Episode 27: Meaningless Questions

Let’s start off with a bit of a question.  But first we’ll need to make a little assumption.  That is that you have a hovercraft.  Bear with me here, it’ll make sense.  Besides, who wouldn’t want a hovercraft?  No more worrying about potholes, wet or icy roads, snow.  Heck, would you even really need a road?  I mean, you can hover!  Where was I?  Right, you have a hovercraft and I need to ask you a question.  How do you change the tires on a hovercraft?

It’s a simple question.  How would you change the tires on your hovercraft?  Go ahead, consult the owner’s manual if needed, I’ll wait.  I can take the time to search for deals to buy my own.  What’s that, you say you read the manual from cover to cover and there is nothing about tires in it?  Odd, but the question remains, if you get a flat, what do you do?  Why are you getting red and starting to shake trying to answer this simple question?  What’s that about hovercraft not having tires?  

OK, let’s ease it back before anyone gets too frustrated.  This odd setup is an example of a meaningless question.  A meaningless question is exactly the type of thing an overly smug philosophy student often likes to ask (see me back in my teens and twenties for proof).  These are questions that while they sound interesting and important cannot actually have an answer.  At one point I was all into logic problems like this and thought they were the rage.  Luckily it wore off and I see them more as nuisances than anything else.

There are lots of examples of these in common knowledge like: What is the sound of one hand clapping or What would happen if you turned on a flashlight while traveling at the speed of light - just to name a few.  If we unpack these questions we’ll see why they have no answer.  In the first question, clapping is generally considered bringing your hands together to make a noise and two hands is implied.  So, one hand cannot clap.  Therefore, it’s meaningless.  The second question sounds like an interesting science experiment but if we think about it, nothing with mass can travel at the speed of light which means a flashlight could never travel at light speed.  Again, that makes the question meaningless.

Outside of their interest as a bit of logic, I often see these meaningless questions used to confuse or derail and argument.  Perhaps we’re discussing what the theoretical top running speed of a human being is.  We’re considering optimal stride length, foot shape, body size and weight etc trying to come up with a formula.  Then a smug person has to ask “Well, how fast can a person without legs run?”  Then they state that since we can’t answer that we can never come up with a top speed.  In effect they are trying to argue that since we can’t answer a question that has no answer then anything we say is wrong.  Really, their question has no place and we can ignore it.

Meaningless questions can also take the form of a paradox.  A classic example reads something like “What if an irresistible force met an immovable object?”  If we take this statement apart we can see the paradox.  If a force is irresistible then nothing can stop it so an immovable object cannot exist.  Conversely, if there is an immovable object then we can’t have an irresistible force.  The definition of each negates the other.  One more interesting part of this paradox is to realize that an immovable object is essentially an irresistible force.  If it’s one object, then it can’t meet itself.  Instead of giving ourselves an aneurism trying to answer this question, we can instead say it’s a paradox and these things cannot exist together (or meet if they are one object).   Then we can use all that extra time to go hovercraft shopping.

At this point I hope you can see what makes these questions truly meaningless.  If we are presented with a question that has no answer then we don’t have to supply an answer.  If we don’t answer it’s not a failing on our part, in fact not having an answer is the whole point.  Go ahead, deconstruct the questions you get and see if they have a paradox or some other impossibility.  If they do, file them under maybe fun but not useful and walk away.  There are far better ways you can spend your time.  Like whether or not to get the undercoating on that new hovercraft.

Episode 26: A Feline Ecology

I was relaxing the other night having what I like to call “a drink and a think” where I relax and ponder especially intractable problems.  My mind may wander from the bizarre nature of black holes all the way to whether or not bees actually have knees.  I’m not a big fan of bees so I tend not to question them given their often stinging rebuttals.  I was a bit unfocused this night having done perhaps more drinking than thinking when my cat hopped onto the couch for a treat.  He doesn’t drink or, near as I can tell, think overly much so he got a kitty treat then purred and kneaded himself into a little furry ball next to me.  

That did shake a thought loose.  We had just the one cat, yet I’ve heard that most people with only one will eventually decide to have more, at least two.  I believe there was a 75% chance that a single cat owner would eventually have multiple feline friends begging for treats from them.  I thought 75% was a pretty high odd, should I just go get another cat?  If it was going to happen anyway, why put it off.  I did like cats, they’re soft and sometime affectionate and the purring is certainly nice.  But when I started thinking more than drinking, something started bothering me.

If 75% of all owners with just one cat get at least a second, does it follow that each individual owner has a 75% chance of increasing their feline residents?  My drinking and thinking would have to move into research.  I also considered anyone else I knew with only one cat and if they ever thought about getting another.  As I would learn, this is an example of an Ecological Fallacy.  It’s a pretty overbearing name, isn’t it?  While this fallacy has its roots in statistics, it’s not so hard to explain.  Rather simply it means that you can’t always apply the properties of a group to the individuals within that group.  In my case it meant that while, as a group, owners of one cat were 75% more likely to get a second, the same was not true of any individual owner.  I was comfortable with one feline friend and being old he didn’t like other animals so I was better off a one cat household.  Other’s though, like those with multiple children who love animals might decide to have an equal child to feline ratio and get a few more.

This is an important fallacy, and application of logic, to keep in mind as you go about your day.  As I write this summer is ending, fall is coming (I know, should be winter) and I’m seeing notes about getting my flu shot.  Sometimes we will hear about the likelihood of contracting that nasty illness.  Let’s say the medical community thinks there is a 60% chance to get it.  As we learned above, this does not mean I have a 60% chance.  I work remotely so I don’t have office exposure.  I don’t have children so they won’t bring it home to me.  Those facts may lower my chance.  Others will have a higher likelihood.  It’s only the population in general that has the 60% chance.  I may still decide to get the vaccine as I like to be out amongst people, at holiday parties and shows.  My risk of any reaction to the shot are very low while the possibility of avoiding the flu are high.

The US is coming up on an important election (even though all elections are important, aren’t they?) which means we see a lot of news talking about polling and knowing how communities, suburbs, cities, etc. will tend to vote one way or another.  As I said, this fallacy has its roots in statistics and polling is all about stats even if they don’t tell you.  Let’s say a report says that a particular community is 80% likely to vote for candidate A and only 20% for candidate B.  If you live in a house with 10 people, this does not mean 8 of them will vote for A while 2 will vote B.  Perhaps your household all has the same political ideals.  Or perhaps the household likes to argue and is split down the middle.  It’s important to always keep in mind that the poll represents a population (or a sample of the population, in reality) and does not know how any individual will vote.  The take away is to ignore the polling and go cast your vote no matter what.

Let’s look at one more example to really drive this point home – sports!  I know not everyone is a fan of the sports so I’ll keep this rather generic.  Suppose you have a team that’s supposed to move some kind of object across a field better than another team, but they’re not doing too well.  If the team is performing poorly it is easy to say that is because the team has all poor players.  However, that isn’t at all true.  A team is made up of a range of individuals.  Perhaps there are a few that don’t run fast enough, but maybe one person is exceptionally quick.  Maybe the leader can throw the ceremonial object really well, but the others aren’t as good at catching it.  Genericizing sports is hard work!  Its easy to ascribe the performance of the team as a whole to the individual members, but that is often not accurate.

I’m sure as you look around you’ll see more and more examples of the ecological fallacy.  There is a strong desire to put people into groups and place certain attributes on that group.  But that doesn’t mean the individuals will behave the same way.  As a statistical fallacy, this isn’t always used to mislead (at least purposefully) but it is often misleading.  As a member of a group with a given statistic you don’t necessarily have to conform to it.  By understanding this fallacy, we can determine how to act, to vote and whether people can catch things and run.  Now, if you’ll excuse me I saw some pictures of kittens and I might go become a statistic.

Episode 25: An Arboreal Mystery

The other day I was driving home when I noticed a few people gathered around a toppled tree.  They were having a lively discussion so I thought I’d see what was going on.  The tree appeared to have fallen harmlessly in the yard and didn’t hit anything or anyone.  I thought I was about to enter into a discussion on the best way to cut the tree up, should it go for firewood or lumber, where to find a chipper for the branches or something like that.  As often happens in my life, boy was I mistaken.

As soon as I got out of the car they all said “Finally, someone who can settle this”.  Of course, I had to ask “Settle what?”.  It seems they were arguing over why the tree had fallen (I was afraid to question if it made a noise).  One person thought that recent storms had weakened the ground, exposing the roots and then a strong wind brought it down.  Another thought that beavers were moving into the area and that they had eaten the base and let it fall.  And yet another was adamant that the government was testing satellite-based laser weaponry by targeting ground structures and they hit this tree.  More arguing ensued. 

I knew I had a job on my hands.  First, I had to get them all to calm down so we could converse amicably.  Then I asked them if they’d heard of Occam’s Razor.  “Like the scooter?” one asked.  No, I said, not like that. Another yelled “See, I told you, space weapons!”.  Again, I said, no, it’s razor, not laser.  I explained that Occam’s Razor is a philosophical concept to determine which out of multiple explanations is the most likely.  Sometimes you see this stated as ‘the simplest explanation is the best’, but what it really means is that the one which requires the fewest (not the least! – link to old article here) assumptions is most accurate.

The first explanation requires that there had been recent rain storms, soil erosion and high winds – all things that did happen in the area.  The second requires that there are beavers – which then requires that there are nearby waterways and that this type of tree is on their diet and that there are telltale signs of beaver damage.  A few more assumptions now, especially needing a waterway and there isn’t one, so this is less likely.  The last explanation requires that we have a government program building space-based laser weaponry which then requires that we have the technology and capability to create, launch and control these and that something this complex has been a secret.  This one requires a lot of assumptions and is not likely correct.  We can feel safe thinking it was storm damage and not an orbiting death ray, or even beavers.

Occam’s Razor is very useful when faced with conspiracy theories.  Conspiracies often rely on a great number of things being true for them to exist.  You may hear many variations about large corporations secretly doing things to control their consumers – this is a common theme.  Let’s unpack this a bit.  A corporation is composed of people (a lot of them) and some of them are involved in the nefarious deeds yet none talk.  They will require support and yet no one else talks and funds are never found missing.  Gossip spreads fast in a large company and yet no one has heard of anything.  You’d think that someone who left the company disgruntled would scream about the conspiracy, but they don’t.  You might hear the company threatened their life, but now you have a new set of assumptions: the company is willing to take on the legal risk of death threats, they actively employ assassins, etc.  You can see how each time a new reason is given, it comes with a new set of assumptions.

Scientists will regularly use Occam’s Razor when reviewing results.  A current example is about a device called the EmDrive.  It is an engine that appears to produce thrust without propellant and it seems to defy the laws of physics – specifically “for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction”.  This is especially interesting because many people are replicating the experiment and seeing some kind of result.  However, since it does seem to defy well established theories, they want to see if there is another explanation, perhaps not simpler but which does not require the assumption that Newton’s Second Law of Motion is wrong.  We may only have one assumption here, but it’s a big one.  They may have a case where measurement error is creeping in, some other effect is causing the thrust or something else not found yet.  

You can apply Occam’s Razor in everyday life as a useful tool.  We’re often presented with explanations that we can’t tell are accurate or not.  Use this to unpack the explanation.  Ask yourself what assumptions must be true for the explanation to work.  You may even see cases where the assumptions then spawn their own assumptions and that should definitely set off the warning alarm.  You don’t even need to compare two explanations, you can use it to see if just one is likely.  You could spend all day just testing explanations in politics on the news, but you may find that neither partys’ was any good!  Now, I have to go check on a strange hole that was burned through my roof to see if it was beavers.

Episode 24: When is a Beard a Lawn

Several weeks ago, I started having some dangerously tall trees around the house taken down.  These are those trees that were lovely little pines early on that look great with winter snow on them but many years later are over 50 feet tall.  To worsen matters their root structure is shallow which high winds and heavy snows can bring them down.  When they were planted 10 feet from your house and near power lines that’s a looming disaster.

Now that some of them are down, areas that were too shaded or covered in pine needles to grow grass are now open and ready for a lawn.  This was an area prone to wash out so having some grass to hold the soil is a great idea.  I still have roots to work around but those will rot and get pulled out later.  So, we got some seed, loosened up the soil, put down some fertilizer, spread the seed, covered with hay, watered and waited.  After a few days we had some torrential rains that washed the seed away, so we did it all again.  And waited.  This time we had no more heavy rains and the seed sprouted.  Several more days and a lovely green fuzz started to cover the area.

That got me to thinking, when do I go from just growing grass to having a lawn?  Certainly if a few seeds have just sprouted that’s not enough.  Maybe when there are some patches at least a few inches high?  No, that doesn’t seem like enough either.  I know it will eventually reach “lawn” status, but if one blade of grass doesn’t do it, two doesn’t, three doesn’t then it follows that continuing to add more will never get there.  So how do I eventually get a lawn?  As it turns out, we’re trapped in a fallacy – the beard fallacy!

I love this fallacy, mainly because of the name.  Beard fallacy.  It’s just fun.  What does it mean?  The fallacy originates in the thought that if one hair doesn’t make a beard, and two hairs doesn’t, and three hairs doesn’t then it’s impossible to ever have a beard.  Having a beard and growing grass are things that exist on a continuum that don’t have clear points of delineation.  We can certainly point out someone who has a beard and who doesn’t, where there is and isn’t a lawn.  There isn’t a need to count hairs or measure grass.  These are more subjective than objective distinctions.

As an example, can you tell me when someone reaches adulthood?  In the US, high school graduation is at age 18 and some see that as becoming an adult.  But then there’s graduating from college at 24-25 yrs old which is maybe adulthood.  What if a 16 year old has after school jobs and shows a lot of responsibility?  Could we consider that person an adult?  Adulthood is a continuum, not a specific point.  There is no one thing we can point to about a person’s life that makes them an adult.  Instead its more implied, a collection of events and passage of time that informs us.  If it was just the passage of time, we would not notice that some people aged 30, 40, 50 or more don’t seem to posses what we consider are the qualities of adulthood.

Do you know anyone who is a master of some craft?  When did that person attain the distinction of “master”?  Was it a certain amount of time spent, such as the supposed 10,000 hours or was it the completion of some particular challenge.  Perhaps it was by doing something only a master could do (if you “huh?” there, that’s good, this is another fallacy we’ll look at another time).  Mastery is another continuum based activity.  We don’t always know what it takes to be a master, but we seem able to recognize one.  We can also recognize when someone calls themselves a master but they really aren’t 

The realm of medical diagnosis is much more based on a continuum than we might like it to be.  I’m sure you’ve been sick at some time before.  What did it take to think of yourself as “sick”?  Did you have a head cold, flu symptoms, fever, aches or did you have a doctor perform tests and make a diagnosis first?  “Being sick” is likely different from person to person.  Cancers, as dangerous as they are, can be slow or aggressive with some deadly, others treatable and a rare few not a problem at all.  Pain is very subjective and can vary wildly from person to person.  It is often looked at in conjunction with other symptoms or complaints.  

There are some common forms of this where a hard line is turned into a continuum, like someone who is 20 years and 364 saying they are only one day away from 21 so why can’t they have alcohol (if in the US, where 21 is the legal drinking age).  And if 20 yrs. and 364 days is OK, is 363, or 362, or why not just 19 yrs. old?  However, the legal drinking age really is a hard line.  If something costs $29.99 you could easily say that 29.98 is only 1 cent away and that’s not big deal, 29.97 is only one cent less than that and you could keep going, but the price is $29.99.  It’s not a continuum.

I like this fallacy because it really makes us think about a lot of common things around us and ensure we consider them correctly.  We do, as humans, like to put delineations where none exist, and to remove them when they do (we’re funny that way).  It is important to know the difference – a doctor will see you if feel a little sick, but the local bar won’t server you if you are slightly less than 21 yrs. old.  Now I wonder if shaving is the best way to get out of this fallacy?

Episode 11: Therefore aliens

Let’s face facts, shall we?  There’s a whole lotta stuff I don’t know.  Why is ice slippery?  Why do we drive on a parkway but park on a driveway?  How long should I wait after eating to go swimming?  But nothing vexes me more than why in a peanut butter and jelly sandwich the piece of bread with the jelly on it goes on top.

A variety of polls show that the jelly should go on top.  However, an exhaustive search (like the 1st page of Google) turned up only some vague ideas.  Something about heavier ingredients or taste sensations on the bottom but nothing was definitive.  Science is oddly silent on this item and yet they are the same people who figured out how bumble bees fly.  So why are there no in-depth studies on this or even an undergrad study project?  When presented with this type of problem, there is only one possible solution - Aliens.

It’s the only answer that makes any sense at all.  Aliens, who we all know built the pyramids, also left us the PB&J and they designed it so that the jelly goes on top.  The reason no scientists will study this is that to look into it would be to confirm once and for all that aliens exist.  And they just aren’t allowed to do that.  Big Jelly has total control and the aliens running it want to stay hidden.  See, this is the only explanation that works.

Hopefully you thought about that and went “Um what?”.  Yeah, I stepped in all sorts of logic problem buckets.  Let’s take a look at them.

I’ll start with basing a conclusion, aliens, on the fact that I don’t understand why jelly is mostly top bread based.  This is a personal incredulity fallacy (or argument from ignorance).  It basically means that a conclusion is based on the fact that there is a lack of evidence or not understanding the existing evidence.  As weird of a fallacy as this seems, it shows up far too often.  The universe isn’t expanding because I’m not getting bigger (not understanding that universal expansion happens in space over large scales, not locally).  Then the leap I made – aliens must exist because there is no evidence for why jelly goes on top.  This ignores lots of perfectly rational explanations such as: the data is bad and jelly isn’t more often on the top than the bottom, maybe it is based on ingredient flavor and position when eating, perhaps it’s just cultural phenomenon, etc.

Wow, what else did I do?  Well, I also jumped to a conclusion and in the process stumbled into a black and white fallacy.  In essence, I said either jelly physics has a reasonable explanation that I would understand or aliens did it.  I left no room for anything in the middle or even the chance that new information might show up in the future.  Since you can’t prove it wasn’t aliens, I also made this a non-falsifiable argument.  I’m right because it’s impossible for you to prove me wrong when in fact it should be up to me to prove aliens are real and controlling vital PB&J technology.  That’s 3 logical errors in row – I’m really on a roll!

For good measure I threw in some conspiratorial thinking.  When there is a non-falsifiable claim it’s nice to also have a conspiracy on your side in case anyone just happens falsify it.  Then, you can just say “they were in on it” or “someone must have gotten to them”.  Assuming a conspiracy exists can happen when we don’t see that our logic was faulty and we just weren’t thinking clearly enough.  If we recognize that our logic was faulty, then we can make ourselves more open to seeing other possibilities and likely find there is no need for a conspiracy.

Its entirely possible I made other logical errors, but these are the primary ones and by examining them my claim is turned into nonsense.  Here’s the important point of critical thinking I want to make sure is regularly mentioned – I don’t have to feel bad or ashamed because I held an incorrect view or opinion.  Instead, I’m happy to recognize these issues and work towards a better understanding of the subject.  Too often we’re told making a mistake is bad and we should never admit to it.  That stops us from growing – learning through mistakes is a vital part of our education.

Episode 10: Pedantry is dumb, but still useful

People keep telling me I drink way too much coffee.  They say I really should drink less than 12 cups a day (just for the record, this is for illustrative purposes only!).  But I’m smart and informed and ready with a comeback.  I know that “less” is applicable when discussing mass or weight and what they really mean is “fewer” which applies to counting.  I can confidently respond “Aha, since you said less, then you are wrong and my coffee habits are fine!  Good day sir.”

Of course that makes me a jerk (again, for the record, I don’t actually do that, illustrating and all).  It also makes me a pedant or engaging in pedantry.  This is when a person is overly concerned with minor details and rules, and it shows up in language quite a bit.  That grocery store sign that says “12 items or less” should really be “12 items or fewer”.  We all understand what is meant and get on with our shopping though, we don’t need to know the difference.

I will argue that knowing there is a difference is, however, useful.   In a grocery store context less and fewer are easily interchanged.  If you are reading a scientific article the author might be using these terms with their exact meanings implied.  These terms can show up in dieting – less than 12 grams of sugar per day and fewer than 3 servings of ice cream.  By understanding the differences we can more easily see meaning and nuance.  If we run across them used incorrectly we don’t have to get bent out of shape.

Another fun but useful bit of pedantry is the meaning of terms venom and poison.  Venom is a Spiderman villain and Poison is an 80s rock group.  No, wait, that’s not it.  Venom and poison are actually the same thing but differ by their method of application.  If the substance is injected, then it is venom and that’s how we get venomous critters – they bite or sting to inject the venom.  Poisons, on the other hand, are something that we ingest (or inhale).  So, by these rules, if I extract the venom from a snake, drink it and it harms me, I poisoned myself (I don’t recommend doing this).  What if I extract the venom, put it into a syringe and inject it into myself, I guess then it’s still venom.  The important point is that there is some kind of toxin in my body that probably isn’t good and I should see a doctor.

Drat, I said toxin up there, didn’t I?  This is a tough one, especially these days.  It’s a word that normally has a pretty broad meaning but has now become a thing unto itself.  We all need to quit taking in toxins and we need to get the toxins out.  Here’s the confusing bit, toxins aren’t a thing.  Everything is toxic to us, it just depends on the amount.  Oxygen, yep, too much will kill you.  Water, yep, that one too.  Vitamin C – you’re gonna need a lot but it does get toxic at some point.  Other items are simpler to determine: hydrochloric acid is bad even though we all have some anyway in our stomachs, alcohol is good at the start but too much is bad, radioactive substance are generally not good, tide pods we know aren’t good at all.  When we hear mention of toxins in our bodies we should immediately ask what substance is it that we have too much of because toxin is more of a catch all term. 

Understanding the differences in words is not of itself a bad thing.  It’s ok if someone calls a snake out on the hiking trail as poisonous, we don’t really need to correct that.  If we’re talking with a physician, herpetologist or poison control center then we may want to try and use these terms with their more exact meanings.  Knowing when to look for and use the more detailed meanings of words is the useful bit of knowledge to keep in mind.  The real kicker here will come when someone tells me I didn’t define pedantry accurately enough.

Episode 9: Could you please repeat that?

I recently completed a first of its kind, revolutionary, ground breaking, extraordinary study to once and for all determine exactly what the best kind of cookie really is.  And the winner is … chocolate chip! Yes, that’s right, the humble chocolate chip cookie is the hands down favorite.  Let us all rejoice and rest easy now that we’ve finally put that great mystery to bed.

If your first question when reading this is “Where can I get some cookies?” well then, you’re right.  But you should also ask “Hey, how did you conduct this study?”.  Likely you’ll get an answer that falls into one of three types.  Depending on which type you get could change how much trust you put in the results of a survey or study.

It’s entirely possible I will tell you that the methodology used in my study is confidential and a trade secret.  If I was to tell you, you could do your own studies and thereby take money out of my pocket and then I couldn’t buy cookies anymore.  Finding out the methodology for a study is somehow secret doesn’t automatically make the study suspect, but it should set off some loud warning klaxons.  When you know that you can’t review the methods used it means that you have to take the provider’s results pretty much on faith.  Maybe the operator of the study is trustworthy and accurate and this is fine.  However, this tact is also used to hide problems or lead recipients into a desired conclusion.  It’s also possible the study was flawed or perhaps wasn’t even done in the first place.  Since you can’t see it, you can’t tell.

I could be totally cool and give you all the details of the study.  In this case, you’ll know that I used 24 types of cookies, sourced from award winning bakeries that used only top ingredients and each cookie was made within 24 hours of eating.  The participants were a group of 61 people from diverse cultures and genders and age ranges.  Oh, and it was in space.  Like outer space.  You are perfectly free to repeat my study, but it was conducted in such a way that it is difficult if not impossible to ever repeat the exact conditions.  Since you know all the details perhaps you can trust the results.  Since you know the study isn’t reproduceable it is fine to consider the results a bit suspect.  Perhaps there were reasons the study was designed to make reproducing it difficult.

Finally, I could tell you that I purchased 12 packages of common brand name cookies in differing varieties (and provide the details of each) and that I assembled a group of 25 randomly diverse people (again, giving the details of the group like gender, age, ethnicity) and asked them to sample each cookie and rank their top 5 in order.  Then I picked the most often occurring one.  This is great, you have everything you need if you want to conduct this study, and it’s entirely possible to do so.  This is what we like to hear.  However, what happens far too often is you find out there was only one study done.  No one else did this to see if the results were the same.  When multiple people do the study and get the same result, then it’s trustworthiness goes up.  Since there was just the one study, how much do you trust it?  If you are planning on starting a cookie business and investing your life’s savings on this one result, you might want to rethink that decision.  Wondering what cookie to buy this week at the store, maybe you’re OK.

We see a lot of news that starts with something like “Latest study shows …” but we’re not often told much about the studies themselves.  Some could fall into the first category where the method is purposely hidden.  You might see this in cases where someone purports to have defied gravity or created a perpetual motion machine – only you can’t see how it was done.  Be wary.  While my second type seems a bit fantastical, it’s pretty common in the science world simply because some things are hard to do.  A number of studies are literally done in space, so doing them again is extremely cost prohibitive.  Or they require very specific conditions and knowledge.  This doesn’t immediately invalidate the results, but it does mean we should interpret it as not fully verified or even likely to change in the future.  The last type is also very common, and very pervasive.  Quite a number of studies were done once, got a result and never repeated.  There was no nefarious reason for not repeating them, it just never happened.  We should certainly be aware of these so we can more accurately make decisions using their results.  A number of psychological studies have wound up here, and many of their results are used commonly.

The moral of the story here is that you might need to study the studies.  For now, I need some cookies.

Episode 8: Logically speaking, that’s illogical

It’s spring when I’m writing this and I’ve been out getting to lawn work, cleaning up the property and taking the time to see everything bloom.  The few fruit trees we have are certainly flowering and already my mind is wandering forward to picking and processing.  While stopping to smell the roses I was reminded of an odd study that proved a diet of just tree bark was effective for weight loss.  The study showed that eating a diet of mainly tree bark helped participants shed the pounds.

That sounded a bit weird, so further digging was required.  It turns out that this study was done on 25 people – a small group but this is an odd bit of research so we’ll allow it.  Participants were asked to make tree bark at least 65% of their intake every day for 4 weeks.  They could do what they want with – straight crunching, puree, paste, boiled, mashed, fried, anything.  Of the 25 people, 2 actually did lose significant weight and that’s what was reported.  But what about the other 23 you ask?  Of those, 12 reported no change, 4 actually gained weight (maybe they did the fried bark), 5 became extremely ill and had to quit (you really shouldn’t eat tree bark!) and the last two started mumbling incoherently about Groot.  This is a classic example of cherry picking – the study found a few examples that proved its effectiveness and then either ignored or under reported the rest. 

Doing all that research made me hungry so it was time to find some pizza.  It is the accepted post research food!  A quick check told me the two styles are Chicago Deep Dish and New York.  Since I’m in the Northeast US I have to like New York style.  Even thinking about a Chicago Deep Dish is grounds for incarceration.  But wait, I thought, this is pizza, ubiquitous and delicious, don’t I have more than 2 options?  I could go for a stuffed crust which to me seems like deep dish around the edge with NY in the middle.  Or tomato pie, also a specialty here in the Northeast US that’s just bread with cold tomato sauce topping which is sort of deep dish, I think?  Meat lovers 4 cheese thin crust – sure it’s NY style but there are so many toppings it’s pretty thick.  I suddenly realized I had a false dichotomy on my hands.  I was told there were only two options, when in fact there were many.  So, I had fried chicken.

After that little snack it was time to get back to the yard work.  Since I live on a farm, sometimes people stop to ask animal and farming type questions.  Today I was asked if I had any plans to raise beefalids, to which I responded “uh ….”.  I said this sounds like cross between a cow and a worm and I’m pretty sure it doesn’t exist.  The response I got was “Sure they do”.  So, I asked to see one.  At this point the person said it wasn’t their job to show me one, but since I’m the one who doesn’t believe they are real then I have to prove they don’t exist.  Darn that proving non-existence fallacy!  You see, its generally very difficult, if not impossible, to prove that something doesn’t exist.  Instead, the burden of proof should always be on the one stating the existence.  I don’t like to see someone leave angry, but this person headed off in a huff muttering something about stopping for a worm burger.

These are examples of fallacious arguments.  They exist everywhere and they aren’t always done to deceive, sometimes we don’t even know we’re using them.  Such an argument doesn’t necessarily mean an incorrect conclusion, either.  It’s quite possible that beefalids do exist, but someone must prove it first as opposed to make me disprove it.  In too many cases, though, someone might be looking to trick you and it’s good to look at their arguments and evidence.  Studies are especially prone to cherry picking where the conformational data is reported and the rest is ignored or down played.  The current US political climate is heavy with false dichotomies, telling us we have only two choices, when in fact things are much more nuanced and grey.  Proving non-existence may seem silly but it’s all too common especially when the goal is to refute an established fact – I sleep on a pillow full of oregano to improve my complexion and you can’t prove it doesn’t help me so therefore it does.