What's the first rule of critical thinking?

[JoeMorgue]

But yeah there are 3 basic concepts at play here.

- Wronger than Wrong. When you have equated two massively different levels of wrongness.

- Not even wrong. When what you said something that is so devoid of content as to be meaningless, you haven't even approached the levels needed to be wrong.

- Fractal Wrongness. Every part of your worldview is wrong. Zooming in and out only reveals more wrongness.

 

[bruto]

Well, between us we've covered three of the several possible meanings of the phrase. While I would disagree that an exception testing a rule implies that the rule can have no defined exceptions, (to me, at least, the defined exception is merely a part of the rule), and proving the existence of a rule would probably arise more in a legal context, perhaps we can agree that one thing an exception to a rule does not do is provide evidence for the truth of the rule. It is in this latter way that I think the phrase is most often misused.

That for sure. The rest is little more than pettifoggery, which is why "/pedant" and its amplification are apt. The one thing we can confirm, I think, is that an exception does not validate a rule.

 

[ahhell]

Really having a hard time following the last half page or so. So, I may or may not be on point?
The exception that proves the rule, originally meant that if you need to mention the exception, the rule is generally the opposite.

IE, if a sign says closed on sunday, you can reasonable assume they are open Monday through Saturday. Goes back to roman law and a reference to a treaty provision.

Logically fallacies are not always necessary false, so merely pointing out that someone has used a logical fallacy does not necessarily prove they are wrong.

If I propose a policy and you call me an idiot, my proposed policy still might be a bad idea. If you call me an idiot and make a strawman of my proposed idea, I still might be wrong. I can call out your logical fallacies all I want, still doesn't make me right. Just means you haven't proven your case.

 

[JoeMorgue]

BTW there really is a simple, near perfect litmus test to seperate the honestly wrong from the ProudlyWrong.

Person A: "2+2=4."
Person B: "No, 2+2=5."
Person A: "I disagree, show me your evidence."
Person B: "Sure, here's my evidence..."

as opposed to:

Person A: "2+2=4."
Person B: "No, 2+2=5."
Person A: "I disagree, show me your evidence."
Person B: "No. I'd rather talk about my right to hold my own opinion, or about censorship, or about how you aren't disagreeing with me the right way, or about you not being civil enough in responding to me..."

Honestly wrong people will actually argue their points and even if their points are insanity piled on insanity there's usually SOME value in that, or at least an honesty.

The Proudly Wrong are almost entirely defined by the desire to discuss anything, everything but their wrongness. They have no intellectual skills beyond a bag of tricks to make talking to them as inefficient, time wasting, and frustrating as possible.

They've weaponized Brandolini's law, the fact that simply put it takes so much more effort to refute B.S. than to spread it. They make themselves so wrong about so much and break for the hills as soon as a point is made that talking them back to just the original wrong takes the several college courses worth of effort on your part, them fighting you all the way from basic wrongs to specific wrongs, only to reset and start the whole process over again.

It's why despite being very anti-religious Penn Jillette once said on some level he gets along with religious extremists (in the intellectual sense, not the behavioral sense) because they'll say "No you are wrong" while the wishy-washy middle of the road apologists doing the whole "No there are many truths, just let everyone think what they want" is how you speak to a child.

 

[gnome]

Well, between us we've covered three of the several possible meanings of the phrase. While I would disagree that an exception testing a rule implies that the rule can have no defined exceptions, (to me, at least, the defined exception is merely a part of the rule), and proving the existence of a rule would probably arise more in a legal context, perhaps we can agree that one thing an exception to a rule does not do is provide evidence for the truth of the rule. It is in this latter way that I think the phrase is most often misused.

With that phrase I ask myself, "What is the most useful interpretation of the phrase?". Useful, in the sense that makes it helpful for communicating a sincere thought.

To me it leans heavily towards "Something that seems to be an exception can help you notice a pattern that might be generalized (informally, a rule)." A part of the "observation" phase of performing science.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Really having a hard time following the last half page or so. So, I may or may not be on point?
The exception that proves the rule, originally meant that if you need to mention the exception, the rule is generally the opposite.

IE, if a sign says closed on sunday, you can reasonable assume they are open Monday through Saturday. Goes back to roman law and a reference to a treaty provision.

Logically fallacies are not always necessary false, so merely pointing out that someone has used a logical fallacy does not necessarily prove they are wrong.

If I propose a policy and you call me an idiot, my proposed policy still might be a bad idea. If you call me an idiot and make a strawman of my proposed idea, I still might be wrong. I can call out your logical fallacies all I want, still doesn't make me right. Just means you haven't proven your case.

Well at the end of the day "Does actual, factual reality support my view or your view?" is really the only discussion you can ever have. Everything else is just a framework built to support that, until one side (usually the wrong one) stops seeing the forest for the trees.

A good fire inspector can tell if kerosene or gasoline was the accelerant used in the fire by examining the burn patterns on the wood. But if he's doing that WHILE the arsonist is still dancing around behind him, gayly splashing around liquid from a canister clearly marked "Gasoline" he's doing it wrong even if he's "technically correct."

"Missing the point" no matter what you call is always bad argumentatives and "Intentionally missing the point" is always dishonest bad argumentatives.

 

[JoeMorgue]

And for clarification I've been solidly on team "Logical Fallacies as a concept came back to bite us HARD" for a while now.

They are technically useful, but like the second that stupid people became aware of their existence via having them used against them they just started treated them as magic words to throw out when losing arguments and on a street level has lost absolutely all meaning beyond "You made my argument look bad."

 

[ahhell]

And for clarification I've been solidly on team "Logical Fallacies as a concept came back to bite us HARD" for a while now.

They are technically useful, but like the second that stupid people became aware of their existence via having them used against them they just started treated them as magic words to throw out when losing arguments and on a street level has lost absolutely all meaning beyond "You made my argument look bad."

I find them more useful in framing my own arguments and thinking rather than debating others on the internet or in real life. Better to keep it to myself when I notice them.

And back to the OP, intellectual humility is still likely the most fundamental part of critical thinking. I try to remember that there is a strong possibility that I might be wrong, even if I am right I'm probably only partly right and probably am only lucking in being right. The vast majority of people, the vast majority of the time come to conclusions and beliefs for reasons we aren't entirely aware of, then we look for evidence to support our beliefs and conclusions.

 

[p0lka]

Really having a hard time following the last half page or so. So, I may or may not be on point?
The exception that proves the rule, originally meant that if you need to mention the exception, the rule is generally the opposite.

IE, if a sign says closed on sunday, you can reasonable assume they are open Monday through Saturday. Goes back to roman law and a reference to a treaty provision.

Logically fallacies are not always necessary false, so merely pointing out that someone has used a logical fallacy does not necessarily prove they are wrong.
If I propose a policy and you call me an idiot, my proposed policy still might be a bad idea. If you call me an idiot and make a strawman of my proposed idea, I still might be wrong. I can call out your logical fallacies all I want, still doesn't make me right. Just means you haven't proven your case.

I agree, it just means their logical argument has failed.

I might be guilty of equating false, with not true, if so sorry. Lazy typing.

 

[Venom]

See pointing out exceptions to the rule or similar concepts shouldn't be a huge issue. Acknowledge it (or rebut) and move on.

Through the all the background noise and the subtext we often read into everyone's hot takes, I think it's still worth correcting one another without any assumptions of the pedant's motives. What is skepticism and critical thinking worth if we can't do that?

 

[AmyStrange]

Excellent point Joe

BTW there really is a simple, near perfect litmus test to seperate the honestly wrong from the ProudlyWrong. Person A: "2+2=4." Person B: "No, 2+2=5." Person A: "I disagree, show me your evidence." Person B: "Sure, here's my evidence..." as opposed to: Person A: "2+2=4." Person B: "No, 2+2=5." Person A: "I disagree, show me your evidence." Person B: "No. I'd rather talk about my right to hold my own opinion, or about censorship, or about how you aren't disagreeing with me the right way, or about you not being civil enough in responding to me..." Honestly wrong people will actually argue their points and even if their points are insanity piled on insanity there's usually SOME value in that, or at least an honesty. The Proudly Wrong are almost entirely defined by the desire to discuss anything, everything but their wrongness. They have no intellectual skills beyond a bag of tricks to make talking to them as inefficient, time wasting, and frustrating as possible.

They've weaponized Brandolini's law, the fact that simply put it takes so much more effort to refute B.S. than to spread it. They make themselves so wrong about so much and break for the hills as soon as a point is made that talking them back to just the original wrong takes the several college courses worth of effort on your part, them fighting you all the way from basic wrongs to specific wrongs, only to reset and start the whole process over again.

It's why despite being very anti-religious Penn Jillette once said on some level he gets along with religious extremists (in the intellectual sense, not the behavioral sense) because they'll say "No you are wrong" while the wishy-washy middle of the road apologists doing the whole "No there are many truths, just let everyone think what they want" is how you speak to a child.

ETA: I'd rather know ALL the evidence (be wishy washy to some extent), and then be gracious when I am proven wrong, or agree that not everything is right or wrong but in some kind of gray area that depends on the circumstances.

 

[bruto]

Really having a hard time following the last half page or so. So, I may or may not be on point?
The exception that proves the rule, originally meant that if you need to mention the exception, the rule is generally the opposite.

IE, if a sign says closed on sunday, you can reasonable assume they are open Monday through Saturday. Goes back to roman law and a reference to a treaty provision.
Logically fallacies are not always necessary false, so merely pointing out that someone has used a logical fallacy does not necessarily prove they are wrong.

If I propose a policy and you call me an idiot, my proposed policy still might be a bad idea. If you call me an idiot and make a strawman of my proposed idea, I still might be wrong. I can call out your logical fallacies all I want, still doesn't make me right. Just means you haven't proven your case.

A good way of seeing it too, I think, but the nitpicking pedant in me impels me against my better judgment to add that it depends on how an exception is conveyed. If it's a sign, yes, you can infer that "Closed on Sunday" means "Open on other days." If you go to the store and it's closed with no sign, or with a sign that just says "closed" and someone passing by says "It's closed on Sunday," we can infer that some rule exists, but we cannot reliably infer what that rule is. They may be closed on Sunday and Monday.

So I would nitpickingly suggest that an exception always proves that a rule exists but only sometimes tells us what it is.

 

[JoeMorgue]

See pointing out exceptions to the rule or similar concepts shouldn't be a huge issue. Acknowledge it (or rebut) and move on.

And that's fine and truth (and I mean that honestly) until it's a hoop you've got to jump through all the time. When it's the same wrong over and over. Whenever thing just leads to "Okay so then explain this" and it's another wrong you've already explained...

PRATT (Point Refuted A Thousand Times) has to be invokable at some point. No I'm not taking time out of my day to show a Creationists "One, just one that's all I'm asking for, transitional fossil."

Again the intellectual standards are pretty gone now. The Wrong have decided to just make arguing with them as insufferable as possible by being stubborn.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Long story short, and I have zero intention of ever even trying to get over this thank you very much, the difference is this kind of broad anti-intellectual bag of tricks used to be rare. Or at least confined to the "The Fringe."

Sure if you were like me and you made the brilliant tactical decision to argue with religious people and Woo Slingers and Conspiracy Theorists and Pseudoscientists for most of your adult life because you hate your own mental health, exactly zero of these tactics are new to you. What is new is that they are ******* everywhere and not just in internet forum arguments about Bigfoot and Creationism and UFOs.

 

[Venom]

It is rather alarming how mass media and the internet have facilitated pseudoskepticism, which is worse imo than plain being wrong. Though if the adage that you can't reason someone out of a position they weren't reasoned into is true, I may have that backwards.

 

[skepticsalamander]

Question everything (especially if it came from FOx News or Joe Rogan).

 

[sackett]

"Never believe anything until it's been officially denied."

Doesn't that sound clever? And cynically European? It's so sophisticated! and I'm so sophisticated!

Except for that useless word "officially." What does it mean, or even try to mean? Any and every fool can yell "It's official!" when he wants to win an argument. Nobody ever tries "It's been unofficially denied, 'n that's good enough! So sux ta YOU!" If something's been officially confirmed, do you have to stop thinking it's true?

Are all officials created equal? Can they mate and produce viable offspring?

 

[P.J. Denyer]

It would probably help (to some small degree), if people knew that "to prove" once meant "to subject to a test". Then the phrase "The exception proves the rule" makes sense. Homeopathic cures, for example, are "proved", but hardly "proven".

/pedant mode

I heard that it came from Roman Law where stated exceptions to a rule were used as evidence that no other reason was valid, for example "No Parking Except Sunday 00.00-23:59" precluded using "I was just unloading" as an excuse if you got a ticket.

Don't know if it's right or not, but it's a good story. Obviously what you say about the word "prove" makes perfect sense and is more likely, as in "The proof of the pudding.."

 

[sackett]

Firearms were "proved," that is, test-fired for safety, in days gone by. Now they're "proofed," and stamped with a "proof mark." Proved survives in that (ignorantly misunderstood) phrase about exceptions.

Ignorantly and IDIOTICALLY!

 

[AmyStrange]

Question everything (especially if it came from FOx News or Joe Rogan).

Welcome to the ISF

 

[AmyStrange]

"Never believe anything until it's been officially denied."

Doesn't that sound clever? And cynically European? It's so sophisticated! and I'm so sophisticated!

Except for that useless word "officially." What does it mean, or even try to mean? Any and every fool can yell "It's official!" when he wants to win an argument. Nobody ever tries "It's been unofficially denied, 'n that's good enough! So sux ta YOU!" If something's been officially confirmed, do you have to stop thinking it's true?

Are all officials created equal? Can they mate and produce viable offspring?

Ok, that's funny and thank you for the early morning chuckle

 

[lomiller]

It would probably help (to some small degree), if people knew that "to prove" once meant "to subject to a test". Then the phrase "The exception proves the rule" makes sense. Homeopathic cures, for example, are "proved", but hardly "proven".

/pedant mode

The concept of proof and truth were laid down in formal logic and epistemology before the scientific method was used. They do have a meaning and it goes beyond what you can show with the scientific method, or by showing test results.

This distinction is important because the woo-woo always demand proof while science and critical thinking work by weighing the evidence. No matter how much the evidence favors one thing the woo-woo can and will insist it "hasn't been proven" and can always point to possibilities that haven't been excluded.

In critical thinking, and in science, there is no need to even consider a possibility for which no evidence has been presented because it losses on weight of the evidence. Conversely the woo-woo or misguided skeptical thinker will say you must disprove these other possibilities and that the burden in on you to do so because you need to prove your position even though true proof is literally impossible for real world things.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Really having a hard time following the last half page or so. So, I may or may not be on point?
The exception that proves the rule, originally meant that if you need to mention the exception, the rule is generally the opposite.

IE, if a sign says closed on sunday, you can reasonable assume they are open Monday through Saturday. Goes back to roman law and a reference to a treaty provision.
Logically fallacies are not always necessary false, so merely pointing out that someone has used a logical fallacy does not necessarily prove they are wrong.

If I propose a policy and you call me an idiot, my proposed policy still might be a bad idea. If you call me an idiot and make a strawman of my proposed idea, I still might be wrong. I can call out your logical fallacies all I want, still doesn't make me right. Just means you haven't proven your case.

Thank you, that is actually what I was thinking of but I'd obviously misremembered slightly. I think I actually read it on here but it was many, many years ago in the JREF days.

 

[AmyStrange]

I find them more useful in framing my own arguments and thinking rather than debating others on the internet or in real life. Better to keep it to myself when I notice them.

And back to the OP, intellectual humility is still likely the most fundamental part of critical thinking. I try to remember that there is a strong possibility that I might be wrong, even if I am right I'm probably only partly right and probably am only lucking in being right. The vast majority of people, the vast majority of the time come to conclusions and beliefs for reasons we aren't entirely aware of, then we look for evidence to support our beliefs and conclusions.

That all makes sense to me, and that last part (IIRC) is called confirmation bias.

 

[psionl0]

It would probably help (to some small degree), if people knew that "to prove" once meant "to subject to a test". Then the phrase "The exception proves the rule" makes sense. Homeopathic cures, for example, are "proved", but hardly "proven".

I have read this before as well.

It makes sense if you word it as "one way to prove (or test) if a rule is true is to search for any relevant exceptions". If no such exceptions exist then it strengthens the case for the rule being true.

The phrase "exceptions prove the rule" is usually used to shut down debate rather than as an exercise in critical thinking.

 

[AmyStrange]

I have read this before as well.

It makes sense if you word it as "one way to prove (or test) if a rule is true is to search for any relevant exceptions". If no such exceptions exist then it strengthens the case for the rule being true.

The phrase "exceptions prove the rule" is usually used to shut down debate rather than as an exercise in critical thinking.

The only way I've ever heard it expressed (except here) is, "As a general rule... and the exception proves the rule in general, because it is the only exception".

 

[psionl0]

The only way I've ever heard it expressed (except here) is, "As a general rule... and the exception proves the rule in general, because it is the only exception".

I have never heard it expressed that way (we must live in different worlds ).

In my experience, it is invariably some smart alec who says, "ah, but that is the exception that proves the rule".

 

[AmyStrange]

I have never heard it expressed that way (we must live in different worlds ).

In my experience, it is invariably some smart alec who says, "ah, but that is the exception that proves the rule".

Yeah, I'm surprised that I've never come across it before either, but maybe it's because (being a smart alec myself) I don't really pay attention to other smart alecs.

Anyway, here's how rationalwiki.org explains it:

FROM: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule

The "exception that proves the rule", or similar variants of this aphorism, is an old adage that dates from a long time before the Internet laws it most resembles. It originates from the Latin phrase "exceptio probat regulam", attributed first to Cicero (106–43 BCE).

You are most likely to encounter this phrase when somebody is speaking in generalisations or stereotypes and somebody else points out an example that clearly contradicts their comments. Retorting with the platitude that this is just the "exception that proves the rule" is an easy way of handwaving away this inconsistency.

 

[bruto]

I have never heard it expressed that way (we must live in different worlds ).

In my experience, it is invariably some smart alec who says, "ah, but that is the exception that proves the rule".

Unfortunately, that's how I've usually heard it, from people who clearly haven't really thought about meaning, and usually are trying to assert the validity of a faulty or imagined rule. Outside of this forum, I don't recall ever hearing someone use it except to deny a disproof.

 

[Masque]

Anyway, here's how rationalwiki.org explains it:

The "exception that proves the rule", or similar variants of this aphorism, is an old adage that dates from a long time before the Internet laws it most resembles. It originates from the Latin phrase "exceptio probat regulam" attributed first to Cicero (106–43 BCE).

This, I believe, is the origin of the legal sense of the phrase that Bluto brought up some distance above. If you post a sign in your shop that says, "We're closed on Sunday", it implies the existence of a rule that says you are open the other six days of the week, as opposed to the same statement in response to a specific question: "Are you open on Sunday?"; "We're closed on Sunday", which implies nothing about the other days of the week. I have to admit that I have never encountered this usage of the phrase, but IANAL. For all I know, this is being shouted in courtrooms daily.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Regardless the line between detail-oriented and just plain old pedantic is only unclear to the pedantic.

 

[AmyStrange]

Regardless the line between detail-oriented and just plain old pedantic is only unclear to the pedantic.

I've found that if you argue long enough with a pedantic "PERSON" it almost always ends up being an argument about semantics.

 

[sackett]

By using pedantic as a noun rather than as an adjective, you make it sound like a psychological condition. I must remark that I have never encountered that rather singular usage; it smells like a neologism.

A pedant would correct your -- I will not say malapropism, it does not rise to that level of comedy -- singular wandering in the garden of vocabulary. But I will not. True pedantry is a rather rare behavior, a label too often gummed by the ignorant onto the learning they can acquire.

 

[AmyStrange]

By using pedantic as a noun rather than as an adjective, you make it sound like a psychological condition. I must remark that I have never encountered that rather singular usage; it smells like a neologism.

A pedant would correct your -- I will not say malapropism, it does not rise to that level of comedy -- singular wandering in the garden of vocabulary. But I will not. True pedantry is a rather rare behavior, a label too often gummed by the ignorant onto the learning they can acquire.

noted

 

[sackett]

noted

You shouldn't. In my last sentence, i typed "can" when I meant to type "cannot." I am confident that a true pedant would have noticed and corrected that gross an error, even if he had absorbed as much wine as I had.

I may not learn from my mistakes, but I expect others to learn from them; with laughter and some measure of cheerful spite.

I know what I deserve, and I will receive it.

 

[AmyStrange]

You shouldn't. In my last sentence, i typed "can" when I meant to type "cannot." I am confident that a true pedant would have noticed and corrected that gross an error, even if he had absorbed as much wine as I had.

I may not learn from my mistakes, but I expect others to learn from them; with laughter and some measure of cheerful spite.

I know what I deserve, and I will receive it.

If you say so, but in all honesty, I really don't care

 

[bruto]

I've found that if you argue long enough with a pedantic "PERSON" it almost always ends up being an argument about semantics.

Define "person."

 

[AmyStrange]

Define "person."

Why? Don't you know?

 

[Puppycow]

I kinda like the statement in my sig. I read it attributed to Shakespeare, although I honestly don't know exactly where it comes from. I realized later that Socrates famously said something similar. “The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.”

Of course, you can't take this too literally. Obviously we know many things today that could not have been known in Socrates' time. They didn't know what the sun was, or what it was made of, or how far away it was, or that the earth spins on its axis and this is why the sun and the moon rise and set every day. Or what the stars and planets are.

But the way I interpret it is to never be too sure that you have it all figured out. Always question your own thinking and stay humble. Ask yourself "but what if I'm wrong?". Are you able to discard a previous position and admit that you were wrong if new evidence becomes available? Or do you look for evidence to confirm what you already believe and ignore any evidence to the contrary?

Do you start with a conclusion and look for evidence to support that conclusion, or do you follow the evidence wherever it may lead, even if it leads somewhere you wish it didn't?

 

[ahhell]

That all makes sense to me, and that last part (IIRC) is called confirmation bias.

The thing I've come to realize about confirmation bias over the last few years, mostly thanks to the podcast "You are not so smart", is how pervasive it is. Which, I probably only believe because I want to and I only look for and remember evidence that supports that belief.