Einstein's Rules for Good Arguments - and How People with Bad Arguments Ignore Them

Albert Einstein in 1921 (Photo: Wikipedia)

by Pitt Griffin

"The difference between genius and stupidity is; genius has its limits" - Albert Einstein.

Albert Einstein said two things, which taken together, define how to create and present a good argument.

First he outlined how to craft a theory, "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler" - echoing Occam's Razor.

Cut away everything that is extra to your point, leave in everything needed to make that point.

Second, he advised how to disseminate your argument, "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."

Brilliant advice from a brilliant man. It is worth bearing in mind when someone tries to sell you their idea.

Politicians and their true believers frequently ignore the first advice and reduce their argument to slogans. Say: "The 2nd amendment is my gun permit"; "All taxation is theft"; "Obama is a Muslim"; and the like.

There is no evidence, no facts, no argument. It does nothing to convert the undecided. It is merely to make the base feel warm and fuzzy. That kind of shenanigan is as effective as it is obvious.

More devious are the arguments presented by "intellectuals", using obscure words like "procrustean", "empiricist" and "hermeneutical". Words calculated to obfuscate, not to explain. Words better suited to post-modern literary criticism than to an argument. To the uncritical these arguments seem compelling.

It works because many people lack intellectual confidence and fear exposure of their "ignorance". They think that because they do not understand the argument it is they that are deficient, not that the argument is hifalutin' crap and the emperor has no clothes.

Good theories are explained simply: "I think therefore I am"; E=MC2″; et al. The underlying arguments may be complex and to the amateur incomprehensible, not because the language in impenetrable, but because the ideas are profound.

Darwin explained Natural Selection thus, "It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change" - simple everyday language, with mostly one syllable words.

Sometimes, rather than using big words to obfuscate, people with bad arguments string together simple words in long run-on sentences. The reader gives up and takes the writer at his word rather than slog through thickets of language.

To further deflect attention from a second-rate argument the polemicist may resort to vitriol, hyperbole and the misstatement of the other person's position.

Extremists on the right, and to a lesser degree extremists on the left, are masters of the personal attack. Unflattering pictures are a favorite tool of assault - especially if the opponent is a woman.

Language is powerful - especially when it is hysterical. Obamacare provided funds for the elderly to explore their end of life options with a doctor. That meeting should have been called a "dying with dignity consultation"; instead it was smeared as a "Death Panel".

The gullible now view a plan that would have put people in charge of their own destinies as a government plot to assassinate the elderly.

One US Representative pleaded that Obamacare - a word that also started as a slur - had to be repealed,"before it literally kills women, kills children, kills senior citizens." Dear God.

Even "intellectuals" throw stones. One evolution denier, congratulates a fellow denier by writing, "By boldly and authoritatively exposing a deceitful fossil summary found in a text, he [the 2nd denier] implicitly tears the covers away from Darwinian propaganda that is cruelly deceiving the public".

"Deceitful", "propaganda", "cruelly deceiving" - good lord! Those rapacious evolutionists are out to ravish the women, and take hostage the children, of Intelligent Design.

Lastly, people with shaky arguments, attack the competing theory. Creationists try to poke holes in evolution. But disproving a competing theory does not prove yours. Proving that the Earth is not flat, does not prove that it is round. For that, you must produce evidence.

For some, facts are just a trick to strip away a cherished belief; they are not even necessary. The truth is what feels right; it is intuitive; it is "what makes sense". They even go so far as to insulate themselves against opposing opinions and listen only to those that believe as they do.

The huge advantage of this approach is that you do not have to change your position if new facts emerge. You cannot be attacked with the truth. You do not have to think. You do not have to defend your theories. And you can congratulate yourself on being a "real American".

The author, Pitt Griffin, is fascinated by why people make the choices they do, some as common as the food they buy, others as important as the religion (if any) they chose or the politicians they elect.
Arrayed against the individual are businesses, politicians and religious leaders eager to take his money, her vote or his fealty. The author explores their tactics and strategies.

If you have an opinion you wish to share or a comment you want to make on any of my articles or would like to read more please visit me at my website: http://www.thecriticalmind.com/

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Pitt_Griffin
http://EzineArticles.com/?Einsteins-Rules-for-Good-Arguments---And-How-People-With-Bad-Arguments-Ignore-Them&id=8085267

Powers and Pitfalls of Introvert Researchers

Susan Cain - The Power Of Introverts (k-ideas)

by Claartje, Van Sijl Counseling and Training: http://vansijl.com/2013/09/26/powers-and-pitfalls-of-introvert-researchers/

 

A Ted talk by Susan Cain on the power of introverts got me thinking about finding a balance between the power and pitfalls of introversion as a researcher. 

 

Cain argues passionately that valuable deep thought and truly creative and innovative ideas can only bubble to the surface if given enough quietness and solitude. 

 

Yet, she points out our society is increasingly organized to promote a more extrovert approach to cooperation, group work and outgoing interaction. 

 

The academic environment traditionally respects and fosters quiet contemplation, especially for PhD candidates and postdocs, but even here pressure increases to go public with your ideas: to publish, to participate in conferences, and to valorize their knowledge by reaching out to the general public and cooperate with many organizations.

This can feel very uncomfortable if you are an introvert researcher - and I am strongly inclined to assume that many, if not most, PhD’s and PostDocs are on the introvert side of the spectrum.

Voicing your deep thoughts to a critical audience of scientists and intellectuals may not come natural to you at all. However, being stimulated to sometimes reach out and speak up is not inherently bad.

As Susan Cain mentions, the pure introvert does not exist, and if he did he would be a lunatic. This is encouraging because it implies that even the most introverted researcher somehow has the capacity to overcome his reticence to open up in public.

In concluding her talk Cain dares introverts to speak dangerously and to softly voice their deep thoughts for the benefit of humanity. I would add that this is also for your own benefit as an introvert. Seeking quiet solitude is fine as long as you do not get caught in webs of silent loneliness.

I often encounter young researchers who started out happy to explore the deepest thoughts they can imagine, only to get trapped in the world of their minds somewhere along the way.

By the time they realize they are no longer happy they are so paralyzed that they can hardly imagine feeling confident and relaxed in interacting with other people without forcing themselves to play a role.

I know that opening up to others and discuss your own ideas about your subject may take a lot of courage and is not something done easily, on an everyday basis, with just anyone. I am not even talking about sharing your inner feelings about the process of thinking in solitude.

Honestly showing our inner thoughts makes us feel vulnerable and a certain guardedness seems prudent. However, if you manage to step out of your introvert comfort zone, you may be surprised to find that others will often perceive you as strong and inspiring.

I have written more about how this works and why this is the case in this blogpost on courage.

Of course, you do not gain trust and confidence in presenting your thoughts to the world, or even just your colleagues and supervisor, overnight. A very useful strategy is to be mindful of the small steps leading up towards your goal.

Start looking for the smallest examples of moments where you showed a glimpse of what goes on in the privacy of your mind to a trusted friend and collect them for instance in a nice notebook. Review weekly and see if you can find a way to take you one step further the next week.

Do not expect instant results and get impatient or discouraged if at first you notice little progress. Change will come, in a month, or two, or three, and you can grow from there.