The Communication Book by Mikael Krogerus

(Martin Jones) #1

How you can explain practically anything with spurious


correlations


In Ancient Greece, debate was central to the forming of opinions. A
distinction between good and bad reasoning was made:


· Good reasoning aims to convince, but it also lets itself be convinced.


Simply put, it is the search for truth.

· Bad reasoning has no interest in the truth; it is simply about wanting to


be right.

Plato called bad reasoning ‘sophistic’. The Sophists claimed to be able to
justify any position through reasoning and logic. They aimed at defeating
their opponents in debates using rhetorical strategies (see ‘Theory of
Rhetoric’) and logical arguments. The Sophists were unpopular, despised
and – successful.
A well-known example is that of Euathlus, who was educated in
sophistry by Protagoras. They made an agreement that Euathlus would
only have to pay for his instruction after he won his first lawsuit. But after
his education Euathlus took up a different profession. Therefore he did not
conduct any lawsuits, could not win any, and argued that he did not have to
pay for his instruction. Subsequently, Protagoras sued him and argued
sophistically: ‘Euathlus will pay: if he wins the case, he will have to pay
according to the original agreement, and if he loses, the court will order
him to pay.’ Euathlus, Protagoras’ best-trained Sophist, replied: ‘I will not
have to pay on any account: because if I lose the case I do not have to pay
according to the original agreement, and if I win, I will owe you nothing
according to the verdict.’ It is an ingenious, logical argument, but also a
deliberately induced fallacy – a sophism.
Now, you should not think that sophism died out with the Ancient
Greeks. On the contrary: it still exists and is in excellent health! Modern
instances of sophism are spurious relationships: ‘In spring, storks return
from the south. In spring the number of births demonstrably increases. The
two things must be linked!’ No. The two statements correlate, but are not
causal. What’s more, they have nothing to do with each other.

Free download pdf