Emotion and Reason

Game Theory

I've posted about Game Theory (the application of mathematics and reason to optimise decision making) before. It was a term coined by mathematician John von Neumann in 1944 and is now used in fields as diverse as economics, political science, psychology, logic, biology and military stretegy.

I came across a really nice example recently. It is a situation known as the 'prisoner's dilemma' - where two subjects have the choice to cooperate (which is in the best interests of both), or attempt a gamble to win everything for themselves. This is the classic version of the dilemma quoted by Wikipedia:

"Two men are arrested, but the police do not have enough information for a conviction. The police separate the two men, and offer both the same deal: if one testifies against his partner (defects/betrays), and the other remains silent (cooperates with/assists his partner), the betrayer goes free and the one that remains silent gets a one-year sentence. If both remain silent, both are sentenced to only one month in jail on a minor charge. If each 'rats out' the other, each receives a three-month sentence. Each prisoner must choose either to betray or remain silent; the decision of each is kept secret from his partner. What should they do? If it is assumed that each player is only concerned with lessening his own time in jail, the game becomes a non-zero sum game where the two players may either assist or betray the other. The sole concern of the prisoners seems to be increasing his own reward. The interesting symmetry of this problem is that the optimal decision for each is to betray the other, even though they would be better off if they both cooperated."

Here is a clip from the British TV game show 'Golden Balls'. The only twist on the classic version of the situation above is that both contestants are allowed to speak to each other prior to making their decisions. The guy on the right has obviously read about the Prisoner's Dilemma before and has a strategy sorted out in order to optimise his chances of winning the money (or at least not losing it). His partner seems to be left in a state of panic.

 

Can you always trust reason?

Thankyou to Dave Grant of Greengates School, Mexico City, for sending me this. It is a debate taken from the website of the British newspaper the Guardian. The motion is "reason is always right".

Glossary of Philosophy

Enlightenment Rationalism Empiricism The Encyclopaedists Analytic synthetic distinction Logic Determinism Kant	Romanticism Rousseau Schelling and Coleridge Hegel Idealism Vs. Materialism Hegel's Dialectics Marx's Dialectical Materialism Schopenhauer & Nietzsche	Analytic Philosophy Bertrand Russell Wittgenstein: Tractatus Wittgenstein: Language Games The Private Language Argument Richard Rorty Timeline	Existentialism Kierkegaard: The solitary wanderer Martin Heidegger Edmund Husserl Sartre: Existence precedes essence Albert Camus
God Proofs of God's Existence: Argument from design Ontological argument Cosmological argument Pascal's Wager Kierkegaard Marx Nietzsche The Death of God	Mind Plato Aristotle Leibniz Epiphenomenalism Dualism Descartes Identity Theory Spinoza Behaviourism Ryle Ghost in the machine	Natural Science Popper Kuhn Feyerabend Science in the post- modern world	Moral philosophy Kant's Categorical Imperative Utilitarianism Nietzsche: The genealogy of morals Sartre and Bad Faith

Fallacies

This is a really nice document produced by the website information is beautiful to show the different types of fallacies split into categories.

Reason and the Universality of Human Rights

In December 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), a full list of all 30 articles of which can be found here. The Assembly called upon all member countries to publicize the text of the Declaration and "to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions, without distinction based on the political status of countries or territories." In 1976 it was adopted as international law, having been ratified by a sufficient number of nations. It is now perhaps the cornerstone of international political ethics.

It was constructed, of course, as a consequence of the horrors perpetrated by the Nazis during the Second World War, and was based on the reasoning that all human beings are "born fee and equal in dignity and rights" (Article 1). However its wording has been subjected to considerable criticism over a number of years. Proponents of alternative schooling, for example, are against the adoption of "universal elementary education" (Article 26), while organisations such as Amnesty International have argued that there is a need to adopt a right of refusal to kill in times of war (currently not mentioned by the Declaration). Some Muslim countries (such as Saudi Arabia, Iran and Sudan) have critisised the UDHR for failing to take the religious context of Islam into account. In 1990 the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam (CDHRI) was adopted by member states of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, as an alternative.

The biggest problem has been one of enforcing the terms of the Declaration and reprimanding those who violate them. Implicit in this is the fact that some countries interpret the articles differently to others. However, the UN Security Council has always found it difficult to get its members to come to a consensus where it is necessary to use force. This weakness was exposed in September, 2002, when President George W. Bush brought his case against Iraq to the General Assembly and challenged the UN to take action against Baghdad for failing to disarm. Unable to get the UN Security Council to act, Bush succeeded in securing permission from the US Congress to act against Iraq without UN approval. The American message seemed clear: as a senior administration official put it at the time, "we don't need the Security Council." This could be interpreted as proof that the logic of universal human rights enshrined in the Declaration is flawed, as suggested by author Will Self in this BBC podcast:

Sanal Edamaruku and Indian Blasphemy Laws

In March, 2012, worshipers at the Church of Our lady of Velankanni, a Catholic church in Mumbai, India's financial centre, reported seeing a statue of Jesus on a crucifix with water collecting like tears at its feet. Soon after, hundreds of people began to arrive at the church to see the 'miracle' and collect drops of the water in bottles.

Sanal Edamaruku, author and head of the Indian Rationalist Organisation, was asked to investigate by television channel TV-9. He found that water was building up close to the crucifix from a broken drain, passing up the wall due to capillary action and collecting on the statue. He later reported this during a televised interview and debate. It might be expected that this would have been the end of the matter, but soon afterwards formal complaints were filed against Edamaruku for inciting racial and religious hatred under British colonial-era legislation which obliges the state to punish those who offend the faith of others. Arrest warrants are currently out for him and he faces the prospect of three years in prison if tried and found guilty.

While it does seem to me that his comments did cause offence to believers of the 'miracle', I don't think he set out deliberately to do so, but rather to carry out a rational investigation. It also seems strange that a country like India, founded on secularism, may be prepared to punish one of its citizens under a law on blasphemy. However, you may take the view that there was no need to debunk a phenomenon which was bringing comfort and happiness to a large number of people and, under the letter of the law, he did cause offence regardless of his motives. The application of this law reminds me in some ways of the case of Simon Singh, the science author who was sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association (BCA) after he critisised their claims of being able to heal a number of childhood illnesses by massage of the spine.

Edamaruku's blog can be found here, and, below, I've posted an article about his story from the Indian newspaper, the Hindu:
  Debunking a Miracle

Is Autism on the Increase?

There has been considerable concern recently that autism in children appears to be on the increase. Fears that this is related to childhood vaccination (spread initially by the claims of British physician Andrew Wakefield)  have now been widely discredited. However, there is still speculation that we are being increasingly subjected to environmental risk factors, including pollutants, increased parental age, poor diet and depression and mental disorders in pregnant women, which may manifest themselves in newborn babies.

An often overlooked point is that it is possible that the rate of autism itself may not be increasing, but rather the rate of detection or diagnosis. This seems very plausible, given that schools seem to be more ready nowadays to look to diagnose autism or Asperger Syndrome in children rather than simply labeling them as having behavioural issues (in some cases, perhaps too ready?). This is suggestive that we (and in particular the mass media) often take scientific findings at face value and do not question issues with how data is collected and how the methodology of its collection may change over time.

In this article for the James Randi Educational Foundation, Dr. Steven Novella investigates the claim that we are in the midst of an autism epidemic:
Is There an Autism Epidemic

Logicomix

Logicomix is a graphic novel written by Greek writer Apostolos Doxiadis and theoretical computer scientist Christos Papadimitriou of the University of California, Berkeley. It follows the life of British philosopher and mathematician Bertrand Russell and his attempt to unite mathematics under the umbrella of logic - what became known as "the Foundational Quest", together with his friends Alfred North Whitehead and Ludwig Wittgenstein.

Russell was a quiet, intelligent, introspective man who was haunted by the demons of depression and dissatisfaction with being unable to complete his life's work. Indeed, one of the book’s recurring themes is the connection between logic and madness. Russell himself was surrounded in his family by mental illness, and several of the logicians and philosophers who appear in the story went insane or suffered from mental instability.

Below is the book's glossary which gives the background to a number of the topics that appear in it and its main characters. It gives a nice summary of the work of most of the main figures in logic throughout history:
Logicomix Glossary

David Hume

David Hume (1711-1776) was a Scottish philosopher, historian and essayist. He was a controversial figure, known for his religious sceptisism (a dangerous position at the time - he wanted to make a career as an academic, but was always denied an academic post due to his apparent atheism). He is often cited as a principle influence on many important figures in philosophy and science, including Immanuel Kant, Charles Darwin and Thomas Huxley, amongst others.

In this BBC podcast, his life and legacy are discussed:

Extra Sensory Perception

The James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) has produced some classroom resources to help teachers and students explore pseudosciences and the knowledge claims they make. In the module below, the claims of proponents of extra sensory perception (ESP) are set out, together with materials which are commonly used to test for psychic abilities. Here is Hollywood's take on the use of Zener cards:





  JREF11edmod Esp LO (1)

Logical Thinking

Paradoxes

Logical Thinking

Here is a nice exercise I´ve been using for ages (apologies to whoever I originally stole it from). The idea is to apply logic to a number of facts given in a story and then test the truth of your conclusions. After reading the story, mark each statement with 'T' if it is definitely true, 'F' if it is definitely false and '?' if there is insufficient information to make a decision. Once you have given an answer, don't go back and change it after reading the subsequent statements.

The old man had just turned off the lights in the shop and was preparing to lock up when a youth appeared and demanded money. The owner opened the cash register; the contents were grabbed, and the man ran away. The police were informed immediately.

1. A young man appeared after the lights had been turned off.
2. The old man was preparing to go home.
3. The robber demanded money.
4. Someone opened the cash register.
5. The robber demanded money from the owner.
6. The person who opened the cash register was a man.
7. The cash register contained money, but we are not told how much.
8. The gender of the owner was not revealed in the story.
9. The robber did not demand money.
10. After the young man grabbed the contents of the cash register, he ran away.
11. A young man appeared after the lights had been turned off.
12. The robber was a man.
13. The owner was a man.
14. The owner appeared and demanded money.
15. The man ran away after he had demanded money. 

If anyone wants to know my answers to this one, please let me know.

The Logical Fallacy Song

At last... an explanation of logical fallacies that even I can understand. Made, incidentally, by a couple of straw men:

Reason and Emotion

In 1943 Walt Disney studios produced an animated film entitled "Reason and Emotion". It was subsequently nominated for an Oscar. At its heart it is, of course, a piece of war propaganda. This is particularly obvious in its depiction of Hitler and his manipulation of people's emotions to gain and maintain power. I thought that its treatment of the two subjects is more than a little simplistic, particularly its depiction of emotion as a primitive out of control caveman. It suggests that emotion is something base that needs to be contolled in order to make rational decisions. However, the ending does show reason and emotion coming together as co-pilots in order to bomb the enemy. What do you think of it?

Are Psychic Powers Real?

In a short documentary for British TV (and his website), arch-sceptic Richard Dawkins interviewed magician Derren Brown, to discover his thoughts and experiences in dealing with 'psychics'. Do they believe they, themselves, possess supernatural powers? Do they take advantage of the naive, or the grieving? Should the media present 'psychic events' in ways that make them appear more believable?

Example of a fallacy

Interesting developments in the Swine Flu outbreak this week. China and Russia have banned imports of Mexican pork, despite the fact there is no evidence that the virus is passed on through meat products. The Mexican government has complained to the World Trade Organisation as a result.

I saw this quote from Nikolai Vlasov, the Russian chief veterinary inspector:

"We are constantly told that pork is not dangerous. But at the same time, nobody has proved that it is safe."

Why is this a fallacious argument?

Emotion and Reason

When somebody feels very emotional about a particular subject, reason sometimes goes out of the window. BBC journalist Louis Theroux recently visited members of the Westborough Baptist Church in Kansas. They have been called the "most hated family in America" after they started picketing the funerals of American servicemen killed in Iraq, in a protest against the prevalence of homosexuality in the USA. He tried (in his own way) to reason with their leaders (Fred Phelps and Shirley Phelps-Roper) but came away as lost as when he started.

In this second clip Shirley Phelps-Roper, daughter of Pastor Fred Phelps appears on Fox News in order to defend the church - but can you follow her reasoning?


Eugène Ney Terre'Blanche (born January 31, 1941) is a Boer-Afrikaner who founded the Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging during the apartheid era in South Africa. Terre'Blanche remains leader of the recently reactivated AWB and continued to push for an Afrikaner state within South Africa (until his death in 2010). In this clip he explains his reasoning to Louis (and obviously frightens the life out of him).

More examples of fallacies

This website lists 42 types of fallacies with examples of each one. You wouldn't be expected to remember all of them, but they are still quite interesting to read through:

Different types of fallacies