Logical thinking, a lost art?

Well, if you’ve read the last couple of posts you are aware that I’ve cast some aspersions on many folks who comment on blog posts and articles.  It seems to me a huge majority of them are seriously un-, under-, or mis-informed about the topics and issues they nonetheless take the liberty to comment on.  Of course, everyone has an opinion about Microsoft (MS), and as an MS employee for the last 12+ years, I would say that one could consider it “logical” to conclude that I would know more about MS than the vast majority of the folks who offer their opinions on our products and business practices in online venues.  In fact, I’m betting that my tenure at MS, and the presumed credibility it entails, is perhaps a primary reason why you bother to read this blog.  Of course, I’m constantly piqued, or some would say “tweaked”, by the wildly inaccurate stuff I see posted, especially in comments.  You likely remember in my last post (same song, second verse…), that I called out one particular comment (on XP being more secure than Vista) that was an amazing example of the type of un- or misinformed commentary that seems all too prevalent today – especially around the topic of Microsoft.  And you might also recall, I called out his poor logic but chose not to address it in that post.  As another interesting coincidence, I ran across this post from Robert Strohmeyer, of PC World, around the sad state of “logic” as it is used (or rather, more commonly, abused) in the internet “echo chamber”.  As we close out 2009 and look forward to the new decade of 201x’s, I thought I would take this opportunity to do a post on a “generic” topic – I hope you find this interesting, if not informative.  I also hope that you’ve not found these logic fallacies to be characteristic of my posts and opinions.  I try to be objective (as I can be <grin>) and factual, and when I call out other opinions and posts that I disagree with I typically try to put out a well-supported and credible rationale as a counterpoint, not just flame the writer (for being so ignorant <smile>…just joking) as so many others do. 

So here’s the link to the post:  The Web's Most Illogical Arguments.  The title is self-explanatory, although he only points out 10 of the many logical fallacies that occur.  To that end, I’ve included some links below for you to get more comprehensive info around logic fallacies, if you choose.  I like his opening:

“The Internet is teeming with crazies, jerks, and blowhards; and in online forums, debaters are full of passionate intensity. Peruse the comments area on any popular blog, and you'll find more irrational rhetoric than you can shake an encyclopedia at.  What separates rational thought from bogus blather is logic. Unfortunately, sound logical thinking is a learned skill that's rarer than we might hope, and it's not the same as so-called common sense.”

[Assuming you just read the post'] Did you see any (or a lot of) logic fallacies that you recognize from recent readings?  I’d be really surprised if you didn’t.

In his paragraph on “What’s a Fallacy”, as he explains what fallacy is, he makes the following observation that I think is reasonably astute: “Using or falling for fallacious reasoning is by no means a sign of stupidity.[emphasis mine] Lots of smart people inadvertently use or get taken in by irrational arguments from time to time--through lack of attention, lack of understanding about how logic works, or the simple fact that human psychology is riddled with weird idiosyncrasies that make us susceptible to misunderstanding.”  Again, using TJ (from yesterday’s post) as an example, his erroneous conclusion isn’t based so much on the fact that he doesn’t know anything (stupidity) so much as he doesn’t know enough about the subject he’s commenting on which leads him into logic errors – which is what I find to be the most common problem out there.  Folks know a lot about one thing, and think they know a lot about other stuff as well, but I find, at least in the majority of external commentary on Microsoft, that this presumed knowledge is seldom founded on actual facts but rather perceptions (usually erroneous), or purely anecdotal evidence, or outdated information (based on unfortunate generalizations of past events).  And sadly, many, if not most, are content to spew their opinions based on this lack of, or faulty, information.  Case in point – TJ makes bases his conclusion that XP is more secure than Vista on the following premise: “outside security analyst have been scouring Windows XP for almost a decade, while Windows 7 has a lot of new code [which is not being scoured]”.  Well, one of the rules of logic is that if you start with a false premise you will end up with a false conclusion.  TJ makes two errors right out of the box: one is the (false) assumption that security analysts scouring a codebase for some extended length of time is somehow an objective measure of fundamental security of that codebase; and two, the also false assumption that the Vista codebase (although newer) was not scrutinized to the any great extent.  On this second point, he is woefully uninformed about the SDL as well as apparently any or all of the data out there that shows how much more secure Vista is than XP – I sure hope he read CW’s response.  On a related note, I saw another comment on another blog that basically tried to make the case the Firefox was more secure and stable the IE because that person hadn’t had a Firefox error in months (a hasty generalization or proof by example fallacy at best or possibly a confirmation bias – you make the call, or identify a fallacy that’s even more relevant).  Again, with that kind of anecdotal evidence and logic, I could have made the case that since I hadn’t a problem with IE in a year, that would logically make IE 2-3x more robust and secure than FF.  Of course we would both be wrong.  I just wish more folks would be more responsible in their commentary.

But the real point of this is “be careful out there”.  I would suggest not just a “grain of salt” but rather a healthy dose of skepticism when reading online content and comments.  Know your logic fallacies and remember, even what appears to be decent logic is completely negated when the premise, or basis, is false. 

And, btw, if I’ve piqued your interest with this post, here’s some more links to info on logic fallacies.

Logical Fallacies, List of fallacies (wikipedia), Critical Thinking mini-lesson 5 (Skeptic.com), Logical Fallacies (LEO: Literary Education Online), these are the ones I would recommend.  But it you’re in for a logic challenge, try this one (Bad Arguments) where you can test your logic skills (don’t want to brag, but I got all of the practice ones correct <grin>), hopefully you will too.   Cheers.  Hope you have a great 2010.