The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe: How to Know What's Really Real in a World Increasingly Full of Fake

by Steven Novella

We have narratives and beliefs that serve our basic psychological needs, such as the need for a sense of control. When those beliefs are challenged, we don’t take a rational and detached approach. We dig in our heels and engage in what is called motivated reasoning. We defend the core beliefs at all costs, shredding logic, discarding inconvenient facts, making up facts as necessary, cherry-picking only the facts we like, engaging in magical thinking, and using subjective judgments as necessary without any consideration for internal consistency. Collectively, these processes constitute motivated reasoning, something at which humans generally excel.

Motivated reasoning is triggered by what psychologists call cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance theory was first proposed by Leon Festinger in 1957. He suggested that psychological discomfort results when we are presented with two pieces of information that conflict with each other. We hold a belief, and now we have information that contradicts that belief. Ideally, we would resolve the conflict rationally and objectively, changing the belief as necessary, depending on the nature and validity of the new information. When the belief is strongly and emotionally held, however, it becomes too difficult to change. If the belief is at the core of our worldview, then changing it might cause a chain reaction, magnifying cognitive dissonance.

Motivated reasoning is further facilitated by the fact that much of our information is subjective or requires some judgment. No scientific study is perfect, so you can always point to limitations if you want to deny the conclusions. No source is impeccable, and people make mistakes, so perhaps this is one. Different sources say different things, so you can choose to believe the one that reduces your cognitive dissonance.

In general, political opinions tend to fall into the “sacred cow” category. People tend to identify with their political tribe and want to believe that their tribe is virtuous and smart, while the other tribe is mostly made of lying idiots. Of course, these dichotomies occur on a spectrum. You can have a little bit of an emotional attachment to a belief, or it can be fundamental to your worldview and identity. You can be a little tribal in your political views, or hyperpartisan.

The Neuroscience of Motivated Reasoning

These studies looking at the psychology and the neural correlates of motivated reasoning provide an essential insight into how the human brain behaves, and they reinforce how challenging it can be to be a consistent critical thinker. This suggests we should make a specific effort to be more detached when it comes to ideological beliefs. Factual beliefs about the world shouldn’t be a source of identity, because those facts may be wrong, partly wrong, or incomplete.

There is also a need to remind ourselves that people who disagree with us are just people. They are not demons. They have their reasons for believing what they do. They think they’re right just as much as we think we are right. They don’t disagree with us because we’re virtuous and they are evil. They just have a different narrative than we do, one reinforced by a different set of facts and subjective judgments.

This doesn’t mean that all views are equally valid. It does suggest we should strive to focus on logic and evidence, not self-serving assumptions of moral superiority.

10.

Skeptics’ Guide Entry: Arguments and Logical Fallacies

A logical fallacy is an invalid connection between a premise and a conclusion, where the conclusion does not necessarily flow from the premise(s) but is argued as if it does.

What Is an Argument?

The first thing we should understand about a logical argument is that it follows a certain format. There are one or more premises, which are underlying facts that the argument takes for granted or is built upon. There is then some logical connection showing how these premises necessarily lead to a specific conclusion.

mind: If the premises of an argument are true and sufficiently complete, and the logic is valid (in which case the argument is said to be “sound”), then the conclusion must be true.

In order for the conclusion to be false, one or more premises must be false, or there are hidden or incomplete premises, or the logic is invalid.

First, Turn Your Sights Inward

If someone disagrees with someone else, it is best that they first deconstruct their own position to make sure their premises are true, there are no hidden premises, and their logic is valid. They must be open to the possibility that they have incomplete or wrong information or that they’ve made a mental error.

The goal of critical thinking and skepticism is to have the most valid position possible, and this means accounting for the best possible arguments that challenge our position.

Examine Your Premises

Logical Fallacies

Non Sequitur

Argument from Authority

Argument from Final Outcome

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

Confusing Correlation with Causation

In essence there are always four possible interpretations of any apparent correlation. The first is that the correlation is not causal at all. The second is that A causes B. The third is that B causes A. The fourth is that A and B are both caused by another variable, C.

A better quote would be that correlation does not necessarily imply causation, or that it does not, alone, prove causation. But it is one line of evidence for it.

Special Pleading, or Ad Hoc Reasoning

Tu Quoque

Ad Hominem

CLOSED-MINDED

Ad Ignorantiam

Confusing Currently Unexplained with Unexplainable

False Continuum

False Dichotomy

False Analogy

Genetic Fallacy

Inconsistency

Naturalistic Fallacy

Nirvana Fallacy

No True Scotsman

Reductio ad Absurdum

Slippery Slope

Straw Man

Tautology

WHAT’S THE WORD?

Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy

The Moving Goalpost

Fallacy Fallacy

Applying Logic Every Day