John Jackson © UK-Skeptics

“I’m entitled to my opinion”, “you’re entitled to your opinion”. Both of these expressions come up frequently in debates but what do people mean by them and are they of any relevance in a debate?

I’m entitled to my opinion

Anyone who is not impressed by Tom’s argument has a good right not to be; it is entirely vacuous. Nevertheless, this argument is put forward frequently in debates as if it has some merit.

Entitlement.

What do people mean when they claim to have an entitlement to an opinion? Well, the term ‘entitled’ is equivocal so we need to look at what is meant by the different meanings.

1. Legal.
   
   In the UK we have a right to free speech and free thought. This means that we can hold any opinion that we choose; however, this legal entitlement does not distinguish between valid opinion and invalid opinion. It simply means that we are entitled to an opinion no matter how right or wrong it may be.
   
   
2. Epistemic - (Of, relating to, or involving knowledge).
   
   In an epistemic sense, entitlement is an earned right. It’s where a person has a right to an opinion because it is based on evidence or knowledge for example. In other words, there are good reasons for holding such an opinion. Opinions need to be justified and this distinguishes between valid and invalid opinion.

As can be seen, the two meanings of ‘entitled’ are quite different to each other. In fact, they are the opposite of each other. (1) states that we have the right to believe anything, with no regard as to whether it’s true; (2) states that we are only entitled to opinions that we can justify, which means having good reasons for holding them.

Its use as an argumentative tactic.

If we look at Tom’s argument, he’s using it in sense (1) – he does have a right to an opinion in this sense; however, he’s implying that his right to an opinion somehow justifies his claim – as in sense (2).

Claiming a right to an opinion in sense (1) adds absolutely nothing to the argument. It is a complete irrelevance that does nothing to resolve the disagreement. Tom may as well have pointed out that he disagrees with Jerry because Ostriches can’t fly! Changing the subject of the argument to whether one is entitled to an opinion merely introduces an irrelevance: the ‘red herring’ fallacy.

If Tom was claiming that he’s entitled to an opinion because he has good reasons for holding it, as in sense (2), then his claim carries more weight. Of course Jerry may also feel justified in claiming an entitlement to his opinion too. If their views differ, then one (possibly both) of them is wrong. If two people claim to be entitled to their opinion (2), how can the argument be resolved? By examining both of their arguments and finding out which has the best reasons to support their conclusion. In other words, by resolving the original argument!

You’re entitled to your opinion

Again, Tom is using the fact that a person is entitled to an opinion as an argumentative tactic but this time in completely the opposite manner. This usage is a rather condescending way of someone telling another person that they don’t agree with them as it includes the assumption that the person saying it is right (perhaps without having even stated their side of the argument) and they know the other person is wrong.

It is nothing more than a statement of presumption and is the Bare Faced Assertion fallacy (I’m right, you’re wrong – because I say so) therefore it is also a complete irrelevance in a debate.

Conclusion.

“Entitled to an opinion” is often used in debates as a defence of a belief or stance on a subject. Whether it’s used to end a debate (1), to add weight to a person’s position (2) or to reject an opponent’s argument, it is equally useless as a debating tactic.

Debates can only be resolved by presenting sound arguments with supporting evidence. Stating one’s rights and entitlements adds nothing to the debating process. Having a right to an opinion does not make that opinion right – or wrong.

Open Mind: A mind open to new ideas, lacking in prejudice, not dogmatic.

John Jackson © 2004.

What is an open-minded person?

An open-minded person is someone who is willing to consider ideas, opinions and arguments purely on their merit. If an idea can be shown to be correct then an open-minded person will alter, or add to, their world-view with this new-found knowledge. If the new idea does not stand up to scrutiny however, it will be rejected.

Having an open-mind does not mean embracing all kinds of weird ideas and uncritically accepting them no matter how bizarre or unsupported by evidence they are. The actual word used to describe a person who will believe in absolutely anything is: credulous.

Why do skeptics often get accused of not having open-minds?

1. The accusers don’t understand what open-mindedness is.
   
   They confuse open-mindedness with being credulous. They simply don’t understand the difference between the two. If others do not ‘open-mindedly’ share their beliefs or accept their argument as valid, they accuse them of being ‘closed-minded’. This is simply a fallacious Ad Hominem argument.
   
   
2. Those accusers don’t realise what skepticism is.
   
   Skeptics have to be open-minded. They test and examine claims in a scientific, objective way. To do this they have to be open-minded; this is the reason that skeptics are prepared to consider claims that may seem completely ridiculous to most people. Skepticism is not about rejecting ideas: it’s about testing them for validity.
   
   
3. Those accusers don’t realise that open-minded people can reject claims.
   
   Being open-minded about something is a willingness to consider that it may be true: it also means considering the possibility that it may be false. A truly open-minded person’s mind is open to both possibilities. Disagreeing with a person’s position or argument after considering it does not make one closed-minded.

Misuse of the term “open-minded”.

It is the misuse of the term open-minded that the credulous hide behind. They use it as a shield against the use of critical thinking and logical analysis of their ideas, claims, and often bizarre beliefs.

The “I’m open-minded” claim is used to counter the lack of evidence, or the quality of evidence supporting a claim.

The appeal to open-mindedness is really an appeal to relinquish one’s rational integrity. It does not matter how or why something may appear to be true, that there is no credible evidence to support it, or even that it is demonstrably false; it should simply be accepted with an ‘open-mind’. In other words, with non-thinking credulity.

Conclusion.

Open-mindedness is considered a virtue, and true open-mindedness is.

The claim to be open-minded is frequently used by people who wish to sound virtuous, and simultaneously make their opponent sound intolerant, while defending or promoting their ideas and beliefs.

This appeal to be ‘open-minded’ when considering claims that are unsupported by evidence or which are completely bizarre is a fallacious one. Its message is simply: be credulous.

John Jackson © UK-Skeptics

This fallacy is committed when a claim is believed to be true because it has not been proved false, or vice versa.

The general form is:

1. A states that claim X is true.
2. B states that claim X is not accepted as true.
3. A states that claim X is potentially true as B has not proved it false (wrongly shifting the burden of proof to B).

Examples:

• You can’t say that PSI phenomena don’t exist; after all, science hasn’t disproved them.
• We have no evidence of alien visitors; therefore, aliens do not exist. (They may well exist, but are not visiting Earth).
• Just because Reiki healing energy cannot be detected does not mean that it isn’t there.

The defining feature of the Argument to Ignorance is that ignorance, the lack of knowledge (or evidence), is used as evidence to support/refute a claim, whereas in reality, it’s an irrelevance. Claims can only be accepted or refuted based on tangible evidence. Ignorance about something provides no evidence about its existence or non-existence.

The burden of proof is a concept where the claimant must provide proof or evidence of the claim they are making before it can be considered. It’s not up to others to refute a claim that has no evidence to support it. This position is a logical one, which is meant to avoid false conclusions. In UK law, for example, a defendant is assumed innocent until proved guilty. It is up to the accuser (or the prosecution) to provide evidence for their claim.

Contradictory claims.

Contradictory claims arise from dichotomous (either/or) situations. The claim can only be true or false, therefore proving one proposition to be true or false settles the claim. For example, Person X is either male or female. This person’s gender (let’s assume female) can be discovered either with evidence that she’s female or evidence that she’s not male.

Contrary claims.

Contrary claims are similar to contradictory ones in that only one proposition can be true; however, they differ in that both, or more, propositions can be false: i.e. proving one proposition to be false does not automatically prove another to be true.

Example: Person X drives a German car. Audi and BMW are popular German cars. Person X does not drive an Audi therefore Person X drives a BMW (this is clearly not necessarily true).

Note: if we are in our state of ignorance with both types of claim, our ignorance cannot be used to argue for or against the truth of the claim.

The argument to ignorance – general usage.

The argument to ignorance is used extensively. It is mainly used in two ways:

1. As an argumentative tactic.
   
   It is rare to engage in debate about controversial or unaccepted topics without encountering an argument to ignorance. “No-one’s proved it doesn’t work” and “just because you can’t see it doesn’t mean it isn’t real” are common examples. The example of Person X illustrates the fallacy:
   
   Claiming that “no-one’s proved Person X isn’t a man” does not add any weight to the claim that Person X is a man. It is actually completely irrelevant.
   
   Similarly, “no-one’s proved that ghosts don’t exist” adds no weight to claims that they do.
   
   
2. As a proposition in claims.
   
   Most claims we deal with are contrary claims rather than contradictory claims. This means that showing a proposition in a claim to be false does not mean that an alternative proposition is true. Many people, however, treat claims as if they were contradictory: creating a false dichotomy.
   
   A ghost hunter may get an unusual reading on an EMF meter and postulate that it may be due to ghost activity. A skeptic may point out that it may have come from electric cables. If the ghost hunter discovers that there’s no electricity in the building, thus disproving this explanation, he may feel justified in his conclusion that he’s picked up a ghost. This is obviously a false dichotomy fallacy; however, it is still based on an argument to ignorance: the idea that not knowing the cause of the unusual reading adds weight to the claim that a ghost was encountered.
   
   It is important to realise that someone showing that a proposition in an argument made against them is false can still leave them making an argument to ignorance. The example of the German cars should illustrate this point.

When does ignorance not lead to a fallacy?

The Argument to Ignorance fallacy is committed when a claim is believed to be true because it hasn’t been proved false, or vice versa. Whenever one points out that a person is using the Argument to Ignorance fallacy, such as believing in something because it hasn’t been proved false, it is common to get a reply along the lines that it works both ways: one can’t state that something is false just because it hasn’t been proved true either!

This can of course be true but it is not always the case:

We have to consider the burden of proof requirement. If a person makes a claim it is up to that person to provide supporting evidence. If there is none it is not committing an Argument to Ignorance to assume that a claim is false until some supporting evidence is provided.

“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” is a saying that’s often used. It is true in some circumstances (in the possibility of there being alien life, for example) but not all. It is not true when there’s an absence of evidence and we should expect to find that evidence. For example, stating that the Loch Ness Monster could exist because no-one’s proved it doesn’t is clearly an Argument to Ignorance; however, stating that the Loch Ness Monster doesn’t exist because no-one has proved that it does is not making an Argument to Ignorance. This is because a breeding population of Plesiosaurs (or whatever) would be expected to leave evidence of their existence.

Conclusion.

Arguments to Ignorance are extremely common and can be easy to miss. They can be obvious when formally stated as “I believe X and science hasn’t proved X wrong”; however, they often take the rather more persuasive form: “I believe that X is true. It may not certainly be true but science has never shown X to be wrong therefore it’s reasonable to keep an open mind on X”.

The defining features are:

1. A case is put forward that has no tangible supporting evidence;
2. It’s stated that the claim has not been proved false therefore it is reasonable to believe it;
3. The burden of proof will be shifted from the claimant to the opponent – challenging the opponent to prove it wrong;
4. As the name implies, it is ignorance itself, the lack of knowledge of the claim, that is used to support it.

Claims can only be decided on evidence. If something is not real or doesn’t exist then no evidence can be found that will support or refute it. To claim that something has never been proved or disproved merely adds weight to the fact that it probably isn’t true as it reveals that no evidence exists which could be used to examine it; and as always, it’s the quality of evidence that decides a claim – not ignorance.

Errors in skeptical debates: Argumentum ad Derren Browniam.

John Jackson © 2008

1. The first problem with this argument is that Derren Brown’s ability to replicate what another person does in no way actually disproves it. It does weaken their claim as it shows that it can be replicated by normal means, but it doesn’t disprove it: he may simply be obtaining similar results by a different method.
   
   
2. Secondly, people making this argument make the assumption that Derren Brown is using some advanced psychological trickery and, by inference, that psychics/mediums are doing it the same way (using advanced and complex methods) – this is not the case: there’s nothing advanced or particularly complicated about an interaction where psychic belief and claimed ability are encountered that results in a successful reading. In fact, it’s remarkably simple.

In many instances, people state that Derren achieves his amazing psychological manipulations using things like subliminal messages (which don’t really work) or NLP (which is mostly bollocks). All this succeeds in doing is rejecting one form of nonsense (the psychic claim) for another (the bogus psychological explanations Derren gives).

Derren Brown is a magician; a mentalist. In order for mentalism (which really mimics claims of ESP) to work well it has to appear to be something mysterious. Many mentalist feats are performed – such as predicting a 3-digit number someone will choose by (apparently) writing it down first – and the trick leaves people cold because they know that it’s a trick; the problem being that the mentalist achieves his feat without a plausible mechanism or explanation as to how it’s done (unless he’s actually claiming to be psychic; but that’s another kettle of fish). What Derren does is create a plausible mechanism for doing his mentalism. He’s created a persona whereby he can psychologically manipulate people to choose whatever number/word/etc. he chooses to ‘implant’ in a person’s head. The trick is exactly the same as standard mentalism but he’s embellishing it.

It’s the embellishment of standard mentalist tricks that’s the reason that Derren Brown is so good at what he does – not some fantastical psychological ability or the use of advanced NLP techniques. This fallacy (that Derren uses advanced psychology etc.) comes up all over the place, but I do see skeptics (or at least people who don’t believe in psychics) using it too.

The psychology and NLP explanation for what Derren Brown can do is an intentionally false one. It’s what makes Derren’s mentalism ‘work’ and what makes him such a fascinating persona but the explanation is all a part of the illusion.

In summary: Derren Brown’s feats neither disprove nor explain psychic claims in any way.