tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/reasoning-47820/articlesReasoning – The Conversation2024-02-16T13:18:22Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2082772024-02-16T13:18:22Z2024-02-16T13:18:22ZAs a rabbi, philosopher and physician, Maimonides wrestled with religion and reason – the book he wrote to reconcile them, ‘Guide to the Perplexed,’ has sparked debate ever since<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/574467/original/file-20240208-26-bikf0x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=3%2C9%2C2041%2C2026&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A bas-relief of Maimonides, sculpted by Brenda Putnam, hangs in the U.S. House of Representatives among statues of historical lawmakers.
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Maimonides_bas-relief_in_the_U.S._House_of_Representatives_chamber_cropped.jpg">Architect of the Capitol/Wikimedia</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>I teach a <a href="https://www.binghamton.edu/judaic-studies/profile.html?id=friedman">philosophy of religion</a> seminar titled “Faith and Reason.” Most students who register arrive with a mistaken assumption: that the course explores the differences between the two.</p>
<p>“Faith” is often defined as belief in a supernatural God that transcends reason – and belief that science can only go so far to explain the fundamental mysteries of life. Reason, meanwhile, means inquiry that draws on <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/#Rati">logic and deductive reasoning</a>. </p>
<p>It seems like a stark choice, an either-or – until we read Maimonides. For Maimonides, a 12th century theologian, philosopher, rabbi and physician, there is no true faith without reason.</p>
<p>Maimonides’ full name was Rabbi Moses Ben Maimon, and he is often referred to by the abbreviation “Rambam.” His writings spurred <a href="https://davidwacks.uoregon.edu/2019/07/10/maimo/">centuries of conflict</a> and were even <a href="https://www.jtsa.edu/torah/persecuting-ideas/">banned in some Jewish communities</a>. Yet he also penned one of the most famous guides to Jewish law and still stands as one of the most influential rabbis to have ever lived.</p>
<p>It is surprising for many students to learn that Maimonides, who lived in present-day Spain, Morocco and Egypt, embraced reason as the only way to make sense of faith. In this rabbi’s view, the idea of a battle between faith and reason sets boundaries where none need exist. </p>
<p>Faith must be grounded in reason, lest it become superstition. This synthesis is at the heart of Maimonides’ most famous philosophical work, “<a href="https://www.sefaria.org/Guide_for_the_Perplexed?tab=contents">The Guide for the Perplexed</a>.”</p>
<h2>Jerusalem and Athens</h2>
<p>Treating faith and reason <a href="https://public.wsu.edu/%7Ecampbelld/amlit/hellenism.htm">as if they are at odds</a> is nothing new. Some philosophers have described them as two different cities, as when University of Chicago professor <a href="https://leostrausscenter.uchicago.edu/biography/">Leo Strauss</a> <a href="https://www.commentary.org/articles/leo-strauss/jerusalem-and-athens-some-introductory-reflections/">wrote of “Jerusalem and Athens</a>.” </p>
<p>Both cities love wisdom, Strauss wrote, but attribute it to different things. In “Jerusalem,” where life is grounded by faith in God, “the beginning of wisdom is fear of the Lord,” Strauss wrote in 1967, quoting the biblical books of <a href="https://www.sefaria.org/Proverbs.9.9?lang=bi">Proverbs</a> <a href="https://www.sefaria.org/Job.28.28?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en">and Job</a>. In “Athens,” on the other hand, symbolized by the ancient Greek philosophers, “the beginning of wisdom is wonder” – the wonder of inquiry and reason.</p>
<p>Almost 800 years before, however, Maimonides was arguing that true religion, true wisdom, requires both. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/574497/original/file-20240208-24-fjzign.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A bronze-colored statue of a man in robes and golden shoes sitting with an open book in his lap, positioned in a sunny courtyard with plants growing behind it." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/574497/original/file-20240208-24-fjzign.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/574497/original/file-20240208-24-fjzign.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=904&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/574497/original/file-20240208-24-fjzign.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=904&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/574497/original/file-20240208-24-fjzign.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=904&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/574497/original/file-20240208-24-fjzign.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1135&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/574497/original/file-20240208-24-fjzign.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1135&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/574497/original/file-20240208-24-fjzign.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1135&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A statue of Maimonides in Cordoba, Spain.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/statue-of-jewish-philosopher-maimonides-cordoba-span-news-photo/184251484?adppopup=true">Education Images/Universal Images Group via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Rambam was deeply steeped in Jewish learning. As a doctor, astronomer and philosopher, however, he was just as knowledgeable about the science of his day. He ostensibly wrote “The Guide to the Perplexed” to help his student Joseph Ibn Aknin navigate between the truths of philosophy, natural science and revelation.</p>
<p>Maimonides’ understanding of God and the universe <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/maimonides/">mostly agreed with Aristotle’s </a>. In <a href="https://www.sefaria.org/Guide_for_the_Perplexed%2C_Part_2.1?ven=Guide_for_the_Perplexed,_English_Translation,_Friedlander_(1903)&lang=en">Part II of his “Guide</a>,” Maimonides credits Aristotle with helping to prove three key principles about God: God is incorporeal, without a physical body; God is one; and God transcends the material world. Yet God created the world and set it in motion, Maimonides asserts, and everything in it depends on God for its existence.</p>
<h2>Science and scripture</h2>
<p>Throughout these chapters, the rabbi does not turn to scripture to prove or disprove philosophical propositions, although <a href="https://www.sefaria.org/Guide_for_the_Perplexed%2C_Part_2.5.3?ven=Guide_for_the_Perplexed,_English_Translation,_Friedlander_(1903)&lang=en&with=Navigation&lang2=en">he notes</a> that Aristotle’s opinion may be “in accordance with the words of our prophets and our theologians or Sages.”</p>
<p>This does not mean that Maimonides does not care about sacred texts – far from it. Rather, he argues that the truths of science and philosophy must inform how people interpret the Bible.</p>
<p>Many people of faith have read the Book of Genesis’ <a href="https://www.sefaria.org/Genesis.1.27?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en">story of creation</a> literally. For them, God’s creation of humanity “in our image and likeness” means both that God must have a body and that humanity shares much in common with God.</p>
<p>For Maimonides, however, language like these passages in Genesis was allegorical. If reason teaches that <a href="https://www.sefaria.org/Guide_for_the_Perplexed%2C_Part_1.1.2?lang=bi">God is incorporeal</a>, this means that God has no body; God does not physically see, nor do people see God. God does not speak, sit on a throne, stretch out an arm, rest or become angry. Reading these passages literally misunderstands the nature of God.</p>
<p>It is hard to overstate the significance of this claim. In Maimonides’ view, saying that God has a body is not just incorrect but blasphemous and idolatrous. He sees God as unique and transcendent, irreducible to anything human or material. And if God does not literally speak, then the Bible cannot be the literal word of God.</p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/574498/original/file-20240208-22-irfpck.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A black and white image of an old, worn parchment covered in letters in black ink." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/574498/original/file-20240208-22-irfpck.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/574498/original/file-20240208-22-irfpck.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=622&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/574498/original/file-20240208-22-irfpck.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=622&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/574498/original/file-20240208-22-irfpck.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=622&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/574498/original/file-20240208-22-irfpck.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=782&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/574498/original/file-20240208-22-irfpck.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=782&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/574498/original/file-20240208-22-irfpck.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=782&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A letter Maimonides wrote around 1172, discovered in the late 1800s.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/moses-maimonides-handwritten-letter-c-1172-signature-news-photo/590537778?adppopup=true">Culture Club/Hulton Archive via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Maimonides insists that the Bible be appreciated as an esoteric text. Any part of the revealed text that does not fit with a true understanding of God and the universe must be read allegorically.</p>
<p>Reason does not eliminate his faith in God, or the power of scripture. Instead, reason protects people from believing something incorrect about God’s nature. Maimonides insists that we have faith in reason and that reason ground our faith.</p>
<h2>The palace of God</h2>
<p>Maimonides’ philosophical writing is filled with debate and disagreement between him, fellow rabbis, Jewish philosophers and <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/arabic-islamic-natural/">the Kalam</a>, a medieval tradition of Islamic theology. Reason was the tool needed to make sense of sacred texts, and philosophical inquiry was the process needed to get it right. The goal was truth, not mere obedience. </p>
<p>Toward the end of his “Guide for the Perplexed,” Maimonides <a href="https://www.sefaria.org/Guide_for_the_Perplexed%2C_Part_3.51.1?lang=en&with=Navigation&lang2=en">lays out what he believes are different levels of enlightenment</a>. The allegory centers on a king’s palace: Only a select few, those who pursue truest wisdom grounded in philosophy and science, will reach the room where the king – God – resides. People guided by faith alone, who accept scripture literally and unquestioningly, and believe that faith transcends reason, on the other hand, “have their backs turned toward the king’s palace,” moving further and further away from God.</p>
<p>Maimonides is considered one of <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/maimonides/">the greatest rabbinic authorities of all time</a>. And his resolution to the debate between faith and reason could not have been clearer: There should be no true conflict. Both reason and revelation are our guides.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/208277/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Randy L. Friedman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Faith and reason are often treated as opposites. But some philosophers believe they can only strengthen each other, including the Jewish sage Maimonides, who wrote the famous ‘Guide to the Perplexed.’Randy L. Friedman, Associate Professor of Judaic Studies, Binghamton University, State University of New YorkLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1330692020-03-31T19:16:20Z2020-03-31T19:16:20ZHow not to fall for coronavirus BS: avoid the 7 deadly sins of thought<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/324175/original/file-20200331-65547-1c7lbbh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>With the COVID-19 pandemic causing a great deal of anxiety, we might come to think people are irrational, selfish or downright crazy. We see people showing up to public venues en masse or clearing supermarket shelves of toilet paper. </p>
<p>Experts are often ignored. We hear inconsistent information and arguments filled with fallacious reasoning being accepted by a seemingly large number people. </p>
<p>The answer for the kind of panicked flurry in reasoning may lie in a field of critical thinking called vice epistemology. This theory argues our thinking habits and intellectual character traits cause poor reasoning. </p>
<p>These <a href="https://pure.mpg.de/rest/items/item_2316308/component/file_2316307/content">thinking habits are developed over a lifetime</a>.
When these habits are poorly developed, we can end up with <a href="https://academic.oup.com/monist/article-pdf/99/2/159/8031931/onv034.pdf">intellectual vices</a>. The more we think viciously (as a vice), the harder it is for us to effectively inquire and seek truth. </p>
<p>Vice epistemology <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00048402.2017.1394334?casa_token=GJWjdiEJp0AAAAAA:ezVjujXTpkm_2vLYwxKjLjTfZYTCeCnBZhDchvY5GPFEKJ2BBAjef0fxaD0v-_47a_8oT_WVnNs">points to many</a> <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/meta.12301?casa_token=bzYrI9QTR0sAAAAA:rLseZETKYGtx4iQeMW0AcjvjTFLrMTK6j3lUjlhm88iwSR1Wzn-cb2dJGPUBFiqxHIZvOmQh_lVU">thinking vices</a> <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/40380439.pdf?casa_token=QdlTUNN4u8cAAAAA:pMNuEKTKQnTqMnrc1SONdAwJKwnHCIqv-C7Ibv7QtCe3J-_RvVskzMCeUDbb71cdmJQc6OoazVIlTDWnzMlXQ-6ix03sgHOlirpLROoH8RbKeIjX3A">and sins</a> that cause problems for inquiry. I have chosen seven that <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Quassim_Cassam/publication/301788560_Stealthy_Vices/links/5728617608aef9c00b8bd90b.pdf">show up regularly</a> in the literature:</p>
<h2>1. Sin of gullibility</h2>
<blockquote>
<p>I heard coronavirus particles can stay in the air for up to five days!</p>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2004973">Researchers found</a> SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes the disease COVID-19, remains infectious in airborne droplets for at least three hours.</p>
<p>But all sorts of claims are being touted by people and we’re all guilty of having believed someone who isn’t an expert or simply doesn’t know what they’re talking about. Gullibility as a thinking sin means that we lack the ability to determine the credibility of information. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-how-long-does-it-take-to-get-sick-how-infectious-is-it-will-you-always-have-a-fever-covid-19-basics-explained-132963">Coronavirus: how long does it take to get sick? How infectious is it? Will you always have a fever? COVID-19 basics explained</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Relevant expertise and experience are essential qualities when we’re listening to someone’s own argument. But with something like COVID-19, it’s also important we look at the type of expertise someone has. A GP might be able to tell us how we get the infection – but they wouldn’t count as an expert in infectious disease epidemiology (the way an infectious disease spreads across a population).</p>
<h2>2. Sin of cynicism</h2>
<blockquote>
<p>I’d better stock up on toilet paper before everyone else buys it.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In many ways, cynicism is the opposite of gullibility. It is being overly suspicious of others in their arguments and actions. </p>
<p>If you’ve suddenly become suspicious of your neighbours and what they might do when supermarket stocks are limited, that’s a cynical way to think.</p>
<p>If we think the worst interpretation of arguments and events is correct, we can’t inquire and problem-solve effectively.</p>
<h2>3. Sin of pride</h2>
<blockquote>
<p>I know what’s best for my family!</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Pride is an intellectual sin (though it’s more popular as a spiritual one). In this particular case, it is the habit of not admitting to ourselves or to others that we don’t know the answer. Or perhaps that we don’t understand the issue. </p>
<p>We obstruct a genuine search for truth if we are dogmatic in our self-belief. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/324176/original/file-20200331-65522-1mo7wzt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/324176/original/file-20200331-65522-1mo7wzt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/324176/original/file-20200331-65522-1mo7wzt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=431&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/324176/original/file-20200331-65522-1mo7wzt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=431&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/324176/original/file-20200331-65522-1mo7wzt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=431&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/324176/original/file-20200331-65522-1mo7wzt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=542&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/324176/original/file-20200331-65522-1mo7wzt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=542&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/324176/original/file-20200331-65522-1mo7wzt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=542&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Do you think you know better than everyone else?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/pedantic-man-having-coffee-291649280">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It’s effective reasoning to take what the evidence and experts say and then apply it specifically to our individual needs. But we have gone astray in our thinking if we contradict those who know more than us and are unwilling to admit our own limitations.</p>
<h2>4. Sin of closed-mindedness</h2>
<blockquote>
<p>I won’t accept that.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Closed-mindedness means we’re not willing to see things from different perspectives or accept new information. It’s a serious intellectual vice as it directly interferes with our ability to adjust our beliefs according to new information. </p>
<p>Worse still, being close-minded to new ideas and information means it’s even more challenging to learn and grow – we’d be closed minded to the idea that we’re closed minded.</p>
<h2>5. Sin of prejudice</h2>
<blockquote>
<p>I’ve stopped buying Chinese food - just in case.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Prejudiced thinking is an intellectual vice we often start developing early in life. Children can be incredibly prejudiced in small ways – such as being unwilling to try new foods because they already somehow know they’re gross. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-fears-can-trigger-anti-chinese-prejudice-heres-how-schools-can-help-130945">Coronavirus fears can trigger anti-Chinese prejudice. Here's how schools can help</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>As a character flaw, it means we often substitute preconceived notions for actual thinking. </p>
<h2>6. Sin of negligence</h2>
<blockquote>
<p>SARS was more deadly than COVID-19 and that wasn’t that big a deal</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Creating a poor analogy like this one is not a substitute for thoughtful research and considered analysis. </p>
<p>Still, it is difficult to explore every single topic with thorough evaluation. There’s so much information out there at the moment it can be a real chore to investigate every claim we hear. </p>
<p>But if we’re not willing to check the facts, we’re being negligent in our thinking. </p>
<h2>7. Sin of wishful thinking</h2>
<blockquote>
<p>This will all be over in a week or two and it’ll be business as usual.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Our capacity to believe in ourselves, our hard work, our friends and culture can often blind us to hard truths. </p>
<p>It’s perfectly fine to aim for a certain outcome but we need to recognise it doesn’t matter how much we hope for it – our desire doesn’t affect the likelihood of it happening. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/thinking-about-thinking-helps-kids-learn-how-can-we-teach-critical-thinking-129795">Thinking about thinking helps kids learn. How can we teach critical thinking?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>A pandemic like COVID-19 shows our way of life is fragile and can change at any moment. Wishful thinking ignores the stark realities and can set us up for disappointment.</p>
<h2>So, what can we do about it?</h2>
<p>There are some questions we can ask ourselves to help improve our intellectual character traits:</p>
<p><strong>What would change my mind?</strong></p>
<p>It’s a red flag for sin of pride if nothing will change your mind.</p>
<p><strong>What is the strongest argument the other side has?</strong></p>
<p>We often hold each piece of the truth in our own perspective. It’s worth keeping in mind that unless there’s wanton cruelty involved, chances are differing arguments will have some good points. </p>
<p><strong>What groups would gain or lose the most if we keep thinking this way?</strong></p>
<p>Sometimes we fail to consider the practical outcomes of our thoughts for people who aren’t like us. We’ve seen in the last few weeks that the people who have a lot to lose (such as casual workers) matter when it comes to the way we respond to the pandemic. </p>
<p>It’s worth taking a moment to consider their perspectives.</p>
<p><strong>How much do you actually know about an issue? Who is an expert?</strong></p>
<p>The experts always have something to say. If they agree on it, it’s a good indication we should believe them. If there isn’t general consensus, we should be dubious of one-sided claims to truth. </p>
<p>And remember the person’s actual expertise – it’s too easy to mistake a political leader or famous person with an expert.</p>
<p>In challenging days like these, we may be able to help ensure a better outcome for everyone if we start by asking ourselves a few simple questions.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/133069/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Luke Zaphir does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Gullibility, cynicism, pride, closed mindedness, negligence and wishful thinking. If you can use any of these to describe your reasoning, it’s likely you’re committing a sin of thought.Luke Zaphir, Researcher for the University of Queensland Critical Thinking Project, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/919282018-02-15T13:58:54Z2018-02-15T13:58:54ZSteven Pinker lauds reason, but people need freedom – this might not end well<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/206547/original/file-20180215-131003-1rvfph3.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Pinker is touring his new book 'Enlightenment Now'.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3ASteven_Pinker_G%C3%B6ttingen_10102010b.JPG">G ambrus/Wikimedia Commons</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The dictates of reason tell us what we ought to do to survive and flourish. But we neither have to like them nor obey them. As <a href="http://www.online-literature.com/wilde/1305/">Oscar Wilde put it</a>, we are rational animals that always lose their temper when called upon to act in accordance with the dictates of reason. We rebel.</p>
<p>We do so because we can hold something dearer to us than reason. As the former Harvard psychologist, now spiritual teacher, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKV_DuUcpws&feature=youtu.be&t=43m19s">Ram Dass noted</a>, we may rather be free than right. Freedom continually threatens a revolt against dictatorial reason. The waves of Romanticism constantly crash against the walls of the Enlightenment. They threaten to cause calamity. In the era of Trump and Brexit, they may already have.</p>
<p>An excellent <a href="https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/317051/enlightenment-now-by-steven-pinker/9780525427575/">new book</a> published this week by another Harvard psychologist, Steven Pinker, argues the solutions to the formidable problems we face lie in reason. This is consistent with the Enlightenment principle that reason must be used to understand our world and overcome human folly. After dismissing faith, authority, and gut feelings as “generators of delusions”, Pinker argues that the use of reason when making decisions is “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/feb/11/reason-is-non-negotioable-steven-pinker-enlightenment-now-extract">non-negotiable</a>”.</p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/206585/original/file-20180215-131021-1zjlt4.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/206585/original/file-20180215-131021-1zjlt4.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=918&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/206585/original/file-20180215-131021-1zjlt4.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=918&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/206585/original/file-20180215-131021-1zjlt4.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=918&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/206585/original/file-20180215-131021-1zjlt4.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1154&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/206585/original/file-20180215-131021-1zjlt4.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1154&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/206585/original/file-20180215-131021-1zjlt4.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1154&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Pinker’s latest.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/317051/enlightenment-now-by-steven-pinker/9780525427575/">Penguin Random House</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Unfortunately, trying to tell people they must do something can backfire. In a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOYLCy5PVgM">classic 1963 study by Stanley Milgram</a>, participants were instructed by a scientist to give increasingly severe electric shocks to a fellow human being in another room. You can get a feel for the study, based on a modern version, <a href="https://youtu.be/Xxq4QtK3j0Y?t=23s">here</a>. </p>
<p>A staggering 65% of participants continued to administer shocks all the way up to the maximum possible 450 volts. However, when the study was partially reproduced in <a href="https://www.scu.edu/media/college-of-arts-and-sciences/psychology/documents/Burger-et-al-SPPS-2011-5.pdf">2009</a> something interesting happened. When participants wavering about obeying their instructions were told, “You have no other choice, you must go on”, all chose to disobey. </p>
<p>One explanation for this starts with <a href="https://selfdeterminationtheory.org/SDT/documents/2000_RyanDeci_SDT.pdf">self-determination theory</a>. This proposes that we have a basic psychological need for autonomy; a need to feel in control of our fate; a need to have “a feeling of choice”. </p>
<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactance_(psychology)">Psychological reactance</a> is a measure of how strongly you are motivated by this need for autonomy. Its levels <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16719727">can vary</a> from person to person and across the life span – being greatest in the “terrible twos”, adolescence and the senior years. It reaches its zenith in the famous statement of Patrick Henry: “Give me liberty, or give me death”.</p>
<p>If this feeling is threatened, you may take steps to regain it, such as by doing what has been prohibited, or <a href="http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1970-05062-001">believing less strongly what you are told must be the case</a>. Indeed, higher levels of reactance are <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16719727">associated with greater rates of smoking and drinking in adolescents</a>. </p>
<p>It is not just people who can take away our feeling of choice by constraining us. The dictates of reason can be experienced as threatening it too. The Enlightenment has encouraged us to view reason and freedom as brothers in arms. However, under certain conditions, they may have their hands round each other’s throats.</p>
<h2>Two plus two is four?</h2>
<p>In totalitarian states, reason can be a tool of liberation. For example, in George Orwell’s <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four">Nineteen Eighty-Four</a>, Winston Smith is tortured by an agent of the state to make him say, believe and even perceive that two plus two equals five. As <a href="https://www.crisismagazine.com/1984/life-freedom-the-symbolism-of-2x2-4-in-dostoevsky-zamyatin-orwell">Mihajlo Mihajlov has noted</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>When Orwell’s hero is fighting for ‘two plus two is four’, when he repeats this over and over again as a secret formula for life and freedom – we have to realize that for him ‘two plus two is four’ is the symbol of freedom, freedom from manipulation by the omnipotent party.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>As countries throw off their tyrants, new ones emerge. The very laws of nature itself and the dictates of reason can now be experienced as tyrannical. Even “two plus two is four” can be experienced as oppressive. </p>
<p>This idea was portrayed by Fyodor Dostoyevsky in his novella, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notes_from_Underground">Notes from the Underground</a>. Here, the character of the Underground Man explains how:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Two times two makes four seems to me simply a piece of insolence. Two times two makes four is a fop standing with arms akimbo barring your path and spitting. I admit that two times two makes four is an excellent thing, but if we are going to praise everything, two times two makes five is also a very charming little thing … man is a frivolous and incongruous creature, and perhaps, like a chess player, loves only the process of the game, not the end of it.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This simple sum has now become, to quote Mihajlov again, a “symbol of human unfreedom in relation to the laws of nature”. The Underground Man’s revolt against this is his fight for self-determination. He values freedom over everything else, including reason and his own interests:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>What has made them conceive that man must want a rationally advantageous choice? What man wants is simply INDEPENDENT choice, whatever that independence may cost and wherever it may lead. And choice, of course, the devil only knows what choice.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Balancing reason with freedom</h2>
<p>The dictates of reason can hence be overthrown by our need for freedom. If this merely produced stroppy two-year-olds and rebellious teens, this would be (just about) bearable. However, much more significant consequences are possible.</p>
<p>For example, imagine there is a political candidate or option being widely portrayed as the obvious and perhaps only sane choice. Could this drive some voters to vote for the alternative (potentially even against their own rational self-interests) in order to feel they are choosing freely? Could this have played a small but significant role in the 2016 US presidential election? What about Brexit?</p>
<p>Steven Pinker’s argument that the use of reason is crucial to continuing <a href="https://stevenpinker.com/publications/better-angels-our-nature">the progress we see in so many aspects of our society</a> is undoubtedly correct. The use of reason and the scientific method have freed us in ways previous generations could not have imagined. But unless we take into account the buried threat to reason posed by our intrinsic need to feel free, we may find ourselves slipping off the rails of progress.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/91928/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Simon McCarthy-Jones receives funding from the Brain & Behavior Research Foundation.</span></em></p>The psychologist proposes reason as a solution to all our problems, but telling people they must do something can backfire.Simon McCarthy-Jones, Associate Professor in Clinical Psychology and Neuropsychology, Trinity College DublinLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/913142018-02-07T04:46:38Z2018-02-07T04:46:38ZHow to use critical thinking to spot false climate claims<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/205215/original/file-20180207-58185-14cr2bh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Arguments against climate change tend to share the same flaws. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">gillian maniscalco/Flickr</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Much of the public discussion about climate science consists of a stream of assertions. The climate is changing or it isn’t; carbon dioxide causes global warming or it doesn’t; humans are partly responsible or they are not; scientists have a rigorous process of peer review or they don’t, and so on. </p>
<p>Despite scientists’ best efforts at communicating with the public, not everyone knows enough about the underlying science to make a call one way or the other. Not only is climate science very complex, but it has also been targeted by deliberate obfuscation campaigns.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/a-brief-history-of-fossil-fuelled-climate-denial-61273">A brief history of fossil-fuelled climate denial</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>If we lack the expertise to evaluate the detail behind a claim, we typically substitute judgment about something complex (like climate science) with judgment about something simple (the character of people who speak about climate science).</p>
<p>But there are ways to analyse the strength of an argument without needing specialist knowledge. My colleagues, Dave Kinkead from the University of Queensland Critical Thinking Project and John Cook from George Mason University in the US, and I published a paper yesterday in <a href="http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aaa49f">Environmental Research Letters</a> on a critical thinking approach to climate change denial. </p>
<p>We applied this simple method to 42 common climate-contrarian arguments, and found that all of them contained errors in reasoning that are independent of the science itself. </p>
<p>In the video abstract for the paper, we outline an example of our approach, which can be described in six simple steps.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/XAp1Foj7BzY?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">The authors discuss the myth that climate change is natural.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h1>Six steps to evaluate contrarian climate claims</h1>
<p><strong>Identify the claim</strong>: First, identify as simply as possible what the actual claim is. In this case, the argument is:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The climate is currently changing as a result of natural processes.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>Construct the supporting argument:</strong> An argument requires premises (those things we take to be true for the purposes of the argument) and a conclusion (effectively the claim being made). The premises together give us reason to accept the conclusion. The argument structure is something like this:</p>
<ul>
<li>Premise one: The climate has changed in the past through natural processes</li>
<li>Premise two: The climate is currently changing </li>
<li>Conclusion: The climate is currently changing through natural processes.</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Determine the intended strength of the claim:</strong> Determining the exact kind of argument requires a quick detour into the difference between <em>deductive</em> and <em>inductive</em> reasoning. Bear with me!</p>
<p>In our paper we examined arguments against climate change that are framed as <em>definitive</em> claims. A claim is definitive when it says something is <em>definitely</em> the case, rather than being <em>probable</em> or <em>possible</em>.</p>
<p>Definitive claims must be supported by <em>deductive</em> reasoning. Essentially, this means that if the premises are true, the conclusion is <em>inevitably</em> true.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-i-came-to-know-that-i-am-a-closet-climate-denier-83039">How I came to know that I am a closet climate denier</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>This might sound like an obvious point, but many of our arguments are not like this. In <em>inductive</em> reasoning, the premises might support a conclusion but the conclusion need not be inevitable. </p>
<p>An example of inductive reasoning is:</p>
<ul>
<li>Premise one: Every time I’ve had a chocolate-covered oyster I’ve been sick</li>
<li>Premise two: I’ve just had a chocolate-covered oyster</li>
<li>Conclusion: I’m going to be sick.</li>
</ul>
<p>This is not a bad argument – I’ll probably get sick – but it’s not inevitable. It’s possible that every time I’ve had a chocolate-covered oyster I’ve coincidentally got sick from something else. Perhaps previous oysters have been kept in the cupboard, but the most recent one was kept in the fridge.</p>
<p>Because climate-contrarian arguments are often <em>definitive</em>, the reasoning used to support them must be <em>deductive</em>. That is, the premises must inevitably lead to the conclusion. </p>
<p><strong>Check the logical structure:</strong> We can see that in the argument from step two – that the climate change is changing because of natural processes – the truth of the conclusion is not guaranteed by the truth of the premises. </p>
<p>In the spirit of honesty and charity, we take this invalid argument and attempt to make it valid through the addition of another (previously hidden) premise. </p>
<ul>
<li>Premise one: The climate has changed in the past through natural processes</li>
<li>Premise two: The climate is currently changing </li>
<li><em>Premise three: If something was the cause of an event in the past, it must be the cause of the event now</em></li>
<li>Conclusion: The climate is currently changing through natural processes.</li>
</ul>
<p>Adding the third premise makes the argument valid, but validity is not the same thing as truth. Validity is a necessary condition for accepting the conclusion, but it is not sufficient. There are a couple of hurdles that still need to be cleared. </p>
<p><strong>Check for ambiguity:</strong> The argument mentions climate change in its premises and conclusion. But the climate can change in many ways, and the phrase itself can have a variety of meanings. The problem with this argument is that the phrase is used to describe two different kinds of change. </p>
<p>Current climate change is much more rapid than previous climate change – they are not the same phenomenon. The syntax conveys the impression that the argument is valid, but it is not. To clear up the ambiguity, the argument can be presented more accurately by changing the second premise:</p>
<ul>
<li>Premise one: The climate has changed in the past through natural processes</li>
<li><em>Premise two: The climate is currently changing at a more rapid rate than can be explained by natural processes</em></li>
<li>Conclusion: The climate is currently changing through natural processes.</li>
</ul>
<p>This correction for ambiguity has resulted in a conclusion that clearly does not follow from the premises. The argument has become invalid once again.</p>
<p>We can restore validity by considering what conclusion would follow from the premises. This leads us to the conclusion: </p>
<ul>
<li>Conclusion: Human (non-natural) activity is necessary to explain current climate change. </li>
</ul>
<p>Importantly, this conclusion has not been reached arbitrarily. It has become necessary as a result of restoring validity. </p>
<p>Note also that in the process of correcting for ambiguity and the consequent restoring of validity, the attempted refutation of human-induced climate science has demonstrably failed. </p>
<p><strong>Check premises for truth or plausibility:</strong> Even if there were no ambiguity about the term “climate change”, the argument would still fail when the premises were tested. In step four, the third premise, <em>“If something was the cause of an event in the past, it must be the cause of the event now</em>”, is clearly false. </p>
<p>Applying the same logic to another context, we would arrive at conclusions like: people have died of natural causes in the past; therefore any particular death must be from natural causes.</p>
<p>Restoring validity by identifying the “hidden” premises often produces such glaringly false claims. Recognising this as a false premise does not always require knowledge of climate science.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/205153/original/file-20180206-88764-xnch14.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/205153/original/file-20180206-88764-xnch14.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=212&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/205153/original/file-20180206-88764-xnch14.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=212&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/205153/original/file-20180206-88764-xnch14.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=212&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/205153/original/file-20180206-88764-xnch14.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=267&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/205153/original/file-20180206-88764-xnch14.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=267&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/205153/original/file-20180206-88764-xnch14.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=267&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Flow chart for argument analysis and evaluation.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>When determining the truth of a premise does require deep knowledge in a particular area of science, we may defer to experts. But there are many arguments that do not, and in these circumstances this method has optimal value.</p>
<h2>Inoculating against poor arguments</h2>
<p><a href="http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0175799">Previous work</a> by Cook and others has focused on the ability to inoculate people against climate science misinformation. By pre-emptively exposing people to misinformation with explanation they become “vaccinated” against it, showing “resistance” to developing beliefs based on misinformation.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/busting-myths-a-practical-guide-to-countering-science-denial-42618">Busting myths: a practical guide to countering science denial</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>This reason-based approach extends inoculation theory to argument analysis, providing a practical and transferable method of evaluating claims that does not require expertise in climate science. </p>
<p>Fake news may be hard to spot, but fake arguments don’t have to be.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/91314/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter Ellerton does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Most of us lack the expertise to evaluate climate science, but there are ways anyone can spot a badly reasoned argument.Peter Ellerton, Lecturer in Critical Thinking, Director of the UQ Critical Thinking Project, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/859382017-12-18T06:12:28Z2017-12-18T06:12:28ZHow AI can make us better at arguing<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/199449/original/file-20171215-17851-15qkp05.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/confirm/150798062?size=huge_jpg&src=lb-59856941&sort=newestFirst&offset=1">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The ability to argue, to express our reasoning to others, is one of the defining features of what it is to be human.</p>
<p>Argument and debate form the cornerstones of civilised society and intellectual life. Processes of argumentation run our governments, structure scientific endeavour and frame religious belief. So should we worry that new advances in artificial intelligence are taking steps towards equipping computers with these skills?</p>
<p>As technology reshapes our lives, we are all getting used to new ways of working and new ways of interacting. Millennials have known nothing else. Governments and judiciaries are waking up to the potential offered by technology for engaging citizens in democratic and legal processes. Some politicians, individually, are more ahead of the game in understanding the enormous role that social media plays in election processes. But there are profound challenges. </p>
<p>One is nicely set out by <a href="http://www.upworthy.com/about">Upworthy</a> CEO Eli Pariser in his TED talk. In it he explains how we are starting to live in “filter bubbles”: what you see when you search a given term on Google is not necessarily the same as what I see when I search the same term. Media organisations from Fox News to, most recently, the BBC, are personalising content, with ID and login being used to select which stories are featured most prominently. The result is that we risk locking ourselves into echo chambers of like-minded individuals while our arguments become more one-sided, less balanced and less understanding of other viewpoints.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/4w48Ip-KPRs?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">TED/YouTube.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Why critical thinking is critical</h2>
<p>Another concern is the way in which news and information, though ever more voluminous, is becoming ever less reliable – accusations and counter-accusations of “<a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/dec/13/2016-lie-year-fake-news/">fake news</a>” are now commonplace. </p>
<p>In the face of such challenges, skills of critical thinking are more vital now than they have ever been – the ability to judge and assess evidence quickly and efficiently, to step outside our echo chamber and think about things from alternative points of view, to integrate information, often in teams, balance arguments on either side and reach robust, defensible conclusions. These are the skills of argument that have been the subject of academic research in philosophy for more than 2,000 years, since Aristotle.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.arg-tech.org/">Centre for Argument Technology</a> (ARG-tech) at the University of Dundee is all about taking and extending theories from philosophy, linguistics and psychology that tell us about how humans argue, how they disagree, and how they reach consensus – and making those theories a starting point for building artificial intelligence tools that model, recognise, teach and even take part in human arguments. </p>
<p>One of the challenges for modern research in the area has been getting enough data. AI techniques such as <a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/s/513696/deep-learning/">deep learning</a> require vast amounts of data, carefully reviewed examples that can help to build robust algorithms.</p>
<p>But getting such data is really tough: it takes highly trained analysts hours of painstaking work to tease apart the way in which arguments have been put together from just a few minutes of discourse.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/199451/original/file-20171215-17889-1rayve8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/199451/original/file-20171215-17889-1rayve8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=408&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/199451/original/file-20171215-17889-1rayve8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=408&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/199451/original/file-20171215-17889-1rayve8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=408&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/199451/original/file-20171215-17889-1rayve8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=512&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/199451/original/file-20171215-17889-1rayve8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=512&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/199451/original/file-20171215-17889-1rayve8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=512&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Radio 4’s Moral Maze has collaborated with Dundee’s ARG-tech Centre to use AI techniques to help improve the quality of reasoned debate.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qk11">BBC</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>More than 10 years ago, ARG-tech turned to the BBC Radio 4 programme, <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qk11">Moral Maze</a>, as an example of “gold-standard” debate: rigorous, tight argument on emotive, topical issues, with careful and measured moderation. Enormously valuable, that data fed a programme of empirically grounded research into argument technology. </p>
<h2>The technology</h2>
<p>Working with such demanding data has meant that everything from philosophical theory to large-scale data infrastructure has been put to the test. In October 2017, we ran a pilot with the BBC Radio Religion & Ethics department to deploy two types of new argument technology.</p>
<p>The first was a set of “analytics”. We started by building an enormous map of each Moral Maze debate, comprising thousands of individual utterances and thousands more connections between the contents of all of those utterances. Each map was then translated into a series of infographics, using algorithms to determine the most central themes (using something similar to Google’s <a href="http://pr.efactory.de/e-pagerank-algorithm.shtml">PageRank</a> algorithm). We automatically identified the most divisive issues and where participants stood, as well as the moments in the debate when conflict reached boiling point, how well supported arguments were, and so on. </p>
<p>The result, at <a href="http://bbc.arg.tech/">bbc.arg.tech</a> in conjunction with the Moral Maze presents, for the first time, an evidence-based way of understanding what really happens in a debate.</p>
<p>The second was a tool called “<a href="http://debater.arg.tech">debater</a>”, which allows you to take on the role of the chair of the Moral Maze and run your own version. It takes the arguments offered by each participant and allows you to navigate them, following your own nose for a good argument.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/199455/original/file-20171215-17857-1o9v8c9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/199455/original/file-20171215-17857-1o9v8c9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=285&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/199455/original/file-20171215-17857-1o9v8c9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=285&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/199455/original/file-20171215-17857-1o9v8c9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=285&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/199455/original/file-20171215-17857-1o9v8c9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=358&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/199455/original/file-20171215-17857-1o9v8c9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=358&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/199455/original/file-20171215-17857-1o9v8c9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=358&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The debater tool lets participants chair a debate and test their skills.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://debater.arg.tech/">BBC/Dundee University ARG-tech</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Both aspects aim to offer insight and encourage better-quality, more reflective arguing. One the one hand, the work allows <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/251N2YBLLwmPJnVvDn94GQR/moral-maze-eight-ways-to-win-an-argument">summaries</a> of how to improve skills of arguing, driven by evidence in the data of what actually works.</p>
<p>On the other is the opportunity to teach those skills explicitly: a <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/taster/projects/moral-maze">Test Your Argument</a> prototype deployed on the BBC Taster site uses examples from the Moral Maze to explore a small number of arguing skills and lets you pit your wits directly against the machine.</p>
<h2>Team effort</h2>
<p>Ultimately, the goal is not to build a machine that can beat us at an argument. Much more exciting is the potential to have AI software contribute to human discussion – recognising types of arguments, critiquing them, offering alternative views and probing reasons are all things that are now within the reach of AI.</p>
<p>And it is here that the real value lies – having teams of arguers, some human, some machine, working together to deal with demanding, complex situations from intelligence analysis to business management.</p>
<p>Such collaborative, “mixed-initiative” reasoning teams are going to transform the way we think about interacting with AI – and hopefully transform our collective reasoning abilities too.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/85938/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Chris Reed receives funding from EPSRC, The Leverhulme Trust and Volkswagen Foundation. </span></em></p>Thanks to new deep-learning techniques, AI has the potential to analyse, improve and contribute to the process of human discussion.Chris Reed, Professor of Computer Science and Philosophy, University of DundeeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.