My Ceremony for David's Wedding

My good friend David asked me to construct a custom secular wedding ceremony for his wedding.  He and I share a similar sense of humour, so--although it wasn't explicitly discussed--I figured there was no need for it to be very serious.

For those of you reading this who don't know David, he has lived in Japan for over a decade, is marrying a Japanese woman (Saho), his family votes republican, and his favorite author is Steinbeck...this information will be relevant later.

Introduction

Before we begin with the official ceremony, I'd like to make a few remarks about marriage and since I'm woefully unqualified to comment on the topic, I thought I'd draw on a few quotes from David's favorite author, John Steinbeck.

David and Saho, I sincerely hope that neither of you ever feels secure in your marriage because, as Steinbeck once said, "we spend our time searching for security and hate it when we get it" (Paradox and Dream).  May you both avoid security so long as you are together.

As you spend your lives together your relationship will change and take on new characteristics and so will you both.  Steinbeck tells us that "when two people meet, each one is changed by the other so you got two new people. Maybe that means — hell, it's complicated." (Winter of our Discontent).  David and Saho, I say to you both:  Avoid complication.  Don't change no matter what.  If you change, you will become different people.  What if those new people don't like each other?  Or worse, what if one of those new people likes the other but the other loses interest?   Play it safe.  Don't meet each other.

All this talk of change and uncertainty leads us to the next Steinbeck quote.  He tells us that "a journey is like marriage.  The certain way to be wrong is to think you control it" (Travels with Charlie: In Search of America).  While there may be some truth to this, I think Steinbeck has reversed the simile.  What he should say is that a marriage is like a journey:   Sometime you think you're just going to the store to buy some milk, but then you get back and it turns out you were supposed to buy orange juice too, so you have to drive back and get it or you will suffer the night of your discontent.  So you drive back but the store is closed now, so you have to drive to the far one.  You go inside and they have orange juice, but only the kind with pulp.  But she wanted it without pulp.  So, you get it anyway and bring it home.  When you get home she says that she doesn't feel like orange juice right now and will have tea instead.

While we may disagree on the interpretation and the degree of truth of Steinbeck's words, I'm sure we can all agree with this last one:  "What a wonderful thing a woman is. I can admire what they do even if I don't understand why" (Winter of our Discontent).  David, I can honestly say that I don't understand why Saho would marry you, but I admire it...and she is a wonderful thing (I hear she's worth at least 5 camels).  Congratulations and I wish you both the best in your life together.

David Talk

The Ceremony

David asked for me to prepare a custom ceremony for his wedding.  After giving it much thought (an entire afternoon) I decided that the best possible ceremony would combine traditional elements from both the American and Japanese cultures.   Since I lived in Japan for 5 years and have lived in the US of A for 6, I feel as though I'm uniquely qualified to create a ceremony that unifies cultural elements that are beyond the cliche and that will draw on aspects and traditions of both respective cultures that are profound and meaningful to both parties.  

Although the individualism of American culture is typically juxtaposed against the communitarian tendencies of the Japanese, I feel as thought the are areas of overlap, such as weddings, where both cultures value and encourage co-operative group involvement.  For this reason I would like all of you to join in the 3 cross-cultural ceremonies I have prepared for you this afternoon so we may all share in the experience of marrying together these two wonderful people.  Doing will act as an important expression of assent and solidarity from those whom David and Saho know best.  So, to facilitate the ceremony please sort yourselves into groups of 6...  

Ceremony 1:  Culinary and Etiquette Mash-up--Apple Pie with Chopsticks

What culture doesn't hold a special place for food and table manners?  This ceremony combines distinctive aspects of both culinary cultures.  In your groups of 6 you will form 2 groups of 3.  The goal of the ceremony is to feed one member a slice of apple pie using only a pair of chopsticks.  

Here are the rules: 

(1).  Both the person who will be eating the pie and the person feeding the pie with chopsticks must be blindfolded.  

(2)  The third person will give directions to the "feeder" as to where and how to move the chopsticks.

(3)  The winning team is the first team to have both their groups of 3 finish the slice of apple pie.

(Note: watching the different groups try to accomplish this task was quite possibly one of the funniest things I've ever witnessed).

Ceremony 2:  Guns-Judi Chop--Marital Arts Vows!

Guns are as American as apple pie, as Judo chops are as Japanese as chow mein.  Lets combine the best techniques for killing and dismembering your fellow human in this next cross-cultural exchanging of vows.  (Note: David's family leans Republican).

Me:  David please form a gun with your fingers and repeat after me

David: Saho, this gun represents my commitment to protect your rights and freedoms from the guvamint. “piew, piew, piew 'merica!”

Me:  Saho please make a judi-chop shape with your hand and repeat after me.
Saho: David this judi chop represents my commitment to protect you from other women. If they talk to you I will do this. “Hai-ya!”

Ceremony 3:  The Pray-off:  Buddhism vs Christianity  Rock, Paper, Scissors/JunkenPoi

It is important that David and Saho's marriage be sanctioned not just by any god, but the most powerful god. This next ceremony will help us determine which god is the most powerful. Once we have determined this, I will appeal to him/her to sanction the union.

The people of both America and Japan are known for their use of paper, rock, scissors/junkenpoi as a means of dispute resolution.  They're also known for their deep spiritually and faith in the superstitious...oops, I mean, supernatural...but whose god is more powerful? Lets settle the score for good in this final cross-cultural ceremony:  The Pray-off.  

The rules:  

(1)  On a piece of paper secretly write down the name of the god you'll be praying to and conceal the paper.  

(2)  Everybody stand up.

(3) Find a partner and play best of 3 rock, paper, scissor.  Before each game, make sure to pray to your god of choice to intervene and cause you to win.

(4) If you win best of 3, your god is more powerful or your god likes you more than your partner's god likes them, and you get to move on to the next round.  Select a new partner from the previous round's winners.  If you lost, sit down.

(5) Continue this process until we have just one winner.  Reveal who the most powerful god is!  Finally, we know! 

(Note:  The winning god was Sweet Baby Jesus).  Some of the other contenders that people appealed to:  GODzilla, 6 pounds-nine-ounce-baby-Jesus, Thor, Hephaestus,  Aron Carter god of love and chocolate, Ma Zhu, Aphrodite, Chuck Norris, Dionysus, Elvis, and Love)

Final Blessing: 

By the power of Sweet Baby Jesus I will now thee bless Man and wife.  

Limerick Contest (MC Victoria)

(If you submitted a limerick at the event, please leave it in the comments section and I'll post it here for David and Saho to cherish and enjoy for all eternity.)

Written by Sam, Read by Hiroyo (Winner)

Written by Leslie, Kevin, Brittany, Kyle, Garrett Harrison, and Hallie:

The Baldwins flew in from Japan
David took Saho's hand
Their friends all joined in
To take part in the sin
But Baby Jesus won out in the end

Submitted by Victoria:
There once was a man from salinas,
Who wanted to be his own venus.
So he went to japan,
Where he's not a mere man,
He's a lady now! ('cept for his penis).
*incriminating photo with saho

Submitted by myself: 

We all have a friend named Dave,

Who we all thought a foolish knave,

Then he met Saho,

And we thought "oh no"

He'll send her to an early grave.

Final Notes:  Thank you to everyone for participating in the custom ceremonies.  I had a great time creating it and performing it...I only hope David and Saho enjoyed it too! 

The Proposal (Videos)
Last year David proposed to Saho at Yosemite...
(I'll upload these when I have better internet connection)

The Plan

The "Execution" 

Gym Etiquette Rant/List for Beginners (and Others) and How to Spot

The voices in my head have been asking me to make this post for a while, so now that I have a few moments, I will oblige them.   A couple of notes before I procede.  These complaints/points apply to beginners--and regulars who should know better.  If you're new to the gym and you are unsure about something, be it etiquette or technique, ask someone who looks like they know what they're doing.  They're usually happy to help.

List of Don'ts
1.  Don't curl in the got tam squat rack or power rack.  This is simple.  The squat rack is for squatting and most gyms don't have enough of them.  You can do your beach-muscle curls anywhere--anywhere but in the squat rack...which is for squatting.  That's why it's called the squat rack.

Other permissible lifts in the squat/power rack:  Dead lifts, lunges (if using the olympic bar), cleans, clean and jerk.

2.  Don't put your got tam water bottle and towel on benches or equipment you aren't using.  Yeah, I know, "Boohoo hoo! But there are germs on the floor!"  Shut up you big baby!  (a) There are also germs on the bench--probably more than on the floor since everybody's been leaving their sweat on it; (b) by putting your crap on the otherwise unused bench, you're taking up 2 pieces of equipment and slowing down everyone's workout.

Oh! What's that?  No one was using the bench?  Maybe.  But that's not a permanent state of affairs.  Now someone has to ask you "are you using this bench" to appear polite in the face of your disregard for basic gym etiquette.

3.  Don't sit on the equipment and talk or text on your got tam phone.  Once again, now I have to look like the bad guy when I sweetly ask "do you mind if I work in?" or "how many more sets do you have?".  No, you idiot, you're the one who's showing disregard for your fellow gym users.  If you want to be an idiot and can't even put yur got tam phone away for 45min to do a workout, you should be thankful I don't wring your neck.   

Why don't you just sashay your way over to the juice bar and drink a double latte mochaccino while you're at it.  Wait, I know, you need your phone to take "selfies" of you training.  And to post on facebook that you're working out.  Like I said.  You're an idiot. 

4.  Don't leave the dumbbells lying around.  Your mother doesn't work at the gym.  Put that shit away so the rest of us don't have to spend the majority of our workout trying to find the got tam dumbbells.

5.  Don't be afraid to ask for help.  Everyone is really friendly.   :) 

6.  Don't stand directly in front of the dumbbell rack so that you're blocking everyone from accessing the weights.  Yeah, I know.  You can't see your muscles when you stand 2 more paces back, but this should incentivize you to work out harder.  In the meantime, get the hell out of the way so other people can use/put away the dumbbells. 

7.  Don't stand in someone's sightline to the mirror.  If someone is on a piece of equipment or is doing a free weight exercise that has a reasonable sightline to the mirror, don't stand in it.  If they were there first and you do this, you are an idiot.  If you were there first, it's polite to move slightly to one side if possible.  Be polite if possible.  Idiot.  :) 

Things I'm Usure About
It's considered good gym etiquette to not offer unsolicited advice; so, what should I do when (a) I see someone doing something so wrong it's not even wrong or (b) I see someone doing something wrong in a way that will cause serious injury?  

I'm not sure what the correct etiquette is, but here's how I usually handle it.  First of all, before giving any advice in the gym you better be absolutely sure that you are more fit than the person you are giving advice to otherwise they'll look at you like a doctor looks at a homeopath.  I don't care if you've read every book on fitness.  Theory carries very little weight in the gym if not backed up by a body that looks like it has good results.

Edit: There's an exception to the "fit" rule, which is if you are an experienced power/olympic lifter.  Sure you probably don't have abs, but you know your stuff.  You are probably the most knowledgeable person in the gym.  Most of my technique I've learned from asking powerlifters.

A second general rule I follow is the age rule.  If the person looks at least 10 years younger than me, then I feel like my seniority gives me some moral authority to provide guidance.  Usually if I see high school kids lifting with incorrect technique, I go over and ask if they'd like to learn "a variation" that will give them really good gains...or something like that.

Basically, you want to find a way to offer advice that allows the recipient to save a face a little.  Once you start to help them, they're usually grateful you helped out.  In most gyms I've trained at, I eventually have a small cadre of high school kids or kids in their early 20s that voluntarily come to me to check on their technique.

Regarding situation (b), if the person is my age or older, unless they're destroying themselves right next to me, I generally don't say anything.  If they're on a machine next to me, I'll try to find a way to offer advice that allows them to save face.  Usually, I'll use the same line that I use for the high school kids or I'll say that I used to do it the same way but a friend of mine showed by a variation that saves my back (or whatever body part they are destroying).

Things You Should Know
Spotting:  Spotting is an art and doing it wrong will make most experienced lifters wish they'd never asked for your help.  

General tips on Spotting: As spotter, your job is not to lift the weight, but primarily to be there as a safety.  DO NOT TOUCH THE BAR unless you see that the bar has almost stopped moving.  Hover your hands underneath, but allow the lifter to fight through.  Once forward momentum almost stops, help only enough to allow the lifter to regain forward momentum, then let him/her finish the rest of the movement if it seems they can.  

There's an exception.  If the lifter says (verbally or with body language) "help me do a few more at the end," then you can help for those last reps.  But again, only help out enough so that there is minimum forward momentum.  Make the lifter fight for each rep.  That's where the gains are made.  Don't steal his gains. 

Spotting Bench Press:  Stand back far enough away so your balls or lady parts aren't hanging directly over the lifter's face.  Do not even attempt to "hover spot" until you see the lifter begin to fight for the reps.  When this happens, bend your knees, hover your hands under the bar, and only help as necessary (as previously described).  Remember, don't touch the bar until it's necessary.  Just don't. 

Spotting Dumbbell Press:  Similar to bench press, but when it comes time to spot, cup your hands under the lifters elbows. 

Spotting Shoulder Press (aka Military Press):  Set yourself up behind the lifter.  Spot either the bar with palms up, or cup the elbows.

Spotting Dumbbell Shoulder Press:  Cup under the elbows. 

Spotting Squat:  Method 1 is to stand behind your partner and place your hands on his/her ribs (on the sides) and bend your knees to move up and down with the lifter.   Methode 2 is to stand behind your partner and place your hands on his/her hips, and bend your knees to move up and down with the lifter.  In both cases, stay at least arm's length away until you see your partner start to struggle, at which point you will move into position, but not necessarily put your hands on them yet, or begin to spot. 

Those are the main exercises you'll spot.  The rest I'm sure you can figure out.  But whatever exercise you are doing, don't do anything until you see the momentum start to slow in each rep, then move into position, but don't actually spot until the momentum almost completely stops.  And only help enough to get them through the sticking point.  They may not need you for the entire movement. 

Conclusion:  Like any social activity there are many unspoken and assumed rules of etiquette.  Sometimes they are posted somewhere on a wall, but often many of them are not.  

Critical Thinking: The Slippery Slope Argument, Argument from Analogy, the Argument from Design, and Gay Marriage.

Introduction
In the previous posts we looked at argument schemes that are typically employed in factual matters: generalizations, polls, general causal reasoning, particular causal reasoning, and the argument from ignorance.  In this next section we'll look at common argument schemes used in normative (i.e., having to do with values) arguments.  Check.  it. aus...

Slippery-Slope Argument
A slippery slope argument is one where it is proposed that an initial action will initiate a causal cascade ending with a state of affairs that is universally desirable or undesirable.  The implication is that we should (or should not) do the initial action/policy because the cascade of events will necessarily occur.  

A contemporary example of a negative version of the slippery slope argument comes from arguments against gay marriage equality.  Some opponents argue that if same sex couples are allowed to marry, then there will eventually be no good reasons against people marrying animals and so society will have to permit this too. 

(Yes, people actually make this argument...can I marry my horse? )
Here's a good clip were the slippery slope argument is mentioned explicitly:  Video of O'Reilly factor slippery slope argument. Start at 2:00

A positive version of the slippery slope argument might be something like a Libertarian argument (over-simplified version):  We should treat the principle of self-ownership as the primary governing principle, if we do, then you will remove taxation and government, then the market will cease to be distorted and people will act in their own self-interest, and people acting in their own self-interest will pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, a society of self-pulled up people will have relatively few social problems thus eliminating many of the existing ones. (Note:  We could do an over-simplified version of just about any political philosophy and show it to be weak)

So, why are these arguments not very strong?  To figure it out, lets look at the underlying structure of a slippery slope argument.  Recall that a slippery slope argument is one where it is supposed that one initial event or policy will set off an necessary unbroken sequence of causal events. 

If we formalize it, it will look like this:  

P1:  If A then B.  
P2:  If B, then C.  
P3:  If C then D.  
P4:  If D, then E.  
P5:  If E, then F. 
P6:  (So, if A then F)
C   F is a good thing, therefore we should do A. (Positive conclusion).
C* F is a bad thing, therefore we should't do A.  (Negative conclusion). 

(We can also condense P1-P5 as a single compound premise: If A then B, if B then C, If C then D,...)

If we think back to the lecture/post on principles of general causal reasoning we will recall that it takes quite a bit of evidence to say that even a single causal argument is good (e.g. If A then B).  As you might imagine, the longer the causal chain gets, the more difficult it will become to ascertain that the links along the way are necessarily true and not open to other possible outcomes.  

Returning to our examples, in the first case, one of the causal elements has to do with the equivalence between reasons against gay marriage and reasons against animal marriage.  It doesn't take much imagination to come up arguments for why the two types of prohibitive reasons aren't the same (capacity for mutual informed consent for starters...).  Showing that there is a relevant distinction between the types of reasons causes a break in the causal chain, thereby rendering the argument weak.  

In our-simplified version of the Libertarian argument relies on a long causal chain that begins with the primacy of the self ownership principle and reduced taxation and government and ends with a decrease in prevailing social problems.  Along the way there are may suspect causal claims that individually might not stand too much scrutiny--especially since many of the claims are hotly debated by experts in the respective fields.  Since a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, this will have a detrimental effect on the overall strength (logical force) of the conclusion. 

Upshot:  So, what's the overall status of slippery slope arguments?  Just like many argument schemes they can be both strong or weak depending on their constituent parts.  In the case of slippery slope arguments, a strong one will have highly plausible causal claims all linked together, culminating in a glorious well-supported conclusion about what we should or should not do.   Conversely, a weak slippery slope argument will have one or more weak causal claims in its implied premises.

Arguments From Analogy
An argument from analogy is when we draw a conclusion based on comparing one thing to another.  Arguments from analogy are often used (but not always) to argue about a complex or poorly understood subject by comparing it to one that is less complex or better understood by the audience.  They are also often used to argue for a conclusion in a controversial case based on what is accepted in an uncontroversial case by claiming the characteristics of the cases are relevantly the same. 

One of the most popular analogies is between minds/brains and computers.  (As an aside, it is only an argument from analogy if a conclusion is drawn.  Sometime analogies are used merely as explanatory aids, not as vehicles for an argument.)

Perhaps the most famous argument from analogy is the the Argument from Design for the existence of God/gods.  There are many versions of this argument, but to give us a template, here's one:

P1.  The mechanics and inner workings of a watch are so mechanically complicated that they must have been designed by an intelligent being.  

P2.   Watches have a purpose so they must have been designed by an intelligent being.
C1.  As with a watch, life (or a particular organ or organism) is complex and has a purpose therefore, this necessitates that they had an intelligent designer.

HMC.  Therefore, intelligent God/gods exist.

Lets look at the underlying formal structure of an argument from analogy and show how to evaluate an argument from analogy within the context of this famous example. 

The formal structure of an argument from analogy looks like this:

P1.  Object 1 (or Set of Objects 1) has properties p, q, r...z.

P2.  Object 2 (or Set of Objects 2) has properties p, q, r...

HP*:  Properties p, q, r... are relevant to an object having property z. 

C.   Since Object 1 and Object 2 share properties p, q, and r and Object 1 has property z, then Object 2 must also have property z. 

We can more explicitly formalize the argument from design to see how the argument from analogy works.

P1:  Complicated things such as a watch have the property of having being designed by something intelligent.

P2:  Complicated things (e.g.,  a watch, a computer)  have the property of "purposefulness" and therefore have the additional property of having being designed by an intelligent designer. 

P3:  Life or individual organs or organisms have the properties of complexity and have purpose.

HP*:  The properties of complexity and purposefulness are relevant to an object having the property of having a designer. 

C1:  Therefore, life also has the property of being designed by something intelligent,

MC:  That intelligent thing must be God/gods, therefore God/gods exist. 

Evaluating Arguments from Analogy

When evaluating arguments from analogy, most of our attention will be on the hidden premise, that having properties p, q, r are relevant to having property z.  To see how this works lets turn to the argument from design:  The most famous refutation of this argument comes from Hume in the 18th Century.  Hume gave 6 main criticism of the argument most of which are in some way related to evaluating the hidden premise.  We'll look at a few of them. 

We should now ask whether the property of complexity is necessarily relevant to also having the property of having an intelligent designer.  One way to approach this is to look for counter-examples;  that is, examples of things that are complex but (to our best knowledge) don't have a creator.   Are snow-flakes intelligently designed? (Is someone up in the sky furiously making them every time it snows?)  What about complex cloud patterns?  What about those swirls in your coffee?  It seems, we can have complexity without a conscious intelligent designer.

The question of purposefulness is a separate one.  I will simply note that it will take substantial argument to show that each life was designed for some sort of cosmic purpose.  

Also, we might consider what the implications of accepting HP are.  If it is indeed true (contrary to what our counter-examples show) that anything that is complex and that has a purpose also has an intelligent creator, then we must also apply this principle to whatever intelligently created life, and then again to whatever created that life, and again to whatever created that life...(you get the point!)

At this point you'll have to make some sort of special pleading argument to escape the infinite regress... 

Dawkins notes that in the case of the argument from design, another major flaw is that there is a disanalogy between inanimate objects which are unable to pass on complexity and living organisms which are able to reproduce and pass on complexity (and possibly become more complex over time).  Disanalogies arise when we show that the properties under consideration (complexity and purposefulness) aren't necessarily relevant to having some other property (intelligent designer). 

However, before we get too side-tracked, in a nutshell, the main counter to an argument from analogy hinges on showing that having one set of  properties (p, q, r, z) doesn't mean that every object with properties p, q, and r will also necessarily have property z. 

Lets look at one more example of an argument from analogy (intentionally bad--do not try this at home!) 

P1.  Water is clear, liquid, and quenches my thirst.

P2.  Gasoline is also, clear and liquid. 

HP.  The properties clearness and liquidity are relevant to an object having the property of "thirst quenchability."

C.  Therefore, drinking gasoline will quench my thirst.  

If you've been paying attention you might be able to figure out what's gone wrong... The problem is with the hidden premise.  There is a disanalogy between water and gasoline because clearness and liquidity are not necessarily relevant to something having the property of being able to quench thirst.  

In the policial sphere we often see arguments from analogy with concern to gun policy.  On the anti-gun control side we see analogies with policy in Switzerland (which has lax restrictions on what types of guns can be owned).  On the pro-gun control side we often hear analogies with policy in Australia (which banned assault weapons).  The rebuttals to both arguments from analogy often involve claims to the effect that there are cultural elements that aren't relevantly similar between the US and the other country.  

Critical Thinking: The Scientific Method in 5 Steps

Introduction to the Scientific Method in the Context of Critical Thinking

(For an example of real science in action, watch the video)
In the last few lessons we've looked at 5 common argument schemes:  Generalizations, polling, general causal reasoning, particular causal reasoning, and arguments from ignorance.  As luck would have it, these are the most common argument schemes you will find in (good and bad) scientific arguments.  Arguments are important to the scientific enterprise because a core activity of science is to provide reasons and evidence (i.e., arguments) for why one hypothesis should be accepted over another.  This question of why we should chose one hypothesis over another (or any hypothesis at all) brings up many interesting philosophical issues which (time permitting) we will briefly explore.  However, before putting on our philosopher hats, lets put on our lab coats, turn on our bunsen burners and take a closer look at the scientific method.

We can break up the scientific method into 5 steps:

Step 1:  Understanding the Issue
In this first step, the goal is simply to determine what it is exactly that we want to know.  Usually, it will be a problem that we want solved.  Examples might include, what is the mass of an electron?  Can vaccines prevent measles?  Can Tibetan monks levitate?  Is the earth round?  Can wi-fi cause health problems?  Does the color red make people feel hungry? How do magnets work?  Does honey diminish the severity of coughs?

As you can see some of these issues will involve questions about causation while others might be about identifying something's properties.

Step 2:  Formulating a Hypothesis
In the next step, we want to formulate a hypothesis that will solve our problem and the hypothesis must be testable (recall that a non-testable hypothesis is non-falsifiable and thus considered pseudo-scientific).  

To illustrate how this works, lets consider the problem of whether honey diminishes the severity of coughs.  Our basic hypothesis will be "honey diminishes the severity of coughs."

However, often our hypothesis will extend beyond a simple "yes" or "no".  We will want to know why it does or doesn't have a particular effect on a cough.  This is known as the "causal mechanism";  i.e., the thing that causes the effect that our hypothesis anticipates.   So, if honey diminishes the severity of coughs, we will want to know why.  If we don't know why then it may simply be correlation.  We are trying to establish causation.  Maybe it's the tea we drink the honey with that causes the diminished severity.  Or maybe it isn't honey itself that causes the reduced severity  maybe it's the sugars in honey and so any sweet substance will do.

Part of establishing causation is to rule out competing hypothesis.  So, if someone says that honey diminishes the severity of coughs because the sweetness in honey activates some particular receptor cells that in turn help diminish the severity of the cough, then we can test that.  Someone else might say it's because the honey reduces swelling in the throat.   We can test that a too.  Or someone else might say honey has some anti-bacterial or anti-viral compounds which kill the bacterial/viral cause of the cough.

The point is, we need to pick a hypothesis that (preferably) is also specific enough to also include a causal mechanism.  Lets choose the first one.

Hypothesis (h):  Drinking honey can reduce the severity of coughs.
Causal Mechanism:  h because

"the close anatomic relationship between the sensory nerve fibers that initiate cough and the gustatory nerve fibers that taste sweetness, an interaction between these fibers may produce an antitussive effect of sweet substances via a central nervous system mechanism."

Fallacy Alert!  Aruga!  Aruga!  In scientific debates it's very important to hold your opponent to their hypothesis (and also to keep to yours when facing objections or contravening evidence).  Changing the hypothesis mid-debate is called moving the goal posts.  This is a very common practice among purveyors of pseudo-science or members of the anti-science ideologies.  

For example, for years anti-vax groups opposed vaccines because--they hypothesized--thimerisol causes autism.   Because this myth became so pervasive (despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary) and in order to ensure compliance rates high enough for herd immunity, many national health departments changed to the more expensive thimerisol-free versions of the vaccines.  Contrary to the anti-vax hypothesis, removal of thimerisol from vaccines was followed by autism rates actually going up rather than down! (There's some weak evidence to suggest that vaccines can actually inhibit some kinds of autism).

Now that thimerisol is removed from vaccines and the anti-vax hypothesis has been proven to be empirically false, what do you think the response of the anti-vax crowd is?  If you guessed, "oh, lets support vaccines now," you were sleeping for the 2 weeks of this class!  The response was to "move the goal posts."  Now it's "too many too soon!" or "it's got aluminum in it!" or "it's got mercury in it!".
Step 3:  Identifying the Implications of the Hypothesis
In the next step we need to set out our expectations for what we'd expect to see (i.e., observations) if your hypothesis is correct.  It's very important that this is done before the experiments are conducted.  In the case of the honey, we'd expect to see that (a statistically significant number of) people who have a cough will cough less frequently and violently then a comparable group of people with a cough but who don't take honey (or any other "medicine").  In the case of thimerisol, we might say, if it's true that thimersol causes autism, then when we remove thimersol from vaccines we should expect to see autism rates decline. 

We can formalize this structure: 

If the hypothesis (h) is true, then x will occur.  (x is our expected observable outcome).  

So, in the case of honey, if our hypothesis is true, then those who drink honey will have reduced severity of coughing compared to a control group.

Step 4:  Testing the Hypothesis
As you might expect, once we've set up our hypothesis and established the anticipated observable effects that would confirm the hypothesis, we test!

Recall step 2: when we form the hypothesis, we should ensure that the hypothesis is testable.  That is to say, that we can say in advance what will constitute observable confirmation or disconfirmation of the test.  A couple of notes on why we must do this in advance.  (1).  This prevents retrofitting the data to fit the hypothesis; (2).  if prevents the "moving of the goal posts".

Testing in Principle vs Testing in Practice
Finally, we should be aware that not all hypotheses will in practice be testable, but they must be so in principle.  For example, we can construct a hypothesis of what will happen if a large asteroid hits the earth but we don't need to actually destroy half the earth to confirm the hypothesis that such an impact will indeed destroy half the earth.  In some cases, running a computer simulation will do! 

Step 5:  Reevaluating the Hypothesis 
In step 4, I emphasized that the predicted confirmatory results of the hypothesis must be made in advance to avoid retrofitting and moving the goal posts.  However, this does not mean that once we have conducted a test that we can't modify the test or the hypothesis.  This is perfectly legitimate  but must be done in a way that recognizes the shortcomings of the original test and/or hypothesis.  

Fallacy Alert!  Aruga!  Aruga!  Aruga! When the implications of our hypothesis are confirmed we must be careful not to immediately conclude that our hypothesis is confirmed.  From the fact that our anticipated effect occurred it doesn't necessarily follow that our hypothesis is true.  This is called the fallacy of affirming the consequent, which looks like this:  

P1  If h, then x.  (in fancy talk, h is called the anticedent and x is called the consequent)
P2  x occurred.
C   Therefore, h is true. 

To see why h doesn't necessarily follow, given that P2 is true (i.e., "affirming" the consequent), consider the follow case.

P1  If it's raining, it's cloudy.
P2  It's cloudy.
C   Therefore, it's raining.

Just because it's cloudy doesn't mean it's raining.  It can be cloudy without it being rainy.  It can also be partially cloudy with chances of sunshine in the evening, followed by overcast skies at night... you get the point.  

In relation to scientific hypothesis we can imagine the following scenarios:  Someone suggests a hypothesis h and anticipates a certain observable consequence x.  But does it follow that just because x occurred that the hypothesis is true?  Nope.  There are many possible alternative reasons (or causes) besides h for which x might have occurred.  

If we think back to the sections on general causal reasoning we can see why.  If the hypothesis is a causal one, then there are several steps we need to go through before we can attribute causality.  Maybe there's only a statistical relationship between two variables?  (correlation) Maybe, there's some other better explanation (h) for why x is occurring?  Maybe the methodology was flawed.  (No double blinding=placebo effect, problems with representativeness and sample size, etc...).

Summary:  Steps of the Scientific Method
1.  Understand the Problem that requires a solution or explanation.
2.  Formulate a hypothesis to address the problem. 
3.  Deduce the (observable) consequences that will follow if the hypothesis is correct. 
4.  Test the hypothesis to see if the consequences do indeed follow.
5.  Reevaluate (and possibly reformulate) the hypothesis.  


 

Critical Thinking: Arguments from Ignorance, God, and GMOs

Introduction
The next argument scheme we will look at is what's known as the argument from ignorance.  An argument from ignorance (or argumentum ad ignorantium if you want to be fancy) is one that asserts that something is (most likely) true because there is no good evidence showing that it is false.  It can also be used the other way to argue that a claim is (most likely) false because there's not good evidence to show that it's true.

Lets look at a couple of (valid) examples:

There's no good evidence to show that the ancient Egyptians had digital computeres.  (This evaluation comes from professional archeologists), therefore, they likely didn't have digital computers.

Or

There's no good evidence to suppose the earth will get destroyed by an asteroid tomorrow.  (This evaluation comes from professional astronomers),  so we should assume it won't and plan a picnic for tomorrow.

Or

There's no good geological evidence that there was a world-wide flood event.  (This evaluation comes from professional geologists), therefore we should assume that one never happened.

Formalizing the Argument Scheme
As you may have guessed, we can formalize the structure of the argument from ignorance:
P1:  There's no (good) evidence to disprove (or prove*) the claim.
P2:  There has been a reasonable search for the relevant evidence by whomever is qualified to do so.
C:    Therefore, we should accept the claim as more probable than not/true.
C*:  Therefore, we should reject the claim as improbable/false.

Good and Bad Use of Argument from Ignorance
The argument from ignorance is philosophically interesting because sometimes the same structure can be used to support the opposing position.  The classic example is the debate over the existence of God.  Lets look at how both sides can employ the argument from ignorance to try to support their postion.

Pro-God Arg 
P1:  You can't find any evidence that proves that God or gods don't exist.
P2:  We've made a good attempt to find disconfirming evidence, but can't find any!
C:   Therefore, it's reasonable to suppose that God or gods do exist.

Vs God Arg 
P1:  You can't show any evidence that God or gods do exist.
P1*:  Any evidence you present can also be explained through the natural laws.
P2:  We've made a good attempt at looking for evidence of God's/gods' existence but can't find any! (I even looked under my bed!)
C:  Therefore, it's reasonable to suppose that God/gods don't exist.

This particular case brings out some important issues we studied earlier in the course such as bias and burden of proof.   Not surprisingly, theists will find the first argument convincing while atheists will be convinced by the latter.  This of course brings up questions of burden of proof.  When we make a claim for something's existence, is it up to the person making the claim to provide proof?  Or does the burden of proof fall on the critic to give disconfirming evidence?  In certain questions, your biases will pre-determine your answer.

While in the above issue, there is arguably reasonable disagreement on both sides, there are other domains where the argument from ignorance fails as a good argument.  As you might guess, this will have to do with the acceptability of P1 (i.e., there is/is no evidence) and P2 (i.e., a reasonable search has been made).  Most criticism of arguments from ignorance will focus on P2--that the search wasn't as extensive as the arguer thinks.  Generally, we let P1 stand because it is usually an authors opinion to the best of their own knowledge.  Recall from the chapter on determining what is reasonable, we typically let personal testimony stand.

We can illustrate a poor example of an argument from ignorance with an example.  Claim: There's no evidence to show Obama is American, therefore he isn't American.

Lets dress the argument to evaluate it:
P1:  I've encountered no good evidence to show that Obama is an American citizen.
P2:  Numerous agencies and individual trained in the search and identification of state documents have been unable to locate any relevant documents.
C:   Obama isn't American (and is a Communist Muslim).

Regarding P1, maybe the arguer hasn't encountered any evidence so we'll leave it alone.  P2 however has problems.  There have been reasonable searches for evidence, and that evidence was found.  Perhaps, the arguer was unaware or didn't truly exert him/herself enough.  The argument fails because P2 is not acceptable (i.e., false).

We can also typically find the argument from ignorance used in arguments against new (or relatively new) technologies in regards to safety or efficacy.  For example:

We should ban GMOs because we don't know what long-term health effects are.

Dressed:
P1:  I've found no evidence that shows that GMOs are safe for human consumption.
P2:  Those qualified to do studies and evaluate evidence have found no compelling evidence to show that GMOs are safe for human consumption.
C:  Therefore, we should assume GMOs are unsafe and ban them until we can determine they are safe.

If we were to criticize this argument we'd consider P2.  In fact, there have been quite a few long term studies done by those qualified to assess safety.  At this point we will have a debate over quality of evidence.  Some on the anti-GMO side dispute the quality of the evidence (i.e., it was funded by company x, and therefore it is questionable).  In a full analysis we'd consider this question in depth, but for our purposes here, we might legitimately challenge the claim that there is no available evidence purporting to demonstrate safety.

As an aside, notice that we can also use the argument from ignorance for the opposite conclusion:  There's no compelling evidence to show that GMOs are unsafe for human consumption in the long-term, therefore, we should continue to make them available/ should not regulate them.

The "team" that wins this battle of arguments from ignorance will have much to do with our evaluation of P2:  That there legitimately is or isn't quality evidence one way or the other.

Final Notes on Arguments from Ignorance
We can look at arguments from ignorance as probabilistic arguments.  That is, given that there is little or no evidence for something, what is the likelihood that it still might exist?  This is especially true for claims that something does exist based on an absence of evidence for its non-existence.   However, as Carl Sagan famously said, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."  In other words, just because we can't find evidence for something, doesn't mean that the thing or phenomena doesn't exist.

On the flip side, this line of argument can also be used to support improbable claims.  Consider such an argument for the existence of unicorns or small teapots that circle the Sun:  There's no evidence that unicorns don't exist or small tea pots don't circle the Sun, therefore we should assume they exist.

At this point we should return to the notion of probability:  Given no positive evidence for these claims, what is the probability that they are true (versus the probability that they aren't)?  It seems that, given an absence of evidence, the probability of there being unicorns is lower than the probability that they do not exist.  Same goes for the teapot.

Typically, in such cases we say that the burden of proof falls on the person making the existential claim.  That is, if you want to claim that something exists, the burden is upon you to provide evidence for it, otherwise, the reasonable position is the "null hypothesis."  The null hypothesis just means that we assume no entity or phenomena exists unless there is positive evidence for its existence.   In other words, if I want to assert that unicorns exist, using the argument from ignorance won't do.  It's not enough for me to make the claim based on an absence of evidence.  This is because, we'd expect some evidence to have turned up by now if there were unicorns (i.e., P2 of the implied argument would be weak).

This brings us to another Carl Sagan quote (paraphrasing Hume):  "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Or as Hume originally said:  "A wise man proportions his beliefs to the evidence."   Claiming that unicorns exist is an extraordinary claim and so we should demand evidence in proportion to the "extraordinariness" of the claim.  This is why an ad ignorantium argument fails here;  it doesn't offer any positive evidence for an extraordinary claim, only absence of evidence.  We'll discuss this principle of proportionality more in the coming section.   For now, just keep it in mind when evaluating existential arguments from ignorance.

Critical Thinking: Particular Causal Reasoning and Arguments from Ignorance

Introduction
In the previous section we looked at general causal reasoning.  Now we're going kick it up a notch with particular causal reasoning.  Essentially, particular causal reasoning is when we apply causal reasoning to explain a particular effect in terms of a particular (or sometimes general) cause.  For example, I got bronchitis because of the fire down the street.  Contrast this with a general causal claim which might be something like "some people get lung infections from large fires."  

Notice that my particular causal reasoning implicitly relies on a general causal claim.  That is, it is an instance of the general claim.  Bronchitis is an instance of the more general category "lung infections" and the housefire-down-the-street is an instance of the more general category "large fires."  This fact will be important in our evaluation.

The Argument Structure of Particular Causal Reasoning
Recall that general causal reasoning has the structure "X causes Y," where X is all or most objects/events called X and Y is all or most objects/events called Y.  For example, if I say "food motivates dogs to perform tricks" we'd represent this argument as "X causes Y," where X=different types of food and Y=dogs performing tricks.

We can make a particular causal claim too.  I might say "pup-eroni motivates Ottis to sit."  We can represent the particular claim as "this x causes this y," where x=a type of food and y=a particular dog.  (Notice that in the general claim we use uppercase variables and in the particular claim we use lower case.)



So, why does all this alphabet soup matter?  Well, it's not too important but it illustrates that particular causal reasoning depends on more general causal reasoning.  In other words, for every particular causal claim there will be a more general claim upon which it depends.  Also, that the variables in particular claims are instances of more general categories.

Lets take a quick step back:  We know from our general critical thinking that the strength of a conclusion partly relies on the truth of a premise/premises (i.e., premise acceptability).   Consequentially, if we can show that that premise is weak, then the plausibility of the conclusion will be negatively affected.

As applied to particular causal claims, we should recognize that a particular causal claim has as a supporting premise a more general causal claim.  So, if we can show that the general causal claim is weak or strong (using the skills we acquired in the section on general causal reasoning) then this will impact the relative strength of the particular causal claim in the conclusion.

There are a few other ways to evaluate a particular causal claim.  Lets make the argument structure explicit first:

Argument Structure for a Particular Causal Argument
P1:  X causes Y.  (This is the general claim)
P2:  Appealing to the general causal principle in P1 is the best explanation of y.  (y=the particular effect)
C:   Therefore, this x caused this y.

So, we've already said that one aspect of our evaluation will involve evaluating the general claim upon which the particular claim relies.  The second will be regarding (P2):  Is P1 the best explanation of y? (y=the particular effect); that is, is y best explained in terms of the general claim in P1?  Or might there be better explanations?  Here we might appeal to other causal explanations for y.

This is How We Do It....(Note: I've added a few steps of analysis not included in your textbook)
We can illustrate how to evaluate a particular causal claim with an example:  Suppose someone makes the argument after winning at the casino that they won because they were wearing their lucky sweater.  (I've actually heard this).   We might say that the particular claim is an instance of the more general claim that certain objects can bring good luck.  Lets formalize the structure of the argument:

P1  Some objects can bring good luck. (Some Xs cause Y.)
P2  The principle P1 (i.e., some object bring good luck) is the best explanation of why I won at roulette.
C    Therefore, I won at roulette because I was wearing my lucky sweater.

Step 1
How might we evaluate this claim?  First a quick note:  the general claim of which the particular claim is an instance won't always be stated.  Often it will be up to the reader to infer it.  So, lets call that step 1.  In this case, the general causal principle we can infer from the conclusion is the some objects can bring about good luck in gambling (or just generally).

The general causal principle we infer (when not explicitly stated) will require a little bit of subjective judgment on our part to determine scope.  So, as I've indicated, in this example we might say that the general principle is that some objects bring good luck across all activities, or maybe they only bring good luck in gambling.  Here we should apply the principles of charity and reasonableness to avoid constructing strawmen.

Step 2
Decide whether the general causal claim is sound.  That is, apply the evaluative principles we learned in the previous section.  I won't repeat them here but, in this case we'd look at P1 and decide whether it is a good causal principle that some objects can bring about good luck.  We'd also consider questions about representativeness of the sample depending on what information is available to us.

Step 3a
Decide whether the principle in P1 is the best explanation of the effect (y).  Here we ask whether the fact that I had with me a particular "lucky" object (i.e., wore a particular sweater) is the best causal explanation of my good luck at the roulette table.  In other words, if we accept P1 as true--that some objects cause good luck--is the particular effect y (i.e., this instance of winning at roulette) best explained in terms of the implied general causal principle (that some objects bring about good luck)?

We can think of this type of evaluation in terms of comparing competing explanations.  We might ask, are there other plausible explanations for why I won at the roulette table?  If so, are they more likely than the one suggested?  If the competing explanations are more plausible than the one that's implied, this will have consequences on the plausibility of the conclusion.

In this case we might suggest that there is a more plausible general principle for why I won.  Statistically, someone (who places a bet) eventually will win at the roulette table and I just happened to be there at the right time and place.  If I had kept playing, regression toward the mean would have taken over and we'd have seen that my performance with the lucky sweater was no better than the general statistical odds of the game.

Step 3b
Related to the question of whether the general causal principle is the best explanation of the particular event we can ask an "identity" question.  That is, we can ask whether y really is an instance of Y and whether x really is an instance of X.   This step will be very similar to what we do when we evaluate generalizations.  

Summary
Lets quickly summarize how we'd go about evaluating a particular causal claim.  (1) The particular claim relies on a more general causal claim, so if the general claim isn't explicitly stated, you should try to infer what it is.  (2)  Decide whether the general causal claim is plausible (using the criteria from the section on general causal reasoning). (3a)  Decide whether the general causal claim (if assumed true) is the best explanation of the particular causal claim.  (3b)  Decide whether the particular cause and effect are indeed instances of the general categories of cause and effect in the general causal claim.