How We Think & What It Means for The Future, Part 2

How We Think & What It Means for The Future, Part 2

Reason versus Fallacy –

We tend to move forward, ignoring what is inconvenient and focusing on what is desirable. We do what can to convince others (and even ourselves) that our actions are justified based on the circumstances. We want to be “right”.

This desire to prove one's self correct – or go against ideas with which one does not agree – has seen an increasing use of fallacies. (Fallacies, of course, are arguments that appear logical, but upon a closer look the arguments do not make sense.) Fallacies can be part of an argument the opposition must face, but they are also used to support ideas we favor.

We see the use of fallacies in commercials, politics, and news reporting. The basic premise of any commercial is to make the viewer desire the product, using social cues to turn the consumer to their favor. Part of the strategy used by politicians is to appear as appealing as possible while making their opponents appear as outlandish as possible. The news agencies inflate the seriousness of situations to raise concern in the public so people will rush to watch, read, or listen.

When the issues of climate change, environmental pollution, or global warming are discussed, there are those who want to dismiss them. The argument is that these things can't possibly be happening at the levels that scientists claim. The scientific community tends to be rather somber, referring to data and sources coming in from all over the globe. The opposition usually is self-assured, animated, and very colorful in their opinions. Apparently if some people feel confident that climate change is a sham, it is just as strong as any evidence to the contrary.

When observing the opponents of global warming you might notice a group of people who are used to having control over their surroundings. Things usually happen in their favor, so the idea of something outside their control is distasteful. Opponents of global warming ask “where is the proof?” but they feel they are sole judges of what data can be used and what data should be thrown out.

People can argue over the issues of climate change and global warming until they are blue in the face, but ultimately the argument of the opposition is that these issues are a matter of perspective and belief. The discussion becomes absurd - people against the idea of global warming sometimes even argue the argument.

Here are some fallacies promoted in opposition to climate change data:

Man-made climate change and global warming are opinions, and everyone can have their own opinion, so if someone says climate change and global warming are happening, I can disregard it.
Fallacy: False premise – You must start by saying global warming is not fact, but opinion. Starting with a false premise leads to a false conclusion.

Man-made climate change cannot be proven.
Fallacy: Begging the Question – The conclusion has been determined in the premise.

The Earth's climate is always changing, so how is this time period any different?
Fallacy: Appeal to Tradition – Just because something has occurred in a pattern does not mean the pattern will continue.

The winter of Earth's Northern Hemisphere had unusually low temperatures in 2007 and 2008, so global warming is not happening.
Fallacy: Misleading Vividness – Data from one particularly unusual year cannot outweigh the significance of statistical evidence taken over a long period of time.

The people who support the idea of man-made change of the Earth's climate use inaccurate terms and concepts to describe what is happening, therefore the entire reality of man-made climate change can be questioned.
Fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule – Finding fault with how something is done does not make the conclusion false.

Computers are seldom used to predict climate change, because people who believe in climate change want us to believe in climate change, too.
Fallacy: Circumstantial Ad Hominem & False Premise – The statement assumes that people who understand climate change to be real are actually obscuring the facts because they want people to side with them. The statement also assumes climate change is a belief.