He quotes the late Carl Sagan as observing: “We’ve arranged a global civilisation in which most crucial elements profoundly depend on science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster.” Fingertip falsehoods Why did revolutionary China consider the humble sparrow an "animal of capitalism", and what was the unintended consequence of their audacious plan to wipe them out? To take one persistent canard, it is true that jet fuel cannot melt steel beams. It is essentially kerosene, burning at approximately 815°C, whereas steel’s melting point is around 1,510°C. Yet, while 9/11 truthers clutch to this factlet with religious fervour, it simply highlights a profound misunderstanding of basic mechanics: steel rapidly loses its tensile strength with temperature. At 590°C, it diminishes to 50 per cent normal strength. At the temperatures in the Twin Towers, it would have decreased to roughly 10 per cent of normal. In this hellish crucible, the structure was simply too weakened to endure. This, coupled with the massive structural damage, was the catalyst that let floor collapse upon adjacent floor, an effect known as ‘pancaking’, the destruction multiplying with each level consumed. Steel didn’t have to melt to cause the tower’s demise – it merely had to fail, a finding constantly reiterated by engineers and professional bodies.

While outlandish, the logic is valid; accepting the premises means the conclusion follows. Clearly, valid logical syntax alone isn’t enough; for a deductive argument to be sound, the logic must be valid and the premises must be true. With these straightforward examples, it’s tempting to assume that gauging soundness is simple. Alas, this isn’t always the case – as with all things, the devil resides in the detail. Formal fallacies are rudimentary errors in the logical structure of an argument, which render that argument invalid. Some can be surprisingly opaque, embedded in cunning demagogic oratory. Let’s return to the scheming Pope Stephen’s argument against his deceased predecessor:

Customer reviews

In political and media discourse, debate is the long-accepted method of arbitrating the truth. However, “debate often rewards not the best arguments but the most devious orators”, Grimes argues. And few scientists are professionally or temperamentally equipped to battle in the public arena with media-savvy spoofers. The Irrational Ape skilfully interweaves anecdotes, contemporary examples and scientific studies to bring to life a diverse range of examples of 'uncritical thinking', proffering insights into both their causes and effects.

On the other hand, this disaggregation means that there is some duplication of information, given that many of the underlying causes and subsequent effects of these lapses of judgment overlap. In addition, the author could have been more tactful, by providing a greater balance of examples on the political spectrum. For example, the author focuses on the campaigns of misinformation commissioned by Russian state officials throughout history, and provides evidence that both the Brexit referendum and 2016 US Election were influenced by disruptive trolling influences. Yet, you can only find evidence that 'Western' forces, such as the US, employed similar tactics to destabilise countries such as Libya and Iran in a footnote. As such, whilst I do not believe it to be the author's intention, the book could be perceived as a political polemic. The conclusion here is inferred from a statement when there are no grounds to do so. There are myriad reasons an innocent person might not defend themselves. Perhaps they’re protecting someone or refusing to recognise a corrupt court. Perhaps they’re simply exceptionally dead, as was the case with Formosus. This logical fallacy is denying the antecedent, or the inverse error. Just because X implies Y (‘an innocent man would defend himself’), it is mistaken to assume the absence of X implies the absence of Y (‘Formosus did not defend himself, thus he is guilty’). Despite a superficial logical veneer, it is intrinsically flawed. Greek scholars demonstrated the perils of the inverse error in antiquity, but that hasn’t stopped it being dubiously employed in subsequent centuries by those who should know better, as Pope Stephen exemplified.I especially enjoyed Section II that contains a pretty comprehensive summary of logical and rhetorical fallacies: fallacy of the single cause, false dilemmas, post hoc ergo propter hoc ("after this, therefore because of this"), etc.

He then criticises this because of the scriptural argument's evident circularity. Yet the problem with his argument can be found by a consideration of his earlier section. This is a straw man argument. Paul was not talking about this letter when he said the scripture was inspired by God. He was writing instruction to Timothy, but he was not saying this line was true because it was true. Rather he was making a statement about why he believed all the scripture as would be understood by his reader (Timothy) was profitable for those things. What Grimes asserts is simply poor exegesis. He has not understood the argument in context before he has leapt to the application, and there are plenty of books on doing Biblical exegesis that make that exact point.

Formosus was eventually rehabilitated and re-interred in pontifical vestments, but this was not the end of his tribulations. Years later, the ruthless, lecherous Pope Sergius III overturned the pardons. Some sources state he even had the dead Formosus decapitated, just to be sure. The truth of this is hard to verify, but even by the high bar for viciousness set by some medieval popes, Sergius was especially notorious, described memorably by one contemporary as ‘a wretch, worthy of the rope and of fire’. This is not solely a logical fault. Research has consistently shown that conspiracy theories are a staple of both left and right fringe groups, deeply connected to the ideology of the believers – psychological aspects of which we’ll explore in subsequent chapters. 2 STRIPPED TO THE ABSURD There is no doubt that sufferers endure real distress but, despite their assertions that EMR is the cause of their woes, there is plenty of evidence that the illness is wholly psychosomatic. Perhaps the strongest evidence lies in provocation studies, where those with hypersensitivity are exposed to varying sources of EMR to provoke a reaction and gauge the response. In trials to date, sufferers have been entirely unable to distinguish between real and sham sources. Their reactions are consistent only with belief, with sham sources, possessing no viable EMR, triggering a reaction. Similarly, sufferers do not report symptoms where they are unaware they are being exposed to a real source of EMR. This result has been replicated in numerous trials, and the inescapable reality is that EHS has nothing to do with EMR, and everything to do with our curious psychology. The WHO report on EHS, while sympathetic, is unequivocally clear: “The symptoms are certainly real and can vary widely in their severity. Whatever its cause, EHS can be a disabling problem for the affected individual. EHS has no clear diagnostic criteria and there is no scientific basis to link EHS symptoms to EMR exposure.”

While I agree with the authors overarching lesson of not believing something just because of your preconceived beliefs, experiences because someone else says so, he continually tells us to follow the science, believe in the research, look at the facts. I find this quite hypocritical given that science, research and facts can also be wrong. Science evolves and we’re always learning. Just because there is no scientific evidence NOW, doesn’t mean there won’t be in the future. Just because science has proven something previously, doesn’t mean there won’t be new scientific discoveries in the future that make previous scientific evidence null and void. Our capacity to reason is the clearest hallmark of being human. We are reflective animals, blessed with metacognition to be aware of that fact. Each one of us wrestles with concepts both abstract and tangible, learning from the past and pre-empting the future. And underpinning it all is our ability to reason, a spark that illuminates even the darkest reaches. But for all the impressive feats of which our brain is capable, it isn’t an infallible machine and we frequently make mistakes both obvious and subtle. Psychologists Richard E. Nesbitt and Lee Ross remarked of this glaring contradiction that ‘one of philosophy’s oldest paradoxes is the apparent contradiction between the great triumphs and the dramatic failures of the human mind. The same organism that routinely solves inferential problems too subtle and complex for the mightiest computers often makes errors in the simplest of judgements about everyday events.’ As a way of avoiding dissonance and estrangement from valued groups, individuals subconsciously resist factual information that threatens their defining values. A lot of myths are debunked with solid science. Remember the concerns raised by some about mobile phones and cancer? Were this link true, we would expect to have seen a surge in brain cancer, matching the huge growth in use of phones in recent decades. But studies show it is not so. A lot of the misunderstanding was down to people not understanding what electromagnetic radiation (EMR) actually is and wrongly linking it to radioactivity.Formosus’s mutilated corpse was flung into the raging Tiber, retrieved by monks and briefly worshipped as miraculous by Roman citizens. The macabre spectacle became known as the Cadaver Synod or the Synodus Horrenda, turning public opinion against Stephen. ¹ Of course, Stephen wasn’t a complete idiot – the true motivation of the trial had been nakedly political. Skewed logic was merely used to justify the whole sordid affair, giving the appearance of reason to an episode devoid of any justice. Not that it helped Stephen in the long run; before summer 897 was over, he himself was imprisoned and strangled to death in his cell. The church later quietly disregarded the damnatio memoriae against Formosus as based more on politics than piety, wisely letting the whole ugly incident fade quietly with the fullness of time. But there is a fascinating lesson underpinning it all – how we can be misled by the illusion of reason. Humanity's real problem is that we have paleolithic emotions; medieval institutions; and god-like technology."