Jussie Smollett, Bad Inferences, and Narrative

Introduction
I've been seeing what I take to be a lot of bad inferences by smart people concerning the Jussie Smollet hoax. There is a long-running narrative on parts of the right (particularly online) that we should be skeptical of the authenticity of many hate crimes. The Jussie Smollet hoax is pouring gasoline on this narrative and spreading it outside its usual domain on the right.

While both the hoax and the narrative are ugly, this is a beautiful opportunity to talk about some of my favorite critical thinking concepts....

Key Concepts
Fallacy of Confirming Evidence: Sister of confirmation bias, the fallacy of confirming evidence is when we count only confirming evidence and ignore disconfirming evidence when forming our conclusions. For example, suppose I hold the belief that vaccines cause autism. I go out into the world and I see an autistic child and I find out that child was also vaccinated. Hypothesis confirmed! I see another child with autism that was vaccinated. Yet more evidence. Ah ha! Vaccines cause autism. I could do this all day long: Find autistic children, discover their vaccination status, and if its positive count it as confirmation for my hypothesis.

The obvious error is that I'm not taking into account all the children who have been vaccinated but aren't autistic. In general terms, I'm only taking into account positive evidence and ignoring disconfirming evidence as I form my view.

The fallacy of confirming evidence often works together with motivated reasoning. Rather than examine a data set then come to a conclusion, I begin with the conclusion, "vaccines cause autism", then go out into the world and carefully select only the evidence that supports this view.

Good reasoning requires that we take into account both confirming and disconfirming evidence. Which leads to our next concept...

Framing: Absolute Numbers vs Rates: It's very easy to mislead people with absolute numbers since they provide no context. For example, if you hear that 20 people got A's in my class last semester you might think my class is easy. But not so fast. To make the correct evaluation you need to know how many people were in my class total. If there were only 20 students in my class then 20 A's is a decent indication that either my class is easy or I'm the world's greatest teacher. However, if it turns out that I had 500 students in my class, then you might draw different conclusions.

The lesson here is that we cannot evaluate absolute numbers without context and using rates is an excellent way of giving context. Partisan media and groups often use absolute numbers as a way of creating a narrative.

There are a bunch more, but this should be enough to get the party started. I've listed some other ones at the end of this post for the keeners.

The Jussie Smollet Hoax and Hate Crime Hoaxes
With these critical thinking concepts in our back pocket, let's take a look at hate crime hoaxes. Several right-wing media outlets have helpfully compiled lists of all the hate crime hoaxes during the Trump presidency going back to 2016. These lists are graciously prepared in order to save us from the epidemic of liberal hate crime hoaxes aimed to delegitimize the moral bonafides of Trump and his supporters.

I counted about 20 on the list. Let's triple that for fun. That's 60 hoax hate crimes since 2016. That makes 20/year!!!! OMG we're over-run with hate crime hoaxes. All hate crimes must be hoaxes. #DontBelieveThem

Oh, wait. We need to know the total number of reported hate crimes/year. The FBI puts it at around 7000/year. Let's do some math: Let's see...7000/20....that's 0.286%. So, less that one percent of reported hate crimes are hoaxes (if we triple the actual number). Clearly this is an epidemic. Our immediate reaction to someone claiming to be the victim of a hate crime should be to disbelieve them because there's a .286% chance it's a hoax:

Of course, there's a 99% chance that it isn't but let's not let statistics interfere with the narrative folks! Let's also keep in mind that the FBI and other reporting agencies estimate that the number of actual hate crimes is much higher than the number that actually get reported. This means that the percentage of hate crimes that are hoaxes is probably even lower than 2/10th of a percent.

As a final note, suppose absolutely everyone who was subject to a hate crime is included in the FBI statistics (which is very unlikely since the groups who are typically subject to hate crimes have good reasons to fear the police). Suppose we also multiply the actual incidence of confirmed hoaxes by TEN. That would be 20x10=200 hate crime hoaxes since 2016. Which means ~67 hoaxes per year. 7000/67= ~1%. So, even in the most charitable interpretation of the hate crime hoax epidemic, the incidence rate doesn't rise above 1%.

Don't fall for the right-wing narrative. Remember, facts not feelings!

Bonus Round:
Availability Bias: This is the tendency to think that the examples that most easily come to mind are also the most representative examples of a phenomena. The availability bias explains why many people are afraid of flying. When there's an airplane accident it's all over the news. We don't hear major news reports of all the airplanes that didn't crash. So, when some people think of airplane safety the first thing that comes to mind is the crashes, not the same flights. Because these are the examples that most readily come to mind, the mind takes them to be the most representative cases of airplane safety.

In the case of hoaxes, we are inundated with stories if there is a hoax (especially if you are in a right wing media ecosystem). The 7000 legitimate cases rarely get the media coverage the hoaxes do. Since the hoaxes are the most available cases, the mind takes them as the most representative cases, and extrapolates from them general conclusions about hate crimes.

Selection Bias: A selection bias will operate in conjunction with the availability bias. Which sorts of cases are the most likely to make the news? The ones that are outliers for a variety of reasons. They often involve high profile people or are anomalous for various reasons. There are 7000 hate crimes per year. Why don't we see all of them reported? Why doesn't right wing media report all the actual cases? There's selection bias going on. That media will only pick up the ones that serve to fulfill a narrative.

Another selection bias is that those who commit hate crime hoaxes are most likely to do it for attention. They want to get noticed. Hence, these types of cases will disproportionately enter the media cycle.

Base Rate Neglect/Base Rate Fallacy: This one's a bit tricky to explain so I'll hand over the details to the wikipedia article. Suppose the incidence rate of a phenomena is low. For example, 1% of all hate crimes are hoaxes . That means that for every case, all things being equal, we should assume that there's a 1% chance that it's a hoax. However, people fixate on the particulars of each case ignoring the base rate. It's not that particulars don't matter, it's that people place too much weight on the particulars in their reasoning while putting too little on the base rate.

Identity, Truth, and Stoicism in the Face of Crumbling Norms of Civil Discourse

Introduction

Yo. Check it. You can't have a functioning democracy without at least two things: a concern for truth and civil discourse. Although perhaps too obvious to state, democracy requires citizens have a concern for truth. Without it, policy will be ineffective at best. Y'see, in (many conceptions) of democracy, policy represents, to some degree, the will of the people. If "the people" are more concerned with short-term political one-up-manship rather than quality of evidence and argument, a country will be governed by policy disconnected from the best evidence and arguments.

A political community often contains an assortment of views on the same issues. While some differing views might each partake in some aspect of the truth, there's no reason to suppose all will. I know this will come as a shock to some of you, but some beliefs just are false. 

Let's assume it's better to get everyone to buy into a policy or view than it is to force it onto a segment of the population. If each is equally convinced of their own 'rightness', how do we not only reach agreement but also lead those holding objectively false views into the light of reason--without outright coercion? That is, how do we get people with false beliefs to change their minds and endorse the policy based on the best evidence?

Think about how it is you discarded previously held views that turned out to be false. Did your change of mind occur by someone shouting at you and calling you an idiot? Did it arise after being ignored? After being mocked? My guess is probably not. 

While not the only means of effecting doxastic change, engaging in respectful discourse probably increases the odds. It also helps when people present compelling arguments, counter-arguments, and evidence. In other words, tone, attitude, and content all matter for changing people's minds. I'll call this loose cluster of methods and attitudes, the norms of civil discourse. [Note: There's a fair amount of philosophical literature on the exact content of the norms of civil discourse. For my purposes, a broad intuitive account is sufficient].

In this post, I want to explore the ethical dimensions of belief, and how the various things we cling to sabotage our path to truth and civil discourse. By drawing on Stoic ideas, I’m going to suggest we all have within us the resources to reconcile the competing passions that have lead to the current breakdown in civil discourse and its corrosive effects on good policy-making. 

Setting the Stage

In perhaps one of the best known psychological studies of the 20th century, subjects are asked to distinguish between real and fake suicide notes. As they do so, they receive feedback on how well they are able to make the distinction. He's the twist (one of them, anyway): The feedback they receive has nothing to do with their performance. It's all a sham. Before they even began the task, experimenters had randomly pre-sorted the subjects into three groups: Those that will be told they are excellent, average, or below average. To summarize, experimenter feedback is predetermined regardless of how subjects perform and has no relation to subject performance. 

In the next phase of experiment, the fact of the predetermined feedback is revealed to the subjects. That is, the subject are told that the feedback was totally unrelated to their task performance. Subjects are then asked to self-assess their ability to distinguish between real and fake suicide notes. 

Of the 20 assigned to the ‘good-guesser’ group, how many do you think changed their self-assessment after the predetermined nature of the experiment was revealed to them? E.g., how many people who were told they were good-guessers evaluated themselves as average or below average? Keep that number in your head. Now, of the 20 who were told they were bad guessers, how many do you think changed their self-assessment after the reveal?

Now that you have those two numbers in your head, I’m going to give you a choice. I can tell you the real numbers from the study, or I can invent some fake numbers to tell you.

Which do you prefer that I do?

I’ll reveal the real numbers in a moment but I want to make my first claim which is central to Stoic philosophy (it actually comes from Plato but the Stoics adopted it...): Every soul is deprived of the truth against its will. By this, the Stoics mean that it is human nature to want truth and knowledge. We have an intrinsic affinity for truth and knowledge. If we have false beliefs, it is only because we have been mislead or we have not yet been taught.

When I asked you whether you wanted me to tell you the true numbers or fake numbers for the study, you very likely wanted the true ones. I’m even willing to go so far as to say that you felt pulled to know the truth. And if I’d given you the fake ones, you’d have probably been upset with me. Human beings have an intrinsic affinity for truth and knowledge. You just experienced it yourself.

Not so fast though. What is the content of the study that you want to know the truth about? After debriefing, only three of the 20 subjects who had been told they were good guessers didn’t continue to believe that they were above average! Of the 20 who had been told they were below average, only three of them revised their beliefs about their abilities too! (For anyone familiar with all the p-hacking issues in psychology, this effect size isn’t one that can be waived away.)

I just finished telling you that a drive for truth and knowledge is intrinsic to human nature. But here we have a well-designed and multiply replicated study in which subjects were given the truth yet refused to take it into account in revising their self-conception. Their self-assessments were completely impervious to countervailing evidence. Only 15% of subjects in each group responded to evidence that undermined a prior belief.

What gives? Well, an affinity for truth isn’t the only component of human nature. As Aristotle observed, we are by nature social and political animals. In other words, we have an intrinsic affinity for being part of a group. Being part of a group requires two things: First, that we share the cluster of beliefs, behaviors, and values particular to the group of which we are a member. Second, that others see us as sharing those beliefs, behaviors, and values.

Let’s return to the study. Why didn’t the subjects merely accept the truth of what the experimenters were telling them and revise their self-assessments accordingly? To quote the study:

It is proposed that personal impressions and social perceptions become relatively autonomous from the evidence that created them. As a result, subsequent challenges to that evidence, and hence to the impression it fostered, will have surprisingly little impact— far less impact than would be demanded by any logical or rational impression-formation model. (Ross, Lepper, and Hubbard, 1975)

In other words, subjects began to self-identify and see others as identifying them as members of particular groups—‘good guessers’ or ‘bad guessers’. To generalize, when you challenge someone’s beliefs, you are not only challenging beliefs but their identity. In order for people to relinquish beliefs tied to their identity they must also change their identity. 

But that’s not even the most difficult part: They have to surrender their membership in a group. Groups are defined, in part, by their beliefs. If you no longer share the same core beliefs as that group, not only can you not self-identify as a member but the other members can no longer identify you as a member. When a group identity is central to someone’s life—like a political or religious group—you best believe they’re going to reject evidence before they compromise the relationships that imbue their lives with meaning.

Stoicism, Truth, and Civil Discourse

I began by telling you that we have an intrinsic affinity for truth and knowledge but even if you hadn’t read about the above study, that claim is on the face of it worthy of ridicule. Everything we’ve witnessed in the the current political climate undermines it. Now we have an explanation: Another intrinsic human drive—belonging to and preserving identity and group membership—completely sabotages our natural affinity for truth.

I’m going to argue for two solutions that come out of ancient Stoic thought. Stoic thought can be boiled down to two practices: 

1. Discover what is necessarily true of the world and 
2. Determine what is and is not in your power to do about it. 

Below I'll suggest what I take to be three facts about the world and then I’ll  suggest what you can do about them. The first applies to how we self-identify and the second applies to how we conceive of others. The third, to how we handle our political environment.

Fact 1 About the World: If you self-identify primarily in terms of a group that is defined by particular beliefs you will sabotage your path to truth.

On it’s own, merely being a social animal doesn’t undermine our affinity for truth. It’s the nature of the particular groups with which we identify that do. People ARE interested in truth but only so long as personal identity and group membership aren't threatened. From the individual point of view, this means that individually we can be part of the solution to civil discord if we reconceptualize or, at least, re-order our identity. Instead of primarily self-conceiving as a member of a particular political group, I can self-identify as a member of the group "rational animal." 

What are the values and behaviors of members of the group "rational animal"? Good reasoning and a concern for truth. In other words, self-conceiving in this way pulls us away from a conclusion-based identity and towards a process-based identity. A reasoner examines the strength of reasons (evidence and claims) and the logical relationships between reasons and conclusions. 'Rational animals' are primarily concerned with quality and method of justification for beliefs rather than dogmatically clinging to and defending particular beliefs.

Importantly, when we identify primarily as rational animals, it shifts our disposition towards others: First, we more likely come to view those with whom we disagree as partners rather than adversaries in the shared enterprise of pursuing truth. We become more calm and charitable because we want to learn rather than impose or defend a view. 

Our concern for the process of justification--i.e., why someone believes something--helps us become better listeners since we can only evaluate justifications if we listen carefully. Not only are we better off for being better listeners, but we likely diffuse much of our interlocutors' animosity when we present ourselves as genuinely interested in why they hold certain beliefs. In short, we begin to turn down the dial on the reactive emotions and attitudes that have rendered political discourse so intractable. 

Epistemic Humility: We ought to always take seriously the possibility that our current view is mistaken. Self-conceiving primarily as a rational animal makes it easier to change our views in the face of new or better evidence and arguments.  Consider for a moment how many beliefs about the world you hold. There are probably an almost infinite number. Now consider all the other people in your country. How likely is it that there are more than a handful that share each one of your millions of beliefs? The odds are staggeringly small. Now consider the millions of people with whom you don't overlap on at least some beliefs. What are the odds that YOU, in the face of widespread disagreement, are the only one in the country that holds all the true beliefs about the world? 

As someone who primarily identifies as a reasoning being, you are not wedded to any particular conclusion but to standards of evidence and a process. So, your views can more easy be responsive to new or better evidence and arguments.

Fact 2 About the World: Conceiving of our Political Others as Evil or Idiots or Both is a Poor Strategy for Changing Minds
Stoic thought offers us insight in how we ought to conceive of others if we hope to mitigate the culture war and our own emotional outbursts that obstruct the pathway to truth. I argue we ought to adopt the Stoic teaching to act as though "every soul is deprived of the truth against its will." 

There are two ideas contained here. First, humans have an affinity for truth (despite the fact that other variables interfere with its attainment); and second, as members of the human species, we are 'rational animals'--which implies we are all sensitive to reasons and arguments (although, perhaps to varying degrees).

Here is Epictetus counseling his student on how to handle someone with an obviously false and harmful view:

Student: Yes, but she is in error.
Epictetus: Well, act on her idea. As long as you don't lay it out for her, though, she has nothing besides her own idea of right and wrong to guide her. So don't get angry at [her] for being confused about what's most important, and accordingly mutating from human to snake. (Discourse I. 26)

Marcus Aurelius had similar thoughts in this somewhat amusing example:

Are you angry with him whose armpits stink? Are you angry with him whose mouth smells foul? What good will this anger do you? He has such a mouth. He has such armpits: It is necessary that such an emanation come from such things--but the man has reason, it will be said, and he is able if he takes pains, to discover wherein he offends. Well then, and you, too, have reason: by your rational faculty stir him up his rational faculty; show him his error [...]. (Meditations Bk V. 28)

And here is more of the same from Epictetus again:

Well, when a guide meets up with someone who is lost, ordinarily his reaction is to direct him on the right path, not mock or malign him, then turn on heel and walk away. As for you, lead someone to the truth and you will find that he can follow. But as long as you don't point it out to him, don't make fun of him; be aware of what you need to work on instead. (Discourse II. 11. 3-4)

Think of it this way. When a student reasons incorrectly on a math problem, we don't get angry with them. We assume they genuinely wanted to get the question right: They aimed for truth not falsity. No one would think it reasonable to yell and get emotionally upset because of the student's error.  

Instead, as a teacher or peer, we adopt a compassionate disposition and work through that student's reasoning process to help discover where they erred. I submit that reconceiving of our cultural and political *others* as truth-seekers--inadvertently making errors in judgment in good faith--will dispose us to be more kind and dial down our own animus both of which opens the door for civil discourse. [All the while we should adopt a stance of epistemic humility; i.e., we should continue to take seriously the possibility that our own view is mistaken unless it aligns with a consensus of relevant experts. Then more confidence is warranted.]

I can hear some of you, including my past-self, mocking this idea:

"This is lunacy. Have you ever read the comments section of an article on vaccines, climate science, GMOs, Trump, Obama, etc...? There is no way these people are even remotely deprived of the truth against their will. Their ignorance is entirely willful."

This may be true for what I call the 'true believers' but I don't think it's true of the vast majority of people.  There's selection bias in the comments sections of the internet. Those with the most extreme views and loudest voices are going to be disproportionately represented. Let's not make the mistake in believing those holding extreme views and attitudes are representative of all with whom we disagree. 

I think the vast majority of people are responsive to argument and evidence when its presented in a way that doesn't immediately threaten their identity or make them out to insufferable morons. Treating people as though they are genuinely concerned with truth raises the odds that they will be open to evidence and argument. And even if agreement isn't reached, we can all count as a win the gain in civility.

Final Fact: You Can't Outrun Disagreement
In closing, I want to dispense (draw on?) some wisdom from an American philosopher. In Fed #10, James Madison is trying to solve what is called The Republican Dilemma: How do we give power to the people but at the same time avoid the tyranny of the majority; i.e., avoid a large faction from ganging up and trampling the rights of a minority group. Part of his answer involves arguing against Rousseau. Rousseau's solution revolves around ensuring that political communities have relatively homogenous values, interests, levels of wealth, and ways of living. If everyone is in the same 'faction', the worry of some factions suppressing others is mitigated. Madison rejects Rousseau's view on the grounds that it is human nature for factions to form. He says

The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. (My italics for emphasis)

Here is the insight: We can’t outrun disagreement. So long as people have different talents, values, and interests as well as the liberty to pursue them, we will disagree with each other. Even in our own families we must live with and get along with people with whom we deeply disagree. 

Again, we can appeal to the Stoics' useful advice: Figure out what is necessarily true of the world then determine what is and is not in your power to do about it. Knowing that you will never outrun disagreement with people with whom you must live, you must determine how to respond to it. They ain't going nowherez and neither are you. 

Are you going to demand that everyone believe what you believe? Are you going to get whipped up into an emotional frenzy with every dissenting view? Are you going to treat each person with whom you disagree as though they are idiots? This path is exhausting and yields no fruit. Trust me. I've tried it. I've tried it a lot.

To summarize, I instead suggest the following: (a) avoid identifying primarily as a member of a group defined by particular beliefs; (b) Identify primarily as a member of the group of people concerned with the process and standards of justification for beliefs rather than with conclusions; (c) take seriously the possibility that you could be wrong, particularly if you aren't an expert and your view conflicts with a consensus of experts; (d) engage with others as though they are deprived of the truth against their will; (d) avoid the temptation of identifying the loudest and most obnoxious as representative of a group (availability bias, sampling bias--for those keeping track!).

Drawing on Kant and Rawls and every major wisdom tradition, there's perhaps an even simpler way to think about the problem of disagreement and the norms of civil discourse: Employ the principle of reciprocity. How would I like to be treated by those with whom I disagree? You may be tempted to reply, "Ya, but...they aren't very nice to me!"  Ok. But barring some special cases, do you increase or decrease the likelihood of persuading them to your view when you adopt acerbic strategies? I mean, what are you even trying to achieve in engaging? 

And what about the state of civil discourse? We are all all responsible for the tone of discourse within our purview--regardless of what others do. That is in our respective control. Nothing I can do will guarantee someone's civility towards me, but this doesn't mean I can't affect the probabilities one way or the other.

Jefferson and Adams: A Beautiful Bromance 
A Case Study In Civil Disagreement
If there ever was a model for the kind of civil dialogue I'm talking about, it can be found in the friendship and correspondence between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. These two life-time friends and political adversaries wrote letters almost daily to each other despite fundamental political disagreement. They weren't perfect though: After Jefferson won the presidency (against Adams, the incumbent!) they didn't write to each other for 13 years. However, once the ice thawed, they resumed their regular correspondence in which they regularly disagreed, until both their deaths in 1826. (Crazy history note that boggles my mind: The two friends died only 5 hours apart. Adams' last words were 'Jefferson still lives'. But that's not all. They died on July 4th) 

There is lengthy exchange of letters between the two in 1813--the year they had renewed their friendship. The topic concerned equality and how to ensure that the 'pseudo-aristocracy' (i.e., those whose status and power are a consequence of wealth and birth--not virtue, talent, and wisdom) don't hijack government to their ends. Before addressing Adams' view, Jefferson writes:

On the question of which is the best provision, you and I differ, but we differ as rational friends, using the free exercise of our own reason, and mutually indulging in its errors. [my italics]

Notice a few things: The appeal to the values of friendship; that is, they can disagree on fundamental matters while maintaining mutual respect and while avoiding animosity. The value of the relationship and civility supersede any outcome. Also important is the acknowledgment and mutual conception of both as appealing to reason while also admitting their mutual fallibility--even under optimal conditions. 

Later, after presenting his arguments against Adams' view, Jefferson writes,

It is probable that our disagreement of opinion may, in some measure, be produced by a difference in character in those among whom we live.

Here, Jefferson importantly acknowledges the more general point that different life experiences shape our respective assumptions about the world. We cannot expect those who haven't lived our lives, met the people we've met, or shared the various circumstances that we have to hold the same views as us. Each of us experiences only a very minute subset of the human experience. And if our experiences shape our beliefs about the world, of course we will have different beliefs about the world, human nature, institutions, and so on... (Caveat: Relativism and infallibility don't follow--people can still be wrong).

Disagreement produced by differing life experiences has implications for our basic assumptions about the world. From the point of view of the norms of civil discourse, Jefferson's comments underscore the importance of mutually recognizing and acknowledging in one another the possible effects of our different experiences. I would venture that it is the failure of acknowledgement and consideration of differing experiences which draws out the reactive emotions.

Finally, in closing the letter Jefferson writes:

I have thus stated my opinion on a point on which we differ, not with a view to controversy, for we are both too old to change opinions which are the result of a long life of inquiry and reflection: but on the suggestions of a former letter of yours, that we ought not to die before we have explained ourselves to each other.

The take-away here is that we needn't always agree. Sometimes agreement isn't forthcoming. However, given that we cannot outrun disagreement, what matters at least as much as reaching resolutions is how we engage with each other. Also, on matters where we do disagree deeply, there is an obligation to explain to others our reasons for the views we hold. That is, we must be willing to submit our own justificatory reasons to rational scrutiny. We can't simply demand that others agree with us.

Closing Thoughts
I study ethics and political philosophy. I’ve noticed a disturbing trend in my research over the last couple of years. Every time I come up with what I think is a good idea, a voice in my head goes, “Hey, wait a minute. Didn’t my parents tell me this when I was, like, five?”  And I don’t think much of what I’ve said here is any different. Nevertheless, that fact that so many, including myself, forget to employ these common sense ideas testifies to the value of their reminder. 

Additional note regarding self and group identity in terms of beliefs: I think there's an important distinction to be made between how we treat identity made up of empirical beliefs (observable facts about the world) vs identity made up of normative (i.e., value) beliefs. Without going into a lot of detail, I think there are good reasons for people to hold on more tightly to the value-based beliefs that form their identity. But I think we ought not hold on so tightly to an identity constituted by empirical beliefs. Doing so forces us into a position where we might have to deny a scientific consensus (think vaccine-safety denier, flat-earther, creationist, global warming deniers, etc...). This not only forces us to adopt dishonest strategies to maintain our beliefs and to dismiss legitimate argument and evidence but it undermines the important political role of empirical experts in forming policy. In clinging to empirical beliefs, as non-experts we apportion an inappropriate amount of credence to our own beliefs relative to those of a consensus of experts.

What I have said applies to the vast majority of disagreement. However, there are special cases where I'm not convinced such a conciliatory attitude is appropriate. Most obviously, this applies to how we deal with overt neo-Nazis deliberately intimidating the well-being of others. 

Whataboutyou?
Finally, before I'm inundated with tu quoques, let me make the following brief comment. We can acknowledge all I have said above and also agree that there is a time and place in discourse for humor, rhetoric, satire, and sarcasm. In fact, they are what can make political discourse fun--especially when done tastefully and between friends. Furthermore, in some contexts, humor and satire have shown to be effective means of persuasion (google it yourself--there's a lot of literature!). 

Finally, with respect to my failings, the Stoics present their virtues as aspirational; i.e., they recognize the human propensity to screw up sometimes despite knowing better. Nevertheless, they give us a target at which to aim as we bumble through life. I have screwed up and continue to screw up a lot in terms of acting on these norms of civil discourse but I'm working daily on hitting the target more than missing it.

The Emperor of Fallacies: The Is/Ought Problem

Introduction
It's nearly impossible to understand contemporary ethics without understanding the word 'normative' as it's used in philosophy. Since this post is mostly about a kind of argument in ethics, I'll get the definition out of the way. 

Perhaps the easiest way to understand normative statements is to contrast them with descriptive statements. "She hit the dog," is a descriptive statement. There's no judgment--implied or otherwise--of good/bad/right/wrong. Contrast this with "she shouldn't hit the dog" or "it's wrong for her to hit the dog." The latter two are normative statements. They make value judgements about actions or states of affairs.

You can think of 'normative' as having to do with judgments of value such as good, bad, right, or wrong. Any assertion that takes the form 'X is good', 'X is bad,' etc... is a normative statement. Normative statements can also take the form 'you ought/ought not to do that'. 'Ought' statements imply normativity because if I ought to do something, presumably it's because it's a good/right thing to do. And if I ought not to do something, presumably it's because it's a bad/wrong thing to do.

With the definitions out of the way, let's look at some normative arguments, shall we?

1. A survey of Western history, anthropology, and current society reveals that, for the most part, men occupy positions of political, economic, and academic power. Women, on the other hand, are typically in charge of raising children, cooking the meals, and generally attending to her husband's needs. It follows that this is the right way to organize households and society.

2. Across time and across cultures, marriage is between a man and a woman. It follows that couples of the same sex shouldn't be allowed to get gay married.  

3.The human sex organs evolved for male-female intercourse. That is a scientific fact you can't deny. It follows that male-male or female-female intercourse is morally wrong. 

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that most people reading this blog reject the above arguments. Saying you disagree isn't enough. In philosophy, we're very interested in why arguments fail. Although they appear different, all three arguments fail for the same reason. Let's evaluate them and figure out that reason.

Argument 1 concludes that the right way to organize society is according to traditional gender roles because that's how it was typically organized. For the sake of argument, let's assume that the premises are true: i.e., that history and anthropology do in fact support the view that societies, institutions, and power relations are typically organized according to 'traditional' gender roles.

Question: Does knowing how power, prestige, and work were allocated in the past tell us the right way to allocate those elements now? Not necessarily. Sure, it's possible that 1950s America stumbled on the one true way to organize society but it's at least as likely that there was also room for improvement.

Question: Does knowing how power, prestige, and work are allocated now tell us the right way to allocate those elements now? That would be weird. It would imply that whatever the social arrangement at a particular point in history, that is also the most just social arrangement. There would be no grounds to criticize any social practice or institution.

At the most general level, Argument 1 fails because it draws conclusions about what ought to the case from what was or is the case. Facts about how the world is (or was) don't tell us how the world should be. Arguing from a description of how things are to a conclusion about how they ought to be is called the Is/Ought Fallacy (also sometimes called the Is/Ought Problem or Hume's Law).

What's the Problem?

The Is/Ought Problem comes from David Hume. He argued that the above general pattern of reasoning--moving to a normative conclusion from descriptive premises--is a fallacious form of reasoning. Facts that describe social, institutional, and interpersonal relations can't on their own support claims for how those relations ought to be. And it's a problem because, "every system of morality, which [Hume had] hitherto met with" commits this error [my italics]. The is/ought problem is a huge problem for moral theory if every system of morality commits it.

I'm gonna make you guys work a bit. Below Hume lays out the nature of the is/ought problem. Read it then I'm going to walk you through it.

In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it. But as authors do not commonly use this precaution, I shall presume to recommend it to the readers; and am persuaded, that this small attention would subvert all the vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceived by reason. (A Treatise of Human Nature)

Let's use Argument 3 to see what Hume's talking about in the first sentence. Argument 3 concludes that homosexual acts are wrong (i.e., normative conclusion) from the descriptive premise "human sexual organs evolved for male-female intercourse."

To make things even more clear I'm going to put the argument into premise-conclusion form:

P1: Human sexual organs evolved for male-female intercourse. (Descriptive)
C:  Therefore, same sex intercourse is morally wrong. (Normative)

The argument begins by describing facts about the world; that is, by describing how the world is. The conclusion, however, refers to a value judgment. Hume points out, you cannot make a deductive jump from how the world is to whether that aspect of the world is good or bad.

This is what Hume means in the first part of the above quote. He'll be reading some descriptive account of how humans behave, how God made the world, etc...then 'of a sudden' the author will jump to a normative conclusion about those descriptive facts. But knowing how the world is doesn't tell us anything about how it should be. Sometimes the way the world is is bad and sometimes it's good. Sometimes what people do is right and sometimes what they do is wrong. Merely knowing how the world is doesn't allow us to draw conclusions about how we ought to behave in it.

To move deductively from descriptive premises to a normative conclusion you need what's called a linking premise. A linking premise links descriptive facts to normative judgments:

P2: If something is used in a way other than its evolutionary purpose then doing so is morally wrong.

With the linking premise we have a valid deductive argument:

P1: Human sexual organs evolved for male-female intercourse. (Descriptive)
P2: If something is used in a way other than its evolutionary purpose then it is morally wrong. (Linking)
C:  [Same sex sex uses organs in ways other than for their 'evolved' purpose,] therefore, same sex sex is morally wrong. (Normative)

The requirement for a premise linking the descriptive to the normative is what Hume refers to when he writes:

For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it [my italics].

He means that in order to move from a claim about how the world is to a conclusion about the moral goodness or badness of the way the world is, we must justify with a reason why the way the world being a particular way is also a morally good/bad thing or why it justifies what we ought/ought not to do. The heart of Hume's point is a demand for a justifying reason that logically connects how the world is to how we ought to act in it.

By adding the linking premise (P2) to Argument 3 we meet this requirement. The above argument with the linking premise is now valid (it has good form)--but is it sound (i.e., are the premises true)?

P2 is extremely suspect. Counterexamples are pretty easy to come by. Humans evolved to walk on two legs but no one would think it's morally wrong to walk on their hands. The human skull evolved to protect the brain but few people would think it's morally wrong to use it to redirect an air-born soccer ball. We evolved to live in small tribal communities but few would argue that from this it follows that it's morally wrong to live in a metropolitan city. It would be an odd morality that prohibited the use of your life and limbs from all behaviors except those for which they evolved on the African savannah.

When we draw out the implied linked premise we see that it's not easily defended and admits easy counterexamples.

At this point you might be thinking, "duh, but Argument 3 is an obviously bad argument." However, I submit to you that it's only obviously bad because you disagree with the conclusion. When we disagree with conclusions we're fairly good at identifying weak arguments. However, when we agree with conclusions we're often blind to the weakness of the reasons supporting our view. Hume's point is that this error--not providing or defending a linking premise--is everywhere in ethical thinking:

But as authors do not commonly use this precaution, I shall presume to recommend it to the readers; and am persuaded, that this small attention would subvert all the vulgar systems of morality,

Here's an example you supporters of Obama's homosexual Muslim agenda have probably made:

People don't choose their sexual preferences. Gay people are born gay and straight people are born straight. Therefore, gay sex isn't immoral. 

Notice the pattern of reasoning:

P1. People don't choose their sexual preferences. (Descriptive)
P2. Gay people are born gay and straight people are born straight. (Descriptive)
C.  Therefore, gay sex isn't immoral. (Normative)

Here you might agree with the conclusion but the argument commits the is/ought fallacy. For the argument to go through you'd have to defend the view that being born with a particular preference doesn't on its own imply that acting on those urges is immoral. This is clearly false. Some unfortunate individuals are born with pedophilic desires. That fact that they're born with these desires doesn't exempt acting on those desires from moral scrutiny.

Again, descriptive facts about the world don't on their own imply normative conclusions. If we want to defend the moral neutrality of homosexuality we need to offer reasons that are not mere descriptions of what dispositions people are born with. One alternative is to offer a general moral principle like the harm principle: If a behavior doesn't harm others then, all else being equal, it's morally neutral. Now we have an argument that doesn't depend on mere descriptions of the world.

When to be Alert and Various Subspecies of the Is/Ought Fallacy
The is/ought fallacy comes in many varieties which I'll cover below. But first I want offer an hypothesis for why and when it's common to commit the is/ought fallacy. When practices, institutions, and beliefs are entrenched in a society or group their human origins are invisible. Entrenched social arrangements and practices are perceived to be 'the natural order of things.'

As such, there's a failure to recognize that these practices, institutions, and beliefs are the product of a combination of habituation, deliberate action, and power relations--amongst other things. Interests are also at stake, especially when one group stands to benefit disproportionately from one arrangement rather than another. As a result the socially constructed nature of institutions, practices, and beliefs is often not only invisible but there are often efforts to avoid, dismiss, and suppress criticism.

History is full of examples but I'll illustrate with the most obvious. For us the practice of slavery is abhorrent. The fact that it was practiced for thousands of years up until recently in our own country is inconceivable to us. More baffling still is that people not only passively accepted it but many people--throughout world and American history--vigorously defended it.  And guess how it was defended? Usually by committing the is/ought fallacy:

Some variation of

1. It's natural for some people to be slaves.
2. It's the natural order of the universe for some people to serve others.
3. Slavery has always existed through human history.
4. The law says that slavery is allowed.
5. It's God's will.

Appeal to Nature/Naturalistic Fallacy
The first two we might call appeal to nature or naturalistic fallacy. Even if we grant that something is 'the natural order' (rather than a social construction) it still doesn't follow without further argument that that practice is good (or that not doing it is bad).

P1. It's the natural order of things that some people serve others. (Descriptive)
P2. If a behavior, practice, or arrangement is natural then it is good. (Linking).
P3. Therefore, slavery is good. (Normative)

Notice that even if we're super charitable and grant P1, the argument still won't work since it also needs P2 to be true. But P2 is false: It's natural for humans to go to war, rape, and pillage, and generally to act shitty to each other but that doesn't make it good nor does it follow that we should do it.

The naturalistic fallacy was/is often used to justify traditional gender roles, withholding the right to vote, hold property, pursue an education, etc...

Knowing what is natural doesn't tell us what is good or what we ought to do. 

Anytime you hear someone defend a practice, behavior, or social arrangement by arguing that it's the natural order, poke your finger right in their chest and shout, "it's natural for people to commit the is/ought fallacy but that doesn't make it a good argument!"

Fancy Pants Note: (Arguably) G.E. Moore pointed out another kind of naturalistic fallacy but I'll set that aside for now. My own view is that it's also a subspecies of the is/ought fallacy.

Appeal to Tradition
Appeal to tradition is also a common subspecies of the is/ought fallacy. The fact that slavery has persisted through human history doesn't tell us anything about its moral status as a practice. The same goes for any historical practice. The argument from tradition also does a lot of heavy lifting when it comes to defending traditional gender roles. As you now know from being in Obama's reeducation camps, the fact that women and men traditionally occupied particular roles tells us nothing about whether those were good arrangements or that we ought to adopt/preserve those arrangements.

What was doesn't tell us what is good or what we ought to do. 

Anytime you here someone saying, "yeah but, that's the way it's been done throughout history," turn your hand into a blade and shout, "oh yeah? In my country it's tradition to judo chop people who make bad arguments so I guess it's right for me to chop you." That'll show 'em.

Appeal to the Law Fallacy
You can't justify a practice's moral value by merely appealing to the law of the land. Laws can be just or unjust. The fact that something is allowed (or prohibited) by a current law tells us nothing about whether it that practice is just or unjust. Obviously, the fact that slavery was permitted by the laws of the day doesn't allow us to conclude that slavery was therefore morally good.

Similarly, the fact that a law prohibits an act; for example, smoking the pot, doesn't allow us to conclude that it's morally bad to smoke the pot.

Appeal to the law fallacy is a subspecies of appeal to authority. And you need to respect my authoritah on this cuz I'm a philosopher:

Knowing what the law is doesn't tell us what is just it only tells us what the current law is. 

Anytime you hear someone say, "well if it's morally wrong then why is it legal?" or "if it isn't immoral then why is there a law against it?" tell them that they just violated Hume's law and send them these links:

• http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/texas
• http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/ohio 

Appeal to God/Bible/Religion
This one might be a bit controversial but I'm going to include it anyway. It goes without saying that holy texts and religion have been used to justify pretty much everything under the sun--both good and evil. Appeal to the Bible was one of, if not the most common justification for slavery (and subjugation of women and demonization of gays and justification of Jim Crow laws and etc...). 

Appeal to religion can take many forms:

• 'Cuz it says so in (my One True interpretation of) the Bible.
• 'Cuz God designed the universe that way.
• 'Cuz God said so.

In the first case, we have a hybrid between argument from authority and argument from tradition. The undefended linking premise would be "if (my interpretation of) the Bible says we ought/ought not to do X then we ought/ought not to do x." The Bible, like many holy texts, contains plenty of wise moral prescriptions but there are also a great many awful ones.  

However, the good moral prescriptions aren't good because they just happen to be found in the Bible; it's not their source that makes them good moral advice. They're good for independent reasons. For example, the Bible recommends we don't kill others. 

So deep. 

Truly the product of divine inspiration. 

Surely no human could have come up with this. 

But the prohibition on murdering is not a good moral prescription because the Bible said so. Presumably, there are good independent reasons not to murder even if those words were never written into the Bible. 

Just as the Bible can offer sage advice it can also be morally bankrupt. Famously, the Bible doesn't condemn slavery. Infamously, it provides guidelines for purchase and treatment of slaves:

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.(Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

Knowing what a holy text says doesn't on its own tell you what is good or what you ought to do since holy texts contain both good and abhorrent moral advice. Anytime someone says "well, in the Holy book it says..." just find a contradictory passage or interpretation in the same book. You'll always find one...

Knowing what is written in a book doesn't tell us what is good or what we ought to do.

The appeal to design is just another version of the 'natural order of things.'

The "'cuz God said so" is just like appeal to a holy text (setting difficult epistemological issues aside).

What Was Hume's Point?
There's some debate over exactly what Hume was up to in pointing out the is/ought fallacy. Some people interpret Hume as a skeptic with regard to the justifiability of moral claims. If all knowledge comes from observation of the world and observational statements about how the world is can't justify moral claims then moral claims can never be true (or false).

The standard interpretation, however, is not skepticism but that justifying a normative claim requires reasons in addition to descriptive claims.

So how do we justify moral claims? Unless we have some source of knowledge besides observation, the is/ought problem implies that moral claims can never be justified. So, what is this other source of knowledge?

Classical philosophers along with many of Hume's contemporaries thought that capital 'R' Reason could tell us what we ought/ought not to do or value. But Hume famously argued that reason "is and ought only to be the slave to the passions." Reason can only tell us how to achieve particular ends or values, it can't tell us which ends or values to pursue and realize. That is the job of the passions.

There are two related issues floating around: The first is meta-ethical: what is the source of value? Second is epistemological: How do we know what to value?

The is/ought fallacy shows that we can't discover values by scientific observation of the world. Science can only tell us what is. It can never tell us what to value or what we ought to do about how we know the world to be. Take what seems to be a straight forward case: People who exercise regularly tend to be happier. For most people it seems like a straightforward inference to "therefore, people ought to exercise." But notice that lurking in the background is an normative assumption about happiness: that we ought to pursue it.

It may seem trivial but it's consistent with what Hume is saying. You can't move immediately from descriptive claims to normative conclusions. You always need a premise linking the descriptive claim to the normative claim. In this case: If something makes us happy then we ought to do it. Again, a little reflection reveals that this isn't obviously true in all cases. It doesn't mean that we can't come up with a different linking premise. Regardless, Hume's point stands that we can't move deductively from purely descriptive to normative claims. We must always provide additional (non-descriptive) reasons that link descriptive facts to normative judgments.

So, if science (i.e., observation of the world) can't tell us what to value, what does? As I mentioned above, Hume also rules out Reason. Reason can only tell us the most efficient ways to achieve our values.  So what's left? If value isn't "in" the world (and therefore not discoverable by science) where does value come from? The skeptical interpretation is that since value isn't discoverable by science it doesn't exist in any objective sense and is (gasp!) unscientific. Thus, normative claims can never be justified as objectively true. But Hume suggests another source for value: Our sentiments.

Our emotions of approval or disapproval ground value. Wait. So this fancy philosopher is telling me that if I like something it's good and if I dislike it it's bad? That's dumb. That's the answer of a three year old.

As you might expect, Hume's view is a bit more nuanced. The short version is that those traits of character (or actions that exemplify those traits) that we think are 'good' are those that we would approve of. But we have to be careful here because I might approve of someone's action merely because it benefits me. We shouldn't conclude from this that the action is therefore good. Hume marks a distinction between 'interested' and 'disinterested' emotions.

Interested emotions are those that I feel when I'm appraising an act/trait from the personal point of view. Disinterested emotions are how I feel about an act/trait from an impartial point of view. When we evaluate an action or trait we must strive to remove our personal interests and affinities toward the agent contemplate the act from“some common point of view, from which [we] might survey [our] object, and which might cause it to appear the same to [everyone].” In other words, when we assess the moral qualities of a behavior we carefully introspect on how feel about it from an impartial point of view that can be shared by others. The fact that an act would garner shared approval/disapproval grounds that act's moral properties. If there is widespread approbation from this impartial point of view, then the act/trait is good. The converse is also true.

And so moral knowledge is not grounded in observations of the world, nor is it grounded in Reason. Moral knowledge and knowledge of value come to us through careful introspection of our moral sentiments from an impartial point of view.

Comprehension Test
At the beginning of the previous section I suggested that the is/ought fallacy is most commonly committed when the socially constructed nature of institutions, beliefs, and practices are invisible to the arguer. These institutions, beliefs, and practices are often "extra" invisible to our criticism when we benefit from them since we actively resist evidence and arguments to the contrary.

The testimony of slaves regarding their plight and equal humanity was dismissed as unimportant or plain ridiculous. It was even argued that slavery was in their own best interest. Women's arguments that they had just as much desire and capacity to participate in political and academic life were often waved off. And today still, the experiences of oppressed groups are trivialized, dismissed as mere whining or as unpatriotic: DON'T YOU KNOW HOW LUCKY YOU ARE JUST TO LIVE IN AMERICA? SHUT UP AND BE GRATEFUL!!!

So here's a test to see how well I've been able to explain the is/ought fallacy. Run through all the arguments you can think of for why it's morally permissible to raise animals and kill them prematurely for our dining pleasure. How many subspecies of the is/ought fallacy can you find?

Expert Challenge: Here is the argument most commonly overlooked as an instance of the is/ought fallacy:

It's OK to raise and kill animals for food because we're human and they're not.
OR
It's OK because humans and animals are different.

Can you identify why this is an instance of the is/ought fallacy? (I'll post some answers at the end).

Answers

http://missiontotransition.blogspot.ca/2014/06/standard-arguments-for-why-its-ok-to.html

Loose Ends
A few philosophers deny Hume's view that facts about the world can't on their own justify normative conclusions. If you're interested in this view google "ethical naturalism."