Objectivism 101

Lesson 1: What is Objectivism, Reason Defined

Knowledge and rational principles (part 2)

Logical fallacies are various rules about illogical reasoning, i.e. what not to do. There is no canonical list of fallacies - there are as many fallacies as there are logical errors. If you are not familiar with logical fallacies, consult a list such as Stephen's Guide to Logical Fallacies (on the role of logic in integrating our knowledge, read the bottom half of p138 in O:PAR).

For example, some crackpots appeal to authority figures which have no connection to the field they are commenting on, let alone expertise on that subject (such as physicists arguing for Creationism). The crackpot is trying to bank on the credibility of the authority, and not his evidence or expertise. This is an appeal to authority.

Note that accepting proven scientific facts or other common knowledge is not an appeal to authority, unless there is reason to doubt the evidence that these facts were based on.
For example, a free-energy proponent cannot simply claim that the laws of thermodynamics are fallacious. The latter are so solid that it would take extraordinary evidence to refute them. Which leads us to our next principle...

Skepticism is the demand for extraordinary evidence in response to extraordinary claims. If you make an incredible claim, you better have proportional evidence to back it up. This is merely a consequence of the demand for objective evidence and Occam's Razor.

For example, if someone claims that free-energy machines disprove the laws of thermodynamics, one would demand rigorous evidence for such an incredible claim. Putting up a show and displaying a wheel turning for a couple of minutes during a carnival sideshow is evidence, but not sufficient evidence.
We would be asking for : an examination of the internals of the machine, testing with power measurements, a basic scientific proof of the mechanisms at work, etc.

Dichotomies (divisions in two parts) are often dangerous. We tend to divide fields in ways which blind us to other possibilities.

For example, dividing the political spectrum between "Left" and "Right" blinds us to the myriad of political opinions beyond these two points. In fact, much of the merit of Ayn Rand was to break a number of false dichotomies (including the one between mysticism and epistemic skepticism, which we will see in the next section).

But if used correctly, dichotomies can be very useful, especially to break down a vast subject in parts. My personal method is simple - and I think you will find it useful also.

To take a simple example, suppose you are thinking about the influence of teeth on animal diet. You would then divide the field of "animals" in two dichotomies : with teeth/without teeth, and carnivorous/non-carnivorous.
You therefore end up with four categories (carnivorous animals with teeth, non-carnivorous animals with teeth, carnivorous animals without teeth, and non-carnivorous animals without teeth). If a category does not exist in reality, it can then be eliminated, leaving you with three categories.

It is important that you divide with complements, not just with opposites. For example, the complement of white is not black, but all non-white colours.

Use scientific studies; if you can't, quantify; if you can't, evaluate. This is perhaps the most important principle when looking for empirical evidence. It is important because our rough evaluations tend to be imprecise and tainted with our own impressions.

If you can find scientific studies, use them. Otherwise, try to find a percentage or number that can give you some indication. Otherwise, at least try to evaluate the order of magnitude of the phenomenon.

Here are some examples :

Some people were cured at Lourdes.
becomes
Only 66 cases were authenticated by the Church since the beginning, out of 5.5 million visitors every year.

Intercessory prayer can be effective.
becomes
More than 1 200 studies have been published on the subject, and yet no non-explainable effect has been found.

This concludes our brief overview of some important rational principles.

  1  2  3  4  5  6  7