RECOGNISING DODGY ARGUMENTS

HOW VALUES, BIASES AND DODGY ARGUMENTS

MISLEAD US


Recognising Dodgy Arguments - How Values, Biases and Dodgy Arguments Mislead Us
1
Taking Shortcuts in Response to Information
Overload
Advances in communications technologies mean that we are bombarded with
more information than ever before and have less and less time to analyse it.
This means:
Mental shortcuts replace careful scrutiny of information (So we haven't lost the
ability, we have lost the time to use our ability),
it is easier to become a victim of misinformation and wonky logic.
Mental shortcuts are ways we handle complex information with minimal effort, such as
using intuition or stereotypes. They work well most of the time, but sometimes they can
make us overconfident in an idea that is based on faulty logic.
And although most of us like to think we consider things reasonably, our fears, faiths and
beliefs can sometimes have too strong an influence on our thinking.
Unfortunately it is easier to recognise this in others than ourselves.
This booklet will help you assess the information and arguments that you face
daily in modern society. Thinking critically lets you find flaws in claims and
arguments and to determine logically whether statements are valid or need
challenging.
Logical Thinking
"Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end."
Commander Spock, Star Trek
Many issues are science-related; think climate change, stem cells and
genetically modified foods. This booklet considers critical thinking as it relates
to these and other areas of scientific debate.
Scientific reasoning attempts to rely on critical thinking, using evidence and logic, not
emotion, to test ideas and reach conclusions. But it is human nature to use a mix of logic
and emotion in forming our opinions. And unfortunately these elements may work
against each other, and we can emotionally reject an argument despite logic showing it
to be true.
Psychological studies show we tend to be selective with the information or evidence we
accept or reject. We accept information that supports our existing beliefs or values and
reject everything else regardless of how scientifically robust it is.
1
So when we think
we're reasoning, we're often rationalising.

1
Binder, Scheufele, Brossard, & Gunther, (2011). Interpersonal amplification of risk?
Citizen discussions and their influence on risk and benefit perceptions of a biological
research facility. Risk Analysis.
Recognising Dodgy Arguments - How Values, Biases and Dodgy Arguments Mislead Us
2
The following are examples of wonky logic that you may encounter.
A Valuable Argument?
The decisions we make are to a large extent determined by the values we hold -
how we think things should be.
Our values can often conflict with evidence, resulting in a decision based on what we're
most comfortable with, and not a careful weighing up of the alternatives.
An example of this is in the debates over genetically modified (GM) foods and crops.
Many people's position on GM crops is based on how they value things, such as 'natural'
versus 'artificial'; or anti- or pro-commercial companies involvement in the technology,
or general concerns over the rapid pace of adoption of science and technology in society.
"No mistake is more common and more fatuous than appealing to logic in cases which
are beyond her jurisdiction."
Samuel Butler, Novelist
Because of these values, people may ignore evidence and logic, such as the argument
that modern breeding also creates artificial plants, or evidence that commercial
monopolies influence which GM plants are commercialised.
Be careful that you're not falling victim to the mental shortcut of simply agreeing with a
position that aligns with your own values, or that you are filtering evidence on the basis
of those values.
In science, there is a useful approach known as falsification. Consider your position and
try to find evidence or arguments to challenge it. If it holds up despite this challenge, you
can be more confident about it.
Getting Personal
Some arguments focus on the person rather than on what they're saying. You
may trust the opinions of someone you know, or like. Conversely, you may
reject arguments simply because they are from someone whose reputation you
question or who represents an organisation or an interest group whose values
you don't share.
"Truth starts with truth and ends with truth."
Santosh Kalwar, Author
A sporting analogy is 'playing the player instead of the ball'.
The debate over climate science is a prime example, with believers and detractors citing
the credibility of spokespeople whose values they align with, rather than citing the
credibility of their data.
Suggesting a conclusion is logical because an expert made it is a poor argument. Climate
change is a concern not because the experts say so, but because the scientific evidence
indicates that climate change is a real concern.
Recognising Dodgy Arguments - How Values, Biases and Dodgy Arguments Mislead Us
3
The Man Who Was Made of Straw
Why a man of straw? Think of the traditional scarecrow: its purpose is to scare
birds away from crops by looking like a person, but up close it can be easily
picked apart.
Straw man arguments seek to discredit an idea by exaggerating, simplifying or subtly
twisting the premises in the idea, then forming an argument that attacks this false
representation.
An example might be citing a study that found one type of GM food that had failed a
safety test, then using that as evidence that all GM foods are dangerous. This is a straw
man argument that seeks to support a conclusion which is both exaggerated and over-
simplified.
"People without brains do an awful lot of talking, don't they?
The Straw Man, The Wizard of OZ
Another might be misrepresenting or cherry-picking data. For example, a number of
experts have looked at global temperature data and found evidence for cooling, but
others pointed out that the data was over a limited time period and didn't consider all the
data.
You should also be mindful that these arguments can be deceptive or misleading, and
couched in terms that dissuade you from considering other options or solutions.
How to recognise straw men? Have a close look and try to take apart their arguments, or
consider other people who disagree and look at the logic and evidence of both. Which is
more solid?
A Precautionary Tale
"If every conceivable precaution is taken at first, one is often too discouraged to proceed
at all."
Archer J.P. Martin, Nobel Laureate
Some arguments against the introduction of new technologies can be based on
a lack of 100 per cent certainty that a technology is safe.
There are many examples. These include the regularly raised question of whether
electro-magnetic radiation from mobile phone handsets causes cancer, or whether nano-
sized particles in consumer products can cause harm.
The precautionary principle as it relates to the environment states that where the
scientific evidence is uncertain, decision-makers should take action to limit continued
environmental damage and should err on the side of caution when evaluating proposals
that may seriously or irreversibly impact on the environment.
2
But proceeding with
caution is not stopping.

2
http://www.aph.gov.au/Library/pubs/rn/1997-98/98rn04.htm
Recognising Dodgy Arguments - How Values, Biases and Dodgy Arguments Mislead Us
4
Many opponents of individual technologies take the precautionary principle to extremes,
claiming that any uncertainty warrants a moratorium on activity or development until
there is complete proof of its suitability and safety.
Scientifically, complete proof is impossible, as you can prove that something is safe
several times, but you can't prove it will always be safe.
Erring on the side of excessive caution affects technological progress. In the case of
mobile communication technology, this would mean mobile phone development would
still be in its infancy. In other fields, it would mean fewer health and medical
advancements and fewer agricultural technologies for food production.
You, like society as a whole, need to consider what risks are worth taking for what
benefits.
An Indefensible Defence
To argue with a person who has renounced reason is like administering medicine to the
dead.
Thomas Paine, Author
Human psychology is a peculiar thing. Experiments show that we first seek out
information that supports our existing positions and dismiss or ignore
information that goes against them, and second, when we adopt a position on
anything we are very reluctant to give it up - even in the face of solid evidence
that contradicts that position.
3
Indeed, in many cases, being shown contrary
evidence can make people more strongly defend their original position.
4
So how do you challenge people's wonky logic?
The most effective methods rely on:
framing messages that align with the values of the person you are talking to,
keeping facts simple (and simpler than the statements of faulty logic),
keeping your arguments free from your own emotional biases,
talk about the outcomes of research, not the processes,
Referring to spokespeople those you are talking to trust, and
using pictures and graphs to reinforce a factual argument.
It also helps to be respectful of other people, particularly of their values, and to allow
yourself to learn from other people's perspectives, all the while keeping a watchful eye
on logic and evidence.

3
Druckman, J. & Bolsen, T., (2011), Framing, Motivated Reasoning, and Opinions about
Emergent Technologies. Journal of Communication
4
Nyhan and Reifler, (2010), When Corrections Fail: The persistence of political
misperceptions, Political Behavior.
Recognising Dodgy Arguments - How Values, Biases and Dodgy Arguments Mislead Us
5
Suggested Reading:
Blur: How to Know What's True in the Age of Information Overload, By Bill Kovach and
Tom Rosenstiel
Slow thinking, fast thinking, by Dan Kanehan
The Debunking Handbook, by John Cook and Stephan Lewandowsky
Tribal Science by Mike McRae
www.technyou.edu.au
http://education.technyou.edu.au/critical-thinking
www.youtube.com.au/techNyouvids
www.facebook.com/talkingtechnology
Authorised by the Australian Government, Capital Hill, Canberra. Printed by SOS Print &
Media, 65 Burrows Road, Alexandria, 2015.
Printed and Distributed:

Freecard Media Australia All Rights Reserved 2012 #16297 55% Recycled + Carbon
Neutral www.avantcard.com.au