What is true of the whole is not necessarily true of the parts of that whole.
To assume that it is true is an unwarranted assumption based on a partial selection of evidence and therefore is likely to be irrelevant to the conclusion: “Mary is wonderful and so is John. Wouldn’t it be wonderful to see them get married?” It might be wonderful to see them get married, but the marriage itself might not be so wonderful. The whole called marriage is more than the sum of the parts that make it up. Two p. 263 wonderful people might not add up to a wonderful marriage. In sports, we see that principle often enough. The team has the best players, and yet it doesn’t click. Whereas a team that doesn’t have the best players might click or might click better.
Water is composed of two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. Hydrogen and oxygen together are highly explosive. Although its parts are highly explosive, water itself is not explosive at all. Water is water and has properties that are quite different from its component parts, hydrogen and oxygen.
Closely related to this error is the fallacy of division, which consists in assuming that what is true of some whole is true of each of the parts of that whole. This, too, is an unwarranted assumption. To get this point, work the water problem backwards: what is true of water is not true of its component parts, hydrogen and oxygen.
“Britney Spears has a beautiful face. Therefore, her nose must be beautiful.” It may be true that Spears has a beautiful face, but it does not necessarily mean that the individual parts of her face, such as her nose or ears, are beautiful. This is because the characteristic of the whole is not necessarily a characteristic shared by each of the parts.
The fallacy of the mean is the idea that the average rather than the extremes is somehow the best or the correct thing. This is also known as the fallacy of moderation. Whether a position is the mean or close to it is irrelevant to the conclusion and should be disregarded. A moderate view might be best, no question about it. But that is not the point at issue here. The point is that the moderate view is not supported as a best view simply because it is moderate. The justification for the moderate view must come from other evidence. It is not wrong to compromise in order to settle an argument, but it is wrong to assume, apart from the evidence, that compromise is the best solution.
For example: “Since you want to pay $2,000 for the TV, and the list price is $2,800, let’s split the difference and you pay $2,400.” Although such a compromise might seem fair, it may not be the best solution. It certainly is not the best solution if the TV is worth only $1,900. In fact, if the appliance is worth only $1,900, then the offer of $2,000 may have been more than fair. In dealing with salesmen, always consider the possibilities that the store may have built in the anticipated call for compromise, so that the so-called compromise turns out not to be a compromise at all but an advantage to the store.
Another example: “Two plus two is four.”
p. 264 “Nope. Two plus two is six.”
“You’re wrong. It’s four.”
“OK. I tell you what. Let’s compromise. You say four. I say six. We’ll settle at five. OK?”
Two plus two is four, now and forever. Don’t forget it. Never compromise a truth like that. The freedom to say that two and two was four was the fundamental truth that Winston Smith (in the novel 1984) wrote in his diary: “Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.”[3]
“According to the US Coast Guard Tidal Tables, the mean lower low water depth at Red Fish sandbar is three feet. Since our draft is twenty-nine inches, we can safely pass over the bar without fear of running aground, even though it is lower low tide right now.” Whoa! Mean lower low means just that. Every day, there are two low tides, one that is lower than the other. The Coast Guard keeps track of such information and computes the mean lower low on the basis of the measurements taken over a nineteen-year period. Because the measurement is a mean, it must indicate that the lower low water was below the stated number on numerous occasions. Therefore, to assume that the tide at present could not be lower than the stated lower low would be an unwarranted assumption that could lead (and has often led) to the catastrophe of running aground.
“The jury, having heard contradictory testimony from the two principal witnesses in the case, concluded that the truth must lie somewhere in between.” This is an unwarranted assumption. There is no evidence to suggest that the truth is to be found somewhere between the two testimonies. Simply because the position is between the two testimonies does not mean it is correct. One, the other, or both of the witnesses might be mistaken or lying.
Closely related to the fallacy of the mean is unwarranted generalization from statistics. A statistical analysis is at best a mixed experience, and conclusions derived from statistics about particulars are often wrong: “The average appraisal value of homes on Baronridge in Taylor Lake Village is over $300,000. Therefore, everyone who lives on Baronridge is a fat cat.” The statistic is correct, but the conclusion doesn’t follow because some people who live on Baronridge will have appraisals below the average. Furthermore, the term fat cat lacks clear definition, so we really don’t know what is meant by the statement.
Nonrepresentative selection results in irrelevant evidence.
p. 265 Literary Digest closed after it predicted in 1936 that the Republican presidential candidate, Alf Landon, would defeat the Democratic incumbent, Franklin D. Roosevelt, by a landslide. To the complete embarrassment of the Literary Digest, the landslide went the other way. What happened was that the Literary Digest had taken its poll by telephone. That poll showed that over 80 percent surveyed intended to vote for Alf. The poll did not include people who did not own a telephone. Other Americans, vastly outnumbering the affluent who owned phones, had been hit hard by the Depression. They wanted FDR and not Alf to win the election, and they voted accordingly. The statistical inference was correct only for the group surveyed—telephone owners. Partial selection of evidence, unwarranted assumptions, overgeneralization, biased sample, and so forth struck again and caused a good magazine to reach an absurd conclusion that ultimately damaged its credibility so much that Literary Digest had no choice but to go belly up.
How about this statement? “More white men are convicted of crimes than are black men.” The intention of this statistic is to make us believe that there is equal justice under law because the blacks are not overrepresented in the population of convicted felons. The statistic is true, but the conclusion does not follow for the simple reason that white men outnumber black men nine to one. Only if the convictions of white men outnumbered those of black men by that ratio might we draw any inferences about social justice. Whether blacks or whites are convicted more or less is off the point anyway. The real question is which racial group commits the most crimes and by how much. The convictions should reflect the number of crimes committed and nothing else.
Another statistic: “There are more married men who have AIDS than there are unmarried men who have the disease.”
While this statistic is true, the implication that married men are at greater risk for AIDS is not true. In fact, married men outnumber unmarried men (in the United States) by four to one. The percentage of HIV-positive men in the unmarried group actually exceeds that in the married group by a wide margin. Therefore, although more married men have AIDS than do those who are unmarried, they are not as a general class more prone to develop AIDS. The opposite may be the case: something about being unmarried may have increased the incidence of AIDS in the unmarried group.
Counterevidence, if relevant, must be considered.
p. 266 The uniform field theory requires us to consider all the available evidence. Consideration of only some of the evidence constitutes a partial selection and may lead to an erroneous conclusion. Especially important is the consideration of counterevidence, which is what mainly protects juries from convicting every time. If you have ever been on a jury, you know what I mean. The DA presents his case, and you are sure the accuse
d is guilty as hell and you wonder why bother to have a trial. Then the defendant’s attorney gets up and gives his view of the situation, and you don’t know what to think. Now you want to release this poor innocent slob as soon as possible. Later, you focus on and evaluate all the evidence, good and bad, pro and con, and try to reach a reasonable conclusion. To have reached a conclusion without considering the DA’s case wouldn’t have been reasonable. To have reached a conclusion without considering the defendant’s evidence wouldn’t have been reasonable, either. Looking at all the evidence is more likely to point to the reality, to the truth of guilt or innocence, than considering only part of the evidence would.
Here is an example from Alice in Wonderland:
“Take off your hat,” the King said to the Hatter.
“It isn’t mine,” said the Hatter.
“Stolen!” the King exclaimed, turning to the jury, who instantly made a memorandum of the fact.
“I keep them to sell,” the Hatter added as an explanation. “I’ve none of my own. I’m a Hatter.”[4]
If the Hatter had not offered the additional evidence, the jury might have convicted him of stealing a hat. As it was, the Hatter was under considerable pressure.
Duress, threat, and extortion produce irrelevant evidence.
“Give your evidence,” said the King; “and don’t be nervous, or I’ll have you executed on the spot.”[5]
Intimidation might help you win a squabble, but it doesn’t help get to the truth. The best evidence is that which is given freely and objectively without stress or duress. Anything less than that taints the evidence and steers us away from truth toward error.
For example, “I don’t care what is in the biology textbooks. I know that I didn’t come from a monkey.” Since the person fails to consider p. 267 evidence counter to his belief, his conclusion cannot be justified. Further discussion of the issue with such a person is a waste of time.
Another example: “Motorcycles are uncomfortable in the rain and more than dangerous; no one should be permitted to ride them.” Many other factors relate to the desirability of owning a motorcycle: the motorcycle is inexpensive, uses less fuel, is more maneuverable than a car, and so forth. Unless such considerations were looked at in detail, the conclusion that motorcycles are undesirable would not be fully supported.
Contrary-to-fact statements are irrelevant.
All contrary-to-fact statements and all statements about future facts are irrelevant. Such as, “If only Hitler had not invaded Russia, he would not have had to fight on two fronts, and Germany would have won the war.” Hitler did invade Russia. Hitler did fight on two fronts. Germany did lose the war. Therefore, the statement is contrary to fact and irrelevant to any reasonable argument. The topic might be of interest in the analogical matrix known as fiction, but an argument contrary to fact neglects established evidence and therefore must be wrong.
Or: “If TV had existed at the time, De Witt Clinton would not have lost the election of 1812 to James Madison.” The only thing this statement tells us for sure is that De Witt Clinton lost and James Madison won the presidential election of 1812. TV did not exist in 1812. Clinton lost the election. The argument neglects those two historical facts. Any argument contrary to the evidence is irrelevant.
Or: “If Arafat had been more of a leader and not followed public opinion so much, there would be peace in Israel right now.” Since there is no peace in Israel now, any speculation about what past events might have changed that situation would not lead to the factual current situation and therefore are irrelevant.
Similarly, future facts are highly questionable. The future is not determined, and therefore any assertion about what will happen lacks evidence and is therefore irrelevant.
For example, “American prosperity will continue unabated through 2010, and with it the federal surplus will grow tremendously. Thus, tax reductions are fully justified.” Statements about what may happen in the future cannot be supported by future evidence because that evidence does not yet exist because the future does not yet exist. Arguments based on nonexistent evidence are irrelevant, as irrelevant as the above statement by a prominent US senator about the federal surplus. His statement proved wrong. Just one year later, the economy, defying p. 268 most predictions, turned south. The deficit in 2002 exceeded $230 billion, according to the New York Times, January 6, 2003.
Predictions about the future are often irrelevant.
To the extent that the foregoing is true, the work of the security analyst—however intelligent and thorough—must be largely ineffective because, in essence, he is trying to predict the unpredictable. When such analysts do seem to connect correctly with the future, the connection is often either heteroclite or, in Dr. Samuel Johnson’s famous phrase, “The triumph of hope over experience.” So watch out! Today’s analysts have been so concerned with anticipating the future that they have already had people paying handsomely for it in advance. Thus, what is projected with so much study and care may actually happen and still not bring any profit. If that profit should fail to materialize as predicted and to the degree expected, the investor may, in fact, be faced with a serious temporary—perhaps even permanent—loss.
Genus definition of adequacy: Not only must evidence be relevant to the conclusion, but also it must be sufficient in number, kind, and weight to support the conclusion. Evidence that meets those criteria is adequate. Evidence that does not is not adequate.
Divisional definition: Evidence is adequate if it is sufficient in
1. amount
2. kind
3. weight
to support the conclusion.
The uniform field theory requires that we consider all available relevant evidence and that we examine all relevant evidence for adequacy.
Otherwise stated, relevant evidence is necessary but not sufficient to reach a conclusion about reality, the truth. Some people have trouble with the distinction between necessary and sufficient. Let’s learn it now once and for all. Something is necessary if it is needed for something else to happen. That something is also sufficient if nothing else is needed for that something to happen. If something else is needed for the something to happen, then what is necessary is necessary but not sufficient. For example, my Lincoln needs gasoline to go. Gasoline is necessary for my car to take me someplace. But it is not sufficient. The Lincoln also needs spark plugs, oil, a battery, a generator, and many other working parts that I have probably never heard of.
p. 269 Take the woman who says, “I don’t understand why my car stopped. I have plenty of gas.” She doesn’t seem to understand that fuel is necessary, but not sufficient for the car to work. In the same way, my vacuum cleaner needs electricity to work. Therefore, electricity is necessary for the operation of the vacuum cleaner. But it is not sufficient. The vacuum cleaner also needs an empty bag, the switch turned on, a working armature, and so forth. Only when the necessary and sufficient requirements have been satisfied can I expect the vacuum cleaner to work properly.
Plants need water to grow. But don’t expect your plants to grow if all you do for them is provide water. Just watering the plant doesn’t guarantee that the plant will grow. Many other things are needed. For plants to grow, water is necessary but not sufficient.
To get my sea captain’s license I had to go to sea school for fifty-four hours and had to do four 4-hour laboratories related to navigation, plotting, and deckmanship. The fact that I completed the course does not get me a license. To get the license, I had to pass the sixteen-hour-long Coast Guard written test, the physical examination, the knot-tying tests, the urine drug test, and so forth. Sea school was necessary but not sufficient for the license.
Relevant evidence is necessary but not sufficient.
Correct conclusions require relevant evidence. Therefore, relevant evidence is necessary to reach a correct conclusion. But it is not sufficient. The evidence must also be adequate. It must be adequate in number, kind, and weight to support the conclusion.
/> But what is adequate evidence?
That is a good question. There doesn’t appear to be an absolute answer to that question. What is adequate evidence depends on the time, place, and person considering the evidence.
In law, clear and convincing evidence is needed for an indictment. In criminal law, a jury must find the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The law, eminently reasonable, recognizes that there is always a doubt. No doubt about that. But the law holds up the criterion of a reasonable doubt as the standard for criminal conviction. If the evidence shows the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury should convict. If the evidence does not show the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury should acquit. In other jurisdictions, Ireland, for instance, the jury can find the accused guilty, innocent, or not proven. If innocent, there is no chance of a retrial. If not proven, then a new trial is possible if new evidence comes to light.
p. 270 In civil cases, the standard is the preponderant weight of evidence, by which is usually meant 51 percent. So if the evidence weighs in on the plaintiff’s side at 51 percent or higher, the jury should find for the plaintiff, not for the defendant.
How much relevant evidence and what type of evidence should I require before I buy something? That depends on the time, place, and person.
In my own case, when I recently bought a CD player for my boat, I considered the color, the quality of sound, the partial waterproofing, and the low price of $14. The decision to buy (a conclusion to spend my money) took two minutes or less. On the other hand, the decision to spend $300,000 on a beach house required lots and lots of investigation, thought, analysis, and expert advice.
Another example: “Jack kissed my hand, told me that he loved me and that he wanted to marry me, so I went to bed with him.” For some women, a kiss on the hand might be sufficient. Other women might need the declaration of love and the promise of marriage. Still others might like to see a diamond ring on their finger. Others don’t need anything and will go to bed no matter what. Other women still might need a formal prenuptial agreement drawn up by an attorney, witnessed by two people, and notarized and filed with the county clerk. The point is that what is adequate evidence depends on the time, place, and people involved. Since adequacy of evidence is a value scale item, what follows are suggestions on how to appraise the adequacy of evidence. I offer guidelines, not hard and fast rules. What you do is up to you.
Truth, Knowledge, or Just Plain Bull: How to tell the difference Page 32
