The Irrational Ape: Why Flawed Logic Puts us all at Risk and How Critical Thinking Can Save the World

by David Robert Grimes

The question isn’t whether we like the resultant conclusion or whether it fits our preferred view of the world; only whether it flows from the evidence and logic or not.

Part of the reason is that content producers and platforms are reliant on sharing to generate revenue. Even traditional non-tabloid media – whose revenue streams once depended on trusted reporting – have been forced to embrace the internet as physical sales plummet.

By curating our own sources, we can construct any tableau we desire. But collectively we fail to objectively interrogate our information, amplifying that which affirms our prejudices and pre-existing beliefs while excluding that which might challenge them.

Voltaire famously warned that ‘those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities’.

To take one persistent canard, it is true that jet fuel cannot melt steel beams. It is essentially kerosene, burning at approximately 815°C, whereas steel’s melting point is around 1,510°C. Yet, while 9/11 truthers clutch to this factlet with religious fervour, it simply highlights a profound misunderstanding of basic mechanics: steel rapidly loses its tensile strength with temperature. At 590°C, it diminishes to 50 per cent normal strength.

In these narratives, the common thread is that scientists are complicit in mass deception. Anyone who’s spent any time around scientists will no doubt find this amusing, as trying to get scientists to agree is often vaguely akin to herding cats.

By 1865, Semmelweis was driven to utter distraction by the lack of enthusiasm over his work. Already showing signs of cognitive impairment, he began drinking to excess and penned a series of vicious letters to his critics – each more inflammatory than the last. Embittered and angry, he denounced obstetricians as ‘irresponsible murderers’ and ‘ignoramuses’.

‘How one addresses the anti-vaccine movement has been a problem since the time of Jenner.22 The best way in the long term is to refute wrong allegations at the earliest opportunity by providing scientifically valid data. This is easier said than done, because the adversary in this game plays according to rules that are not generally those of science.’

there are plenty of naturally occurring things that can kill or maim us, from deadly nightshade to Ebola. Uranium and arsenic are ‘natural’ but you would be ill-advised to sprinkle them on your breakfast cereal. The simplistic conflation of natural with healthy or good is a non sequitur, fatally scuppered by the equivocal adjective ‘natural’.

many of us can ignore the plight of homeless and destitute people by convincing ourselves they have some intrinsic flaw, rather than consider the uncomfortable idea that their situation heavily depends on social and economic factors beyond their control. We have an overarching tendency to believe that the bad actions or luck of others are because they are bad people, without considering situational factors that might have played a role.

Huxley, who had not earned the nickname ‘Darwin’s Bulldog’ for nothing, verbally eviscerated Wilberforce, replying unflustered: ‘If . . . the question is put to me would I rather have a miserable ape for a grandfather or a man highly endowed by nature and possessed of great means & influence & yet who employs these faculties & that influence for the mere purpose of introducing ridicule into a grave scientific discussion I unhesitatingly affirm my preference for the ape.’

there is strong evidence that tetrahydrocannabinol (THC, the chief psychoactive ingredient in cannabis) can reduce nausea and vomiting associated with cancer treatments. These anti-emetic properties have been exploited for decades in the clinical management of cancer symptoms.

When confronted with clashing information, we endeavour to quell this discomfort. We might accept that our preconceived notions may be flawed or incomplete, and – like an ideal scientist – refine our views in light of new evidence. But to alter our ideological leanings is cognitively expensive; an easier option is simply to deny reality in order to preserve our beliefs.

‘a man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic, and he fails to see your point.’

at no point during any previous glacial or interglacial period has the CO2 concentration level reached as high as 300 ppm (parts per million) – in September 2016, we surpassed the 400 ppm threshold, with predictions of up to 600 ppm in the coming decades.

we are so deeply wedded to the simple dichotomy between truthful accounts and outright lies that we neglect the grey haze of dubious memory.

That EHS is psychosomatic rather than physiological in origin does not make it feel any less real to the afflicted, even if they are mistaken about the cause of their woes.

‘Politicians use statistics in the same way that a drunk uses lampposts – for support rather than illumination.’ – ANDREW L

The idea that one can simply throw a barrage of tests at a wide cohort of patients, with no a priori information, and use these to divine their health status is completely irrational.

Swayze himself had no tolerance for snake oil. In an interview before his death, he expressed his irritation at the nonsense he’d been hawked: ‘If anybody had that cure out there, like so many people swear to me they do, you’d be two things: you’d be very rich, and you’d be very famous. Otherwise, shut up.’ We should all be crazy for Swayze.

The specific misconceptions about breast cancer and illness are covered in detail in Gerd Gigerenzer’s excellent book Reckoning with Risk

The great Carl Sagan worried that ‘we’ve arranged a global civilisation in which most crucial elements profoundly depend on science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster.’

evidence for human-mediated climate change or the safety of vaccines is so overwhelming: data from thousands of studies and theoretical models all point to the same conclusion. Conversely, climate-change deniers or anti-vaccine activists who clutch at single or weak studies are being disingenuous; cherry-picked studies in isolation simply do not trump overwhelming evidence.

In the words of Carl Sagan, ‘extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

Anecdotal information must be very robustly assessed to gauge its merit. The mere fact that there are contested viewpoints does not mean every opinion is equally well supported.

Our ideas do not define us. They are often wrong, and there should be no shame in adapting to new information. To do so is laudable; the only shame is refusing to change our minds when evidence demands it.

For the first time in history, we could eradicate an entire family of cancers. But it is impossible to immunise against foolishness.

It is completely understandable that people have questions about vaccine safety; it is another thing entirely to engineer or exploit public uncertainty in order to scaremonger.

The unspoken truth is that no one changes anyone else’s mind; we can only change our own, giving others the tools and freedom to do the same.

I’ve found myself in the past using a contemptuous, haughty tone that I retrospectively loathe. I strive to avoid it because, while it may garner accolades from the like-minded, it risks alienating those who could benefit the most from any insight I might offer.

those deliberately misrepresenting reality are unlikely to change their mind, and engagement with them is not likely to be constructive.

the ideal of open discussion should never be a cover for hatred or oppression. There is no onus on us to engage with hateful philosophies, and nor are we obliged to give a free airing to positions that deny others their fundamental rights or basic humanity.

The paradox of tolerance is that a society tolerant without limit will eventually be ov...