I thought this might be of interest to regulars on the forum here. I’ve long been an advocate of a systematic and consistent approach to thinking about anything and everything related to science or critical thinking, and any tool or framework that can help you do so is one that is going to get my stamp of approval.
FLICC is an acronym that has become popular in recent years in discussions about the subject. It’s an observation by climate scientist John Cook and others that claims made in support of science denial, pseudoscience and scientific misinformation generally follow one or more of five different patterns:
Fake experts
Logical fallacies
Impossible expectations
Cherry picking
Conspiracy theories
Learning to spot these patterns and red flags is an effective and powerful way to help guard yourself against bad arguments and to provide a coherent explanation as to why exactly they are bad.
There is no “must.” It is a strategy. And a popular one.
Actor or youtube “influenced” in a white lab coat or scrubs looking medical, or a committee of the US House of Representatives, refers to a “study” he or she claims to base conclusions on. They/he/she spout/s conclusions referring to the title and source of the study.
Gullible viewer takes the fake authority of the fake expert at face value and passes it on to me. I take 45 minutes to find the original, glance at the abstract and conclusion and mutter: “BS. They aren’t even talking about the same thing.”
When people trust the fake expert they like to tell them the truth they don’t do the homework of looking up the original. We are easily taken in by people we find trustworthy. And so fake experts have a lot of power with a lot of people.
Should arguments stand or fall on their own internal logic? Richard’s question seems to suggest that he thinks so. But you say, I think, we all depend on trustworthy testimony from people who actually know what they’re doing. Which raises the question your post highlights: when and why do we treat someone’s testimony as trustworthy?
What makes an argument bad are conclusions not following from premises or premises being incorrect.
All of these, including appeal to fake (or real experts) are reducible to logical fallacies. Claiming credentialed experts, even if they are in a minority, are fake, because someone disagrees with them is also not good thinking: “All the real experts are the ones who agree with me.” One wonders how any progress is ever made.
We can defer to educated people in their field of expertise and we do so all the time, but that is not an argument. It’s me saying I don’t know the answer, and I’m choosing to trust this person’s education, credentials and judgment. Sometimes we get a second or third opinion (as with a car problem or medical diagnoses) and sometime we just fork over the cash to the mechanic on good faith. That is not an argument and when turned into one it is a fallacy. Appeal to authority, while perfectly reasonable in forming our own beliefs, is not a valid argument for the truth of a proposition. It’s a method we all use because we cannot study everything or know how to do everything in life. But houses burn down because “experts” mess up the wiring and people die in hospitals because “experts” get things wrong. Paradigm’s shift. Opinion changes in a lot of fields on a number of issues, including science.
For me as a teacher the issue most students take 7 years of science through middle and high school (assuming they have teacher or qualified teachers all that time!) and then still lack a good understanding of it. It is not fun fighting against AI today either. Honestly, these kids are just bombarded by information all day everyday. It’s too much to process and vet. Screen time is 10+ hours a day on phones alone for a lot of kids. I feel sorry for our current generation. How do you know what’s true when all these sources disagree? Not to mention in the US we are so politically divided, distrust of news and experts has woven itself into every fabric of life.
At least in my district, climate is our first main unit for freshmen in earth and physical science. We just went through factors that control earth’s climate (tilt, unequal heating, seasons, latitude, proximity to water, global circulation geologic features etc) and now I’m explaining how plate tectonics influences climate which is just my way of teaching the basics of plate tectonics. Finally we go into the human aspect as our final climate unit so they will understand the greenhouse effect very well before they leave my classroom.
Kids need a logic class in high school and practice picking out fallacies.
Perhaps you should ask that to @jammycakes?
It is his OP.
But, as @Terry_Sampson has pointed out, it depends on the subject matter and the type of “argument”.
New ideas cannot come if the argument has to include previous conclusions or understanding. Progress needs people to have lateral thinking and “out of the box” thinking which denies any reference to authority or expert.
The unfortunate side effect of this mentality is that an unknown, or even previously discredited source could come u with the goods and be dismissed out of hand because of their history or reputation, whereas a reputable sourcce is free to go off the rails and still be heard.
Arguments, or ideas, (hypothesis, theory etc) should be measured by their own merit, not the person or persons who propose them.
(Not ad-hominem)
Richard
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
10
Logical fallacies covers a lot of the issues with bad arguments. In fact, cherry picking is a logical fallacy so it’s a bit of a redundancy in your list. I was going to suggest bare assertions as an addition to the list, but that is also covered by logical fallacies. Appeal to authority is also a logical fallacy, so that covers both real and fake experts.
For me, the basic approach to any argument is to ask what reasoning and evidence led to the conclusion. A good place to start is an agreed up on set of facts.
Added in edit: A good model for what I am describing is a primary peer reviewed scientific paper which anyone can find online. First, you give some background info on the subject. Second, describe your hypothesis. Third, present your data and experimental design. Fourth, analyze the data. Fifth, show how the data supports your conclusion. I’m not saying an argument has to follow these steps, but it’s a pretty good model to keep in mind.
1 Like
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
11
New ideas do need to include known facts. If an idea can’t explain known facts then it is a failed idea. Einstein’s new idea of relativity explained the known fact of the precession in Mercury’s orbit, something Newton’s ideas of gravity could not explain. That’s why Einstein’s idea replaced Newton’s idea.
If the out of the box thinking ignores known facts then it isn’t relevant to reality.
Absolutely. I 100% agree.
1 Like
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
12
I think it is pretty normal to use an initial “smell test”. Conflicts of interest are pretty obvious red flags, especially when it is accompanied by a position that runs counter to the overwhelming consensus in a given field. There are also “too good to be true” arguments. One of the examples I have run across is the creationist argument that evolution violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. When someone with an obvious lack of education in physics proposes that a widely held theory violates a law of physics we all learn about in high school, well, chances are they just don’t understand thermodynamics (which is the case in this example).
Yeah… my immediate reaction was that this is a whole question is already a well explored science. My second reaction was suspicion prompting me to examine the list looking for fallacious additions. I think some are misused and answer is then to look up the precise explanation in a general description of logical fallacies. I particularly liked the inclusion of impossible expectations since that is one I have explained myself on quite a few occasions. So the only question left is “conspiracy theories.” Does that have a precise definition or is that just a label for things that people just don’t want to take seriously. Hmmm… seems to imply excessive paranoia… but you know what they say… just because someone is paranoid doesn’t mean nobody is out to get them.
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
14
Most conspiracy theories could fall under the general banner of bare assertions.
What it essentially boils down to is people are lying about the facts. If this is so, then present the evidence they are lying about the facts. Just the assertion of a conspiracy isn’t enough. If the vast majority of scientists are lying about the increase in global temperatures, then show us the evidence that led you to conclude they are lying about it, or that they are at least wrong.
Earlier I brought up appeals to conflicts of interest which can be considered a conspiracy theory. What I would suggest is that conflicts of interest don’t immediately disqualify an argument, but they do call for extra scrutiny. If someone thinks there is a conspiracy theory, then lets scrutinize the data together and see if it pans out.
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
16
Data is just another word for facts. Yes, it is about facts. Why shouldn’t it be? If an argument doesn’t align with known facts then the argument doesn’t have merit.
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
18
By definition, facts are available. An unavailable fact is an oxymoron. When I say that an argument needs to align with known facts I am talking about available facts.
Using the global warming example, temperatures from across the globe are available. The absorbance spectrum of carbon dioxide is available. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is available. The makeup of past atmospheres are available in ice formations.
The birth of a dinosaur is a fact. Show it happening.
Likewise all your claimed evolutionary changes. You cannot demonstrate them happening.
Some facts are unobtainable. They happened in the past and are beyond your observration.
In fact many facts are beyond your specific observation, but they are still facts.
Richard
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
20
It happens every time we observe a bird laying eggs and new birds hatching from the eggs.
If are talking about dinosaur species that existed in the past, then it wouldn’t be fact that they were born in the same way modern dinosaurs are born. That is an argument with a whole host of facts to support it, such as the fact of fossil dinosaur eggs.
You are again confusing the argument and the facts. Evolutionary changes are the argument. We then point to many different facts to support that argument.
Facts and arguments are two separate things. Please don’t confuse them.
What happened in the past is the argument. We use facts we can observe in the present to argue for what happened in the past.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.