The fallacies I posted last week have led me into some other difficulties. This time the problems are irrational, but real nonetheless. Consider the case of the writer who was trying to help combat child abuse by quoting the statistic that in interviews with pedophiles, 86% of them said they were homosexual and therefore homosexuals should not be permitted to marry and adopt children. I countered that the child abuse statistics that anyone can access show the largest single identifiable group of child abusers are the members of the child’s immediate family. The writer had been caught by the prosecutor’s fallacy. The self-reported connection between homosexuality and child abuse might be interesting, but is not relevant to determining the profile of a child abuser. The proper emphasis is on the children and what has happened to them.
So much for logic: the problem then arises when the writer asks why I am trying to shield homosexual pedophiles. That is, questioning the logic of a presentation is considered to be equivalent to disagreeing with the conclusions. This has happened to me so many times that you would think I would become used to it, but the unexpected antagonism is always a surprise. In fact, I could easily say that I agree with the premise that we should do more to protect our children, and I volunteer to help write a rational analysis of what should be done. However, the originators of logical inconsistencies tend to think such an offer is really just a high-level put down.
Most people with a cause look for data to support it. Often they look at data contrary to their cherished beliefs only to find a way to discredit it. The idea of suspending judgment while gathering data is a difficult concept. I do not know why this is so, but it is so common that many people assume that if you do not immediately agree with them, you must be on the other side.
Is there a best way to alert concerned people that their beliefs are really prejudices and not supported by the data they are quoting? I doubt it. The best one can do is to express interest and then ask questions. That sometimes works. For instance, in the case of the child abusers, one could respond to the writer, "That’s very surprising. I bet that means most of the children who are abused were abused by homosexual pedophiles. Where did you get you data and did the same source have information about the distribution of child abusers?"
If this case, if the writer is honest, we would quickly find out that the cited reference was in a study of pedophiles as sufferers of a personality disorder. This is different than a study about the nature of child abuse and who does it. One is a study about a personality defect. The other is a study of abuse of a normal population. Both are valid and necessary.
Drawing conclusions from statistics that are valid in themselves, but which do not really support the conclusion, is standard fare in political campaigns. It works even better is the conclusions are seductively plausible. People who do not follow the standards of behavior we are taught as natural (God-given) must be the same as other people who also do not follow the normal standard of behavior. Add to this irrationality the desire to demonize people who are different (them vs. us), and you have an irrational, but seemingly plausible argument based on true statistics.
Although I understand this, it is still surprising to have intelligent people suggest that I am soft on child abuse because I point out an irrational argument. In fact, by trying to help clean up the arguments, I am actually helping their cause.
In response to the interest my original tutorial generated, I have completely rewritten and expanded it. Check out the tutorial availability through Lockergnome. The new version is over 100 pages long with chapters that alternate between discussion of the theoretical aspects and puzzles just for the fun of it. Puzzle lovers will be glad to know that I included an answers section that includes discussions as to why the answer is correct and how it was obtained. Most of the material has appeared in these columns, but some is new. Most of the discussions are expanded compared to what they were in the original column format.