4, 2014 by lajoswinkler

[DJEN]

If the human brain had a complete inability to avoid logical fallacies, no one would have been able to define and describe logical fallacies. And since we have identified and defined them...

I guess my point wasn't as valid as I thought.

I merely stated that logical fallacies are created by the human brain's flaws, and not that humans can't avoid logical fallacies.

[EdFred]

As stated earlier, they are caused/generated by ignorance or lack of education. That's not a flaw, that's just not gathering enough knowledge.

[WinkAllKerb'']

Not sure how the prof. corp. (and other .corp) stat around the philo, [science] [art] [food for though] [else]

probably: [still undefined] i guess

[vger]

If the human brain had a complete inability to avoid logical fallacies, no one would have been able to define and describe logical fallacies. And since we have identified and defined them...

That all depends on when they were discovered... were they discovered by person A to be present in person B? Or did person A discover it in his/herself?

I doubt anyone is capable of avoiding all of them consistently. Even just trying to catch yourself can break your train of thought in the midst of a verbal argument. It may be easy on the internet because you have ample time to prepare your response, but in live debate?

[FleshJeb]

If you want an interesting (fictional) read on the importance of all those muddy human instincts, and how valuable they are to our decision-making process, here's a little a little story about a man who can switch back and forth between pure intellect and normalcy.

https://archive.org/stream/ScannersLiveInVain/SmithCordwainer-ScannersLiveInVain.txt

[jwenting]

Logical fallacies stem from self delusion created by a combination of poor education and wishful thinking.

Any brain capable of creative thought will have the ability to do the second, and is at risk of suffering the first.

All you can do is try to alleviate the first, but sadly a lot of people try to actually increase the first in order to push political or religious agendas.

[vger]

jwenting, the algorithms present in media outlets these days do not help the situation at all. It doesn't take long for Yahoo to figure out what the political preferences of an individual are, and it will immediately begin 'censoring' the information it gives to him/her. The result is you only receive headlines that the site thinks you're likely to read. While this is great for getting clicks and popups for sponsors, it also gives you a polarized view of reality. One can quickly become cut off from counterpoints, and will only get the ideas they already have in their head, reinforced.

[Tommygun]

There is a secondary issue of how do you define "logical fallacies".

Two well educated people from very different cultures may come to different "logical" choices based on their culture and life experiences.

You also have problems when logical choices conflict with moral choices (especially moral choices influenced by culture).

I can't imagine how hard it would be to trying and come up with an educational program that isn't seen as having cultural, religious or political bias by different groups.

[phoenix_ca]

However, I must ask; isn't it the human mind's inability to think twice and make suspicion of itself the reason for logical fallacies? For example, there's cognitive dissonance, which is created by the human brain overloading due to the inclusion of unexpected contrary data.

Cognitive dissonance is the effect on a person when they hold two contradicting views or beliefs. For example, if a person simultaneously held that their god was omni-benevolent, and at the same time held that their god approves of killing or condemning non-believers in that god, this would be a state of cognitive dissonance, assuming that they knew, consciously, that they held these beliefs and they are contradictory.

As for "the human mind's inability to think twice and make suspicion of itself", again, this can be learned independently or taught. People can be taught the limits of their own psyche and taught methods of avoiding these issues, such as the scientific method. It doesn't take much either, just the realization that humans are fallible and that one needs to develop the tools of rational thought to avoid such mistakes.

It may be easy on the internet because you have ample time to prepare your response, but in live debate?

Why not? People like Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Richard Dawkins do it all the time. It's not hard to avoid spouting fallacies everywhere once you know how to think rationally. Hell, even Mark Dillahunty can do it, and he was once a priest. He learned the tools of reason, found his faith to be unreasonable, and was honest enough to bin it.

There is a secondary issue of how do you define "logical fallacies".

Two well educated people from very different cultures may come to different "logical" choices based on their culture and life experiences.

You also have problems when logical choices conflict with moral choices (especially moral choices influenced by culture).

I can't imagine how hard it would be to trying and come up with an educational program that isn't seen as having cultural, religious or political bias by different groups.

This is really just a different take on argumentum ad antiquitam (appeal to tradition). Reason and logic do not know culture, and they are not relative. In fact the idea that morality is not objective and is entirely subjective such that it varies from culture-to-culture and each culture is "right" has been discussed at great length; what you are describing is called Cultural Relativism. While it still has its proponents, moral relativism as a whole has pretty much been shredded.

Let me give you an example. Say someone steals a loaf of bread from a store. There are two people, each from different cultures, who are asked what an appropriate punishment would be. One person's cultural heritage suggests that the one who stole should pay a small fine for the act. The other's cultural heritage demands that the person be stoned to death in a public square. By the standard of a cultural relativist, both of these moral decisions are right. However a moral absolutist would conclude that there is in fact a right course of action, and that right course of action is independent of cultural tradition. In fact most of the progress we've managed to make in law is due to moral absolutism; it's what lets us say "Murder is wrong" instead of "Murder is wrong in this country but it's okay that the government of that other country is killing all its citizens, that's just their culture".

Reason and logic are not relative, they are universal.

Edit: If you want to see where moral relativism leads, look at the murder of Kitty Genovese. She was brutally murdered in a New York street, in view and earshot of thirty-seven people. Those people, when asked why they didn't call the police, said they expected someone else would do it, or just didn't want to get involved. In both moral relativism and cultural relativism, their actions to not do anything to help her were morally right, because either they decided that that was the right choice (the former) or that they had a culture of not calling the police when someone was murdered outside their window (the latter), or of "not getting involved" (also the latter).

There are better arguments to be made against relativism but this is the easiest way to drive the point home.

Edited June 4, 2014 by phoenix_ca

[DJEN]

I am enlightened. This thread seems to have gone obsolete now.

In fact, it seems to have been fundamentally flawed. For logical fallacies are generated by not the cognitive limits of the human brain, but the lack of rational thought. Although there were some arguments regarding the matter left, they have become irrelevant now.

Edited June 4, 2014 by DJEN

[Seret]

logical fallacies are generated by not the cognitive limits of the human brain, but the lack of rational thought.

Bang on. Dialectics is a skill, it can be learned.

[jwenting]

jwenting, the algorithms present in media outlets these days do not help the situation at all. It doesn't take long for Yahoo to figure out what the political preferences of an individual are, and it will immediately begin 'censoring' the information it gives to him/her. The result is you only receive headlines that the site thinks you're likely to read.

which is part of the flawed education people get...

Of course given the extreme political colouring of the mainstream media, everyone is forcefed a specific world view that's not reality, unless you deliberately avoid the mainstream media (and most people don't) but then you are liable to only get another specific world view exclusively with no way of knowing whether it's accurate.

If accurate and truthful reporting were required for journalists to be allowed to air their productions there'd be no journalists left to air anything, on all sides of the spectrum.

Edited June 4, 2014 by jwenting

[phoenix_ca]

I am enlightened. This thread seems to have gone obsolete now.

In fact, it seems to have been fundamentally flawed. For logical fallacies are generated by not the cognitive limits of the human brain, but the lack of rational thought. Although there were some arguments regarding the matter left, they have become irrelevant now.

Well not entirely. It's possible to conceive of some kind of improved human that's less prone to these mistakes. In fact we may soon give ourselves that very ability, by stimulating the hippocampus to recall specific memories or various memories more clearly. Assuming anything comes of that research. The brain is a tricky beast, and we're still learning much about it (it may even be fair to say we know very little about it compared to how much is going on). Then again we recently discovered new anatomical structures of the knee and eye so that's not saying much.

which is part of the flawed education people get...

Of course given the extreme political colouring of the mainstream media, everyone is forcefed a specific world view that's not reality, unless you deliberately avoid the mainstream media (and most people don't) but then you are liable to only get another specific world view exclusively with no way of knowing whether it's accurate.

If accurate and truthful reporting were required for journalists to be allowed to air their productions there'd be no journalists left to air anything, on all sides of the spectrum.

I find watching and reading both the BBC and Al Jazeera coverage of any particular event a decent way to weed-out bias. They are both somewhat biased but they tend to do a good job keeping it in check most of the time, and their possible agendas are fairly dissimilar.

If you're talking about the USA though...yes the media there is ridiculously polarized. Then again, so is the media in most Islamic states ("Repent for dancing on YouTube!").

Edited June 4, 2014 by phoenix_ca

[Seret]

I find watching and reading both the BBC and Al Jazeera coverage of any particular event a decent way to weed-out bias.

I do that too.

[magnemoe]

It seems that your comment is valid.

However, I must ask; isn't it the human mind's inability to think twice and make suspicion of itself the reason for logical fallacies? For example, there's cognitive dissonance, which is created by the human brain overloading due to the inclusion of unexpected contrary data.

If I happen to be wrong, care to enlighten me.

Lots of superstition is mostly an misunderstanding in the cause and relation.

Plenty of superstition in KSP too, like putting nosecaps on rockets in stock and believe they improve performance.

yes it make logical sense to use them and they will not cause the mission to fail.

In other games where the inner workings is less know you get far more of it.

In Oblivion the manual stated that having high luck gave you more treasure, it was known that dungeons was set up then you entered them, now an potion or spell who boosted luck then you entered would give better loot. Lots of people did this for years, I and some other disagree that it had any effect and proved it.

yes it was a classical superstition like black cat over the road is bad luck, however more believable as it was in a world where magic was common.

The other effect is wishful thinking, no believing strongly in something don't make it true, working for it often help but not always even if the work helps.

[phoenix_ca]

Lots of superstition is mostly an misunderstanding in the cause and relation.

That's covered under informal fallacies too: Cu.m (period because this is Latin, dang it) hoc ergo propeter hoc (it happens at the same time therefore there is causation; correlation proves causation), and post hoc ergo propter hoc (it happens after therefore what happened before was the cause). (Edit: OH FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE. It's LATIN. Not ****o references! Edit again: BAH!!!)

Plenty of superstition in KSP too, like putting nosecaps on rockets in stock and believe they improve performance.

yes it make logical sense to use them and they will not cause the mission to fail.

Rather, in stock KSP putting nosecaps on things does not make logical sense. I believe you meant to say it makes common sense (appeal to common sense is yet another fallacy, for those keeping score ).

In other games where the inner workings is less know you get far more of it.

In Oblivion the manual stated that having high luck gave you more treasure, it was known that dungeons was set up then you entered them, now an potion or spell who boosted luck then you entered would give better loot. Lots of people did this for years, I and some other disagree that it had any effect and proved it.

yes it was a classical superstition like black cat over the road is bad luck, however more believable as it was in a world where magic was common.

Bah. Even in a world where magic were commonplace, a black cat over the road being bad luck wouldn't make much sense unless proven. I rather like the characters in TES that were magicians but tried to take a scientific approach to the study anyway, the idea being that they may live in a world with magic, but scientific methodology would still be the better way to find the truth. Then again, maybe that's just an over-extension of what I think reality behaves like; other universes could have entirely different rules and perhaps there are even some where logic that works in our universe simply doesn't in the other...hmm...I bet there's a decent if confusing sci-fi novel in that.

Edited June 4, 2014 by phoenix_ca

[Jouni]

People are prone to making logical fallacies, because they are useful. Logical thought is slow, inefficient, and gets you eaten. Appealing to authority may be a logical fallacy, but science would no longer be possible without it, because things have become too complex for any single person to understand.

Maybe it's useful to make the distinction between logical thought and rational thought. Logical thought avoids fallacies, while rational thought maximizes the expected utility.

[phoenix_ca]

Appealing to authority may be a logical fallacy, but science would no longer be possible without it, because things have become too complex for any single person to understand.

Appeal to authority isn't a logical fallacy though, it's an informal one. There are cases that can be made where an appeal to authority is actually logical and well-reasoned. It isn't irrational to appeal to the expertise of a human who has the credentials and knowledge to prove their expertise. In fact science isn't really an appeal to authority as you say, as scientists don't appeal to one authoritative body or person, but the collective, peer-reviewed literature. There is a difference between an appeal to authority or appeal to popularity and an appeal to scientific consensus.

[Red Iron Crown]

Some of the greatest things humans have done are illogical. Try justifying the Apollo program on a logical basis, or the pyramids, or the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. The resources for these would logically have been better spent on more practical endeavors, but thankfully sometimes we do illogical things.

Logical thought is useful, but it's not the end-all be-all of humanity.

[magnemoe]

That's covered under informal fallacies too: *** hoc ergo propeter hoc (it happens at the same time therefore there is causation; correlation proves causation), and post hoc ergo propter hoc (it happens after therefore what happened before was the cause).

Rather, in stock KSP putting nosecaps on things does not make logical sense. I believe you meant to say it makes common sense (appeal to common sense is yet another fallacy, for those keeping score ).

Common sense is a good rule of thumb even if often wrong, also it don't make sense to use more energy finding the optimal solution than using a solution who work.

Making thing who go fast aerodynamic is smart in real world so you do it in KSP too until realizing it don't matter or learn it from other.

Bah. Even in a world where magic were commonplace, a black cat over the road being bad luck wouldn't make much sense unless proven. I rather like the characters in TES that were magicians but tried to take a scientific approach to the study anyway, the idea being that they may live in a world with magic, but scientific methodology would still be the better way to find the truth. Then again, maybe that's just an over-extension of what I think reality behaves like; other universes could have entirely different rules and perhaps there are even some where logic that works in our universe simply doesn't in the other...hmm...I bet there's a decent if confusing sci-fi novel in that.

Lots of players including me, did extensive research on possible spells in Morrowind and Oblivion, also daggerfall who predated them.

Came up with some very dangerous stuff, like spells who did double damage each hit if you hit target, no it was no upper limit

it was pretty cool, first I tested spells in the magic university however I summoned creatures I then fought with underpowered test spells caused other mages to run in and help me, ruining the test, insanely fun, I ended having to do the tests in a nearby ruin.

It's natural for me to test stuff like this, and it would work just as well on magic.

On the other hand many people belive they can earn in the long run on the lottery, no not doing it in the hope of the big payoff if lucky but actually making a profit over time.

(note: lottery, you can make money over time betting on horses or soccer or playing poker if you are good enough)