Title: Rationality 101 - Part 1
Tags: rationality

Q: [...]: [...]
A: The fallacy of equivocation; Relying on multiple different meanings of an ambiguous term in an argument, in a way that undermines the soundness of the argument.
Notes: For example: ❝This policy will reduce average mortgage rates. So it's going to help average Americans considerably.❞
Source: Faulty Reasoning Quiz
Clearer Thinking
https://programs.clearerthinking.org/faulty_reasoning_quiz.html

Question: What fallacy is someone who says the following committing?
"This policy will reduce average mortgage rates. So it's going to help average Americans considerably."
Answer: Fallacy of equivocation
Source: Faulty Reasoning Quiz
Clearer Thinking
https://programs.clearerthinking.org/faulty_reasoning_quiz.html

Question: What is ambiguous about the following statement?
"This policy will reduce average mortgage rates. So it's going to help average Americans considerably."
Answer: The word "average". In the first case it refers to the mathematical mean or median, whereas in the second it means ordinary. In fact, a reduction of mean mortage rates might have no impact on ordinary Americans.
Notes: It's an example of the fallacy of equivocation.
Source: Faulty Reasoning Quiz
Clearer Thinking
https://programs.clearerthinking.org/faulty_reasoning_quiz.html

Q: [...]: [...]
A: Use-mention error; A common type of equivocation that mixes up "mentioning a word" (i.e. the word itself) and "using a word" (i.e. the concept in the real world the word is referring to).
Notes: If we take the phrase "love is just a word" to be a case of mentioning the word 'love', then it is uninteresting. It just says that the word 'love' is a word. This is true, but uninteresting.
But if we take the phrase to be using the word 'love', then it is false. The stuff in the world that the word 'love' refers to isn't a word at all! It's a feeling.
Source: Faulty Reasoning Quiz
Clearer Thinking
https://programs.clearerthinking.org/faulty_reasoning_quiz.html

Q: [...]: [...]
A: Deepity; A statement that is apparently profound but actually asserts a triviality on one level and something meaningless on another.
Notes: A term employed by Daniel Dennett in his 2009 speech to the American Atheists conference, coined by the teenage daughter of one of his friends.
Examples:
- Love is just a word
- The Theory of Evolution is only a theory
Source: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Deepity

Q: [...]: [...]
A: The slippery slope fallacy; Argument that an action will have a chain of consequences, eventually leading to some significant (and usually bad) consequence, when there is, however, no good reason to think that these steps will occur.
Notes: For example if you ask your boss for a day off due to mental health they might reply: "If you take a personal day off for your mental health, soon you'll be taking off every time you're stressed. Eventually, you won't be working at all."
Another example from 1908:
Source: Faulty Reasoning Quiz
Clearer Thinking
https://programs.clearerthinking.org/faulty_reasoning_quiz.html

Q: [...]: [...]
A: Appeal to ignorance; A lack of evidence for one conclusion is given as a reason to accept a different conclusion.
Notes: Example: ❝You don't have evidence that aliens don't exist, so they must exist after all.❞
Source: Faulty Reasoning Quiz
Clearer Thinking
https://programs.clearerthinking.org/faulty_reasoning_quiz.html

Q: [...]: [...]
A: Appeal to popularity; Argument that claims that since a lot of people believe something, it must be true.
Notes: Example: ❝I read in an article that 29% of Americans believe in astrology, so there must be something to it: that many people can't be wrong!❞
Source: Faulty Reasoning Quiz
Clearer Thinking
https://programs.clearerthinking.org/faulty_reasoning_quiz.html

Question: How do you differentiate between a fallacious appeal to popularity and a valid expert consensus?
Answer: If you can answer both of the following questions with "yes", it's an appeal to popularity.
- Is the claim being made that one should believe something solely because lots of other people do
- Consider who the view is popular with. Are they unlikely to have any particular expertise in the matter?
Notes: Example: ❝The vast majority of geologists believe that the earth is round and not flat, and so you should think the same thing.❞
Source: Faulty Reasoning Quiz
Clearer Thinking
https://programs.clearerthinking.org/faulty_reasoning_quiz.html

Q: [...]: [...]
A: Begging the question; Making an argument that is only compelling if you already believe the conclusion.
Notes: Example: ❝The Bible is the word of God. I know this because it says so in the Bible.❞
Source: Faulty Reasoning Quiz
Clearer Thinking
https://programs.clearerthinking.org/faulty_reasoning_quiz.html

Question: What fallacy, if any, is being committed here?
❝You can tell she doesn't know what the winning lottery numbers will be because nobody knows what the winning lottery numbers will be.❞
Answer: Begging the question.
The only people who will accept the evidence (nobody knows) are people who have already accepted the conclusion (she doesn't know).
Source: Faulty Reasoning Quiz
Clearer Thinking
https://programs.clearerthinking.org/faulty_reasoning_quiz.html

Question: What is rationality?
Answer: Judgement and decision making under uncertainty.
The art of thinking in ways that results in true beliefs and good decisions.
(Any suitable explanation in your own words)
Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/rationality

Question: What is rationality divided into?
Answer: Epistemic rationality and instrumental rationality.

Question: What is the goal of epistemic rationality?
Answer: Acquiring true beliefs. Mapping mental models on to reality as accurately as possible.

Question: What is the goal of instrumental rationality?
Answer: Helping you achieve your personal goals, which is whatever you most want, given your constraints.

Question: What is a true belief?
Answer: One that maps well onto reality and has high explanatory and predictive power.

Question: What is a good decision?
Answer: One that gets you closer to your personal goals.

Q: [...]: [...].
A: Conjunction fallacy; Two or more specific statements joined with AND are deemed more likely than any of those statements on their own
Notes: Formally: The conjunction fallacy is an inference that a conjoint set of two or more specific conclusions is likelier than any single member of that same set.
It is also knows as the "Linda problem".
For example "Linda is a bank teller and is active in the feminist movement." is deemed more likely than "Linda is a bank teller.". This violates the laws of probability.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjunction_fallacy

Question: What is "noticing confusion"?
Answer: A rationality technique to train yourself to detect subtle signs that there is a mismatch between your mental models and your perceptions. You can then follow up on these signs to resolve the confusion.
Notes: The most common reaction is for this mismatch not to rise to the level of conscious attention or be dismissed as it's probably nothing. This is frequently a mistake.

Q: [...]: [...].
A: Swimmer's Body Illusion; Cognitive bias that leads to confusing cause and effect. Certain properties are assumed to be the result of an activity when in fact they are a pre-requisite
Notes: For example: You don't get a swimmer's body by swimming a lot but rather you can only become an excellent swimmer if your body is built a certain way.
Source: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swimmer’s_Body_Illusion

Q: [...]: [...].
A: Confirmation bias; Tendency people have to embrace information that supports their beliefs and reject information that contradicts them
Source: Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds

Q: Another term for [...] is [...].
A: confirmation bias; myside bias
Source: Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds

Question: An experiment by Mercier and colleagues asked participants to answer a series of simple reasoning problems, then explain their answers and correct them if they wished (less than 15% did). Then the students were presented with the answers of other students and asked to critique them. What was the outcome and what did this experiment demonstrate?
Answer: In fact the researches played a trick on the students and they were given their own answers. Half the students noticed this, out of the other half 60% rejected the answer they had initially been happy with.
We are a lot more critical of other people's responses than our own.
Source: Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds

Q: [...]: [...].
A: Illusion of explanatory depth; People believe that they know way more than they actually do (about how things work)
Source: Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds

Question: How does the "illusion of explanatory depth" relate to politics?
Answer: People frequently have strong opinions on topics and policies they don't really understand. If we spent more time trying to work through the implications of proposals instead of pontificating we would be better off.
Source: Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds