As I briefly mentioned last episode, human beings are pattern-seeking creatures. By a process of natural selection, we have arrived at tendencies that lead us to make generalisations, which help us make sense of the world around us. Categorisation is what has kept our species (and many other creatures!) alive to this point. 

Unfortunately, the fact that we tend to what is known as bad causal reasoning is an issue — we get confused about the relationship between a cause and effect easily and our senses can mislead us, as well as being influenced by our relationships to others and beliefs we might have. In addition, we may find ourselves committing fallacies and correcting, because (after all!) we’re learning all the time. 

In skepticism, the meta-experimentation of science can be summed up by Carl Sagan as “Science delivers the goods” — it’s one of the best ways we know so far to help us understand the world around us. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence — so any claim that goes against the established knowledge or wisdom, has to be at least equaled with the burden of proof. 

Skepticism isn’t a set of conclusions or beliefs but is instead a method of inquiry — whatever evidence there may be for a claim is able to be revised and clarified, a claim could even be abandoned in the face of better evidence for the contrary. From the beginning there needs to be an open-mindedness, but always anchored by the need for rigorous proof to be initially convinced.

Skepticism also involves understanding epistemology, the origins, nature and extent of knowledge; how we can be deceived by our senses and by bad arguments, which also involves understanding logical fallacies and where they may mislead us. 

Skeptics are aware of the way they can rely on subconscious emotional conclusions, and that this is not an unusual response, as humans are pattern-seeking creatures. It take work and effort to question those conclusions and seek better answers to what may be initially convincing claims. As Nobel prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman said, “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.”

There’s a formal, popular definition which many of you might have come across: meaning cynic or doubter. It’s often used in cases where people discuss climate change. That even in the face of evidence, a skeptic will still dismiss a claim.

It’s unfortunately one of the issues that come with the term, but it’s very unlikely that it’ll ever change to something else — so the best way to deal with it is to demonstrate how scientific skepticism works and what skepticism is about. Scientific skepticism involves an approach to knowledge using science and scientific methodology, and understanding how we come to understand things about our world.

Skepticism also involves investigating paranormal, pseudoscientific beliefs and science denialism, conspiracy theory beliefs and the like. Skepticism is about investigating evidence and sorting the results, finding out what is good, bad or even has no measurable evidence, and what may be done next in regards to further analysis to see if results change.

Part of the series of books from The School Of Life, Tom Chatfield’s How to Thrive In The Digital Age is an overview of the influence of the Internet, social media, the digital economy and what impact it has on the individual and society. Starting with technology writer and theorist Kevin Kelly on technology and accessibility, it investigates the influence of social media and self-esteem, and how awareness of an audience changes our behaviour.

How much of our experiences are really fulfilling through the use of the internet and whether diversity is the answer is one of the questions raised by the book, and the importance of having an offline life as well as an online one is investigated. Overall, while it tends towards the more positive aspects, this is a fairly useful historical look at advancement in terms of digital technology.

Today’s episode is the revision of the topics on arguments from the past week — you can support the 365DaysOfPhilosophy podcast by visiting www.patreon.com/kyliesturgess and review previous episodes at www.365daysofphilosophy.com.

If you can help the show continue, head to: https://www.patreon.com/kyliesturgess

Music from Jukedeck — create your own at http://jukedeck.com.

Answers to yesterday’s examples are on Patreon.com/kyliesturgess.

For the following, identify the conclusion and the type of argument — serial, divergent or linked.

a. You can either go to the party or go to the beach, and since you’re not going to go to the beach in this weather, you’ll be going to the party.

b. Why would anyone associate with such a bunch of snobs? They’re not good friends, as they have terrible taste in music which they play loudly even though you said you hated it, so they do it on purpose. You would be better off finding new friends. Besides, your so-called friends said they weren’t going to associate with you again.

c. The library was locked and empty when we entered. No creature could be escape a locked room. So, the cat could not have been hiding in the library. 

d. Visitors rarely pick the flowers. You cannot say that picking the flowers is always what visitors to do. Therefore, you can’t put up a sign saying that visitors are responsible for missing flowers.

e. My original plan was $70 billion in spending with a $40 billion contingency that was part of the original plan, in order to have that money available for tax rebates. I hope that we could do it through spending, and here’s why: I don’t want to necessarily open up the tax code while we’ve got Republicans in the Senate who are going to try to come back and open up making Bush’s tax cuts permanent. — Hilary Clinton.

Answers tomorrow on Patreon.com/kyliesturgess — try putting your answers in the comments!

Answers to the previous day’s exercises you can find on Patreon.com/kyliesturgess.

The final form of argument mapping I’m describing is called linked arguments.

Rather like convergent arguments, there’s two or more reasons for the conclusions, but this time, the reasons are dependent upon each other.

For example, 

(1) Today is a weekend day. (2) It is not Sunday. (3) Therefore, today is Saturday.

This argument has one conclusion: ‘Therefore, today is Saturday’. It also has two reasons but these reasons do not work independently of each other. Since the reasons work together to justify the conclusion we diagram the argument like this:

Figuring out as to whether the argument is linked or convergent depends on looking at the reasons separately. For example, if we removed either (1) or (2), could we still get the same answer?

Without (2), we could not adequately defend whether the day is Saturday or Sunday. Without (1), it could be any day of the week besides Sunday, and so could not support the conclusion either.

A convergent argument presents two or more independent reasons for the one conclusion. For example:

You sbouldn’t go to the party; firstly, the kinds of people who go to the party are loud and rude and secondly, you have no way to return home afterwards.

The conclusion is 1. that you shouldn’t go to the party. The reasons are:

2. the kinds of people who go to the party are loud and rude

3. you have no way to return home afterwards.

If we number them as conclusions and reasons, it looks like this:

[2] [3]
↘ ↙
(1)

Argument mapping is just what you think — diagramming or documenting an argument in visual form. There’s a number of different kinds that can be identified.

A serial argument is a string of reasons and conclusions in which every conclusion is supported by one reason. Consider the following argument:

(1) Boola cars are unreliable and therefore (2) are going to cost you more in upkeep than they’re worth. So, (3) you shouldn’t buy a Boola car.

In this argument, (1) is offered as a reason for (2) — and (2) is offered as a reason for (3). Both the final conclusion (3) and the intermediate conclusion (2) are supported by one reason. It is therefore a serial argument. We diagram this argument as follows:

We can also give the diagram just in terms of the numbers of the statements. In the case of the serial argument above, the diagram looks like this:

The following interview aired today on RTRFM. The death of fourteen-year-old Elijah Doughty in Kalgoorlie-Boulder, Western Australia and the subsequent Supreme Court verdict has ignited debate and tension. Kalgoorlie elders say the decision is an injustice, and it has left people angry, disappointed and in mourning. Human Rights Lawyer Hannah McGlade joined me on the Morning Mag to discuss the history of legal issues involving minorities in Australia and the impact of this particular ruling.