|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
SPINOZA
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul
|
 Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 4:35 pm Post subject: The "chicken little" fallacy |
 |
|
I must confess I'd never heard of this until very recently (when I encountered "chicken little" with regard to debates on climate change and conspiracy theories). Well, I've aquainted myself with "chicken little" and here it is:
"The phrase has become used to indicate a hysterical or mistaken belief that disaster is imminent. This usage is generally snide or derogatory"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sky_is_Falling
1. A makes claim X (and X involves apocalyptically dire consequences)
2. B makes the claim that because X predicts apocalyptically dire consequences, it is �chicken little� � the sky is falling (claim Y)
3. B claims that because of Y one need not worry about X.
INVALID ARGUMENT!
In the original story of Chicken Little, the latter's theory that the sky was falling was a poor theory because he had poor evidence (an acorn falling on his head). CL made a hasty conclusion concerning an acorn falling and in order to refute CL's theory, one would need to demonstrate that the acorn falling was not sufficient evidence for the sky falling.
A more serious example would be the claim that - given climate change affects the Arctic the most and sea level rises of at least 18cm by the end of the century are likely if current trends continue (or intensify) - truly dismal consequences await us, since one hundred million people live within 1 meter of mean sea level, and much of the world's population is concentrated in vulnerable coastal cities. In the US, Lousiana and Florida are particularly vulnerable. The fact that the consequences are extremely dire, disastrous has absolutely no relevance to the truth or falsity, merit or lack of merit, of the claim. You need to look at whether the evidence is sufficient for the conclusion/predictions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
The_Conservative
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 5:43 pm Post subject: Re: The "chicken little" fallacy |
|
|
| SPINOZA wrote: |
I must confess I'd never heard of this until very recently (when I encountered "chicken little" with regard to debates on climate change and conspiracy theories). Well, I've aquainted myself with "chicken little" and here it is:
"The phrase has become used to indicate a hysterical or mistaken belief that disaster is imminent. This usage is generally snide or derogatory"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sky_is_Falling
1. A makes claim X (and X involves apocalyptically dire consequences)
2. B makes the claim that because X predicts apocalyptically dire consequences, it is �chicken little� � the sky is falling (claim Y)
3. B claims that because of Y one need not worry about X.
INVALID ARGUMENT!
In the original story of Chicken Little, the latter's theory that the sky was falling was a poor theory because he had poor evidence (an acorn falling on his head). CL made a hasty conclusion concerning an acorn falling and in order to refute CL's theory, one would need to demonstrate that the acorn falling was not sufficient evidence for the sky falling.
A more serious example would be the claim that - given climate change affects the Arctic the most and sea level rises of at least 18cm by the end of the century are likely if current trends continue (or intensify) - truly dismal consequences await us, since one hundred million people live within 1 meter of mean sea level, and much of the world's population is concentrated in vulnerable coastal cities. In the US, Lousiana and Florida are particularly vulnerable. The fact that the consequences are extremely dire, disastrous has absolutely no relevance to the truth or falsity, merit or lack of merit, of the claim. You need to look at whether the evidence is sufficient for the conclusion/predictions. |
Regardless of the claim...people making poor choices about where to build such as flood plains...one can not fully ascribe what happens to them as a result of global warming. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SPINOZA
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 7:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The_Conservative wrote: |
| Regardless of the claim..people making poor choices about where to build such as flood plains...one can not fully ascribe what happens to them as a result of global warming. |
It's (a) a statement of the obvious (no-one will dispute major centers of population being flooded due to being where they are; but how informative is that? Not very, and certainly doesn't negate MMGW and its dire consequences), (b) is rather unhelpful (those settlements have been around for thousands of years, long before human co2 emissions and so aren�t really poor choices at all � the poor choice is to continue with fossil fuels when alternatives have existed for 50 years), (c) a red herring (you�ve introduced another topic rather than try to respond to mine about the fallacy).
People build huge cities and ports next to the sea for excellent reasons and if at the end of the 21stC those cities are partly destroyed by floods thanks to the melting of the arctic then those claims will prove to have been correct. That's the point: scientific hypotheses are falsified or verified by evidence - not by the consequences an observer deems apocalyptically dire and hysterical.
Flood plains is a fat red herring as well. According to the IPCC, endorsed by thousands of scientists, the Arctic could have its first ice-free summer in 2040. Abandoning the topic of the arctic and introducing the topic of flood plains is a diversion of attention and not a counterclaim. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 7:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I'm not sure you have entirely grasped the essence of the story of Chicken Little. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
4 months left
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 8:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| It also depends if there is Global Warming or it is a Natural Cycle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SPINOZA
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 4:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| I'm not sure you have entirely grasped the essence of the story of Chicken Little. |
Is the essence of the story of chicken little under discussion? No. What's under discussion is the CL fallacy.
Chicken Little has turned into a clich� (used to dismiss hypotheses one finds uncomfortable) and it is invalid scientifically unless, that is, an observer provides evidence and reasoning for a claim being grossly excessive.
| 4 months left wrote: |
| It also depends if there is Global Warming or it is a Natural Cycle. |
Highly unlikely. Such natural changes have occurred over the span of several centuries. Today's unprecedented changes have taken place over the past hundred years if not much less.
Anyway, your point concerns evidence and not a point about hysteria, paranoia or dire consequences you find excessive, so your point supports my point that the CL fallacy is exactly what I allege - a fallacy. If for example we continue (or intensify) co2 emissions and none of the dire consequences occur, we can safely say, at the relevant time, that the evidence didn�t support the consequences � not that the theory failed because the consequences were hysterical. Chicken littlers need to show how evidence does not, or will not, or is unlikely to, support the consequences � not simply state their belief that consequences are so excessively, apocalyptically dire one may dismiss it out of hand. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 5:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| SPINOZA wrote: |
| If for example we continue (or intensify) co2 emissions and none of the dire consequences occur, we can safely say, at the relevant time, that the evidence didn�t support the consequences � not that the theory failed because the consequences were hysterical. |
Or, it could be that all the yelling results in actions taken and chaos avoided.
| Quote: |
| Chicken littlers need to show how evidence does not, or will not, or is unlikely to, support the consequences � not simply state their belief that consequences are so excessively, apocalyptically dire one may dismiss it out of hand. |
Indeed. Those that were twittering through the Peak Oil thread eventually admitted it's a real problem, but seem blissfully unaware, still, just how big a problem it is.
As for GW, it is not only natural. The evidence is overwhelming. The naysayers are actually the Chicken Littles in reverse. (Little Chickens?) They have no evidence for their claims, but keep making them. It is amazing how not one of the arguments for GW being all natural stands up to even basic scrutiny, yet the blindfolds remain stubbornly in place.
So, Little Chickens, support your calls of "Chicken Little". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
