"I must be right because everyone is insisting I am wrong!"

[WordWolf]

Every once in a while, in society and here,  there's someone who engages in this specific fallacy.  "I must be right because I'm in the minority." "I must be right because lots of people keep insisting I'm wrong."  "If I wasn't right after all, people wouldn't be trying to say I'm wrong!" 

Since this comes up, I thought I'd give this its own thread.  It's a logical fallacy, which is not unknown among ex-twi, and this specific one is the private turf of the self-appointed experts, the self-proclaimed voices in the wilderness, the ones sure they are MORE right BECAUSE people refute them all the time.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/logical-take/202006/the-galileo-gambit-and-appealing-ignorance

The Galileo Gambit and Appealing to Ignorance

The fact that you are probably wrong, doesn’t mean you’re right.

 

When pseudo-scientists have been bested by the solid evidence and careful research of actual accredited experts (aka authorities on a subject), they will almost inevitably pull out this quote from Galileo:

"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual."

 

In their mind, they are like Galileo—the lone voice of reason, standing up for the truth against an onslaught of ignorant authorities. And this, more than anything else, in their minds, proves that they are right:

“The mainstream laughed at Galileo when he said the sun was the center of the solar system; that flew against conventional wisdom too, but that turned out to be right. So my theory is right too.”

 

But there’s a name for this: The Galileo Gambit—and it is a recognized and well-known fallacy.

The Galileo Gambit

The Galileo Gambit engages in many mistakes, but the main one is this: It’s a faulty analogy. The fact that two persons have one thing in common does not mean that they have everything in common—or even, another thing in common. Yes, the authorities thought Galileo was wrong, and they also think that you are wrong—but the fact that he turned out to be right doesn’t mean that you are. As Carl Sagan once put it:

 

“The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.”

And for every genius who bucked the system and turned out to be right, there are a thousand that bucked the system and turned out to be wrong. If you disagree with the experts, statistically speaking, you are much more likely to be one of the Bozos. And disregarding all the times those who disagreed with the authorities turned out to be wrong, makes one guilty of even more fallacious reasoning: confirmation bias, availability error, and denying the evidence.

 

Authority vs. Humble Reasoning

With that clearly laid out, one might wonder why Galileo said what he said. Why would he think that the findings of one lone person could overrule expert consensus? Well, is that really what he meant? Let’s look at that quote again, and concentrate on a couple of words.

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.

 

Notice that he doesn’t say a single person can override the informed consensus of experts. He said it can override the authority of many. But what authority would Galileo have been talking about? Who said he was wrong? It wasn’t scientists. It was the church! He's talking about religious authorities. So what he is saying is that a bunch of people claiming something on authority alone (i.e., without evidence, because of tradition, or “because the Bible says so”) is not worth much. It can be easily overridden.

 

What’s more, he’s not saying that the fact that one lone person merely disagreeing with the authorities is a good reason to think that one lone person is right. He is saying that a lone person’s humble reasoning is better than mere authority. Authority alone cannot outweigh the evidence of just one person who presents a good and careful scientific argument.

 

In the same way, however, he would undoubtedly agree that the humble reasoning of just one individual cannot outweigh the humble reasoning of 100, especially if they are all checking each other’s work for errors (i.e., peer review). Indeed — what could be less humble than thinking that you, alone, know better than all the experts who have dedicated their lives to studying a topic? So a lone genius can overturn the consensus if the consensus is just based on tradition, or authority, but not if that consensus was reached through the long arduous careful process known as the scientific method."

 

(For the curious, it's a good article, and it does continue.)

 

[Nathan_Jr]

Mmmph

[Mike]

There are some interesting variations on this, that can have validity at times:

I know I must be right, because so many known wrong people are objecting to my statements.

I know I must be striking a nerve, because so many are spending a lot of time and emotion trying to bury what I say.

[chockfull]

5 minutes ago, Mike said:

There are some interesting variations on this, that can have validity at times:

I know I must be right, because so many known wrong people are objecting to my statements.

I know I must be striking a nerve, because so many are spending a lot of time and emotion trying to bury what I say.

I know I must have confirmation bias because I keep telling myself I'm a genius.

[So_crates]

9 minutes ago, Mike said:

There are some interesting variations on this, that can have validity at times:

I know I must be right, because so many known wrong people are objecting to my statements.

Known wrong people? Known wrong by who?

9 minutes ago, Mike said:

 

I know I must be striking a nerve, because so many are spending a lot of time and emotion trying to bury what I say.

Is there a possibility that you're wrong and the time and effort you perceive as being spent to bury what's said is actually them attempting to correct the record and give a balanced view of the facts?

[Rocky]

18 minutes ago, Mike said:

There are some interesting variations on this, that can have validity at times:

I know I must be right, because so many known wrong people are objecting to my statements.

I know I must be striking a nerve, because so many are spending a lot of time and emotion trying to bury what I say.

No, they aren't valid. They are fallacious. IF a certain instance is at all possibly correct, it is NOT because of this.

[Nathan_Jr]

The easiest person to fool is yourself.

 

Beleeving that you know that you know that you know is a fool's errand.

 

Doubt is a virtue.

[BikerBabe]

Trust ... but verify!

[Mike]

2 minutes ago, Nathan_Jr said:

Beleeving that you know that you know that you know is a fool's errand.

 

Doubt is a virtue.

It seems to me there are only a very small number of things where we can "know to the third power" like that. I don't remember the exact context of that phrase in the class.  Do you?  Should we check?

Doubt can be a virtue when truth is being sought.  It filters out the false candidates, hopefully.  But once that sought truth is FOUND, then doubt is no longer a virtue.   

[Nathan_Jr]

The easiest person to fool is yourself.

Beleeef has no place where Truth is concerned.

[Nathan_Jr]

The one who claims to HAVE the Truth is surely the one who does not.

That which can be possessed is not Truth.

[Rocky]

19 minutes ago, Mike said:

Doubt can be a virtue when truth is being sought.  It filters out the false candidates, hopefully.  But once that sought truth is FOUND, then doubt is no longer a virtue.   

Oh? Which sage told you that?

Edited January 30, 2023 by Rocky

[WordWolf]

2 hours ago, Mike said:

There are some interesting variations on this, that can have validity at times:

I know I must be right, because so many known wrong people are objecting to my statements.

I know I must be striking a nerve, because so many are spending a lot of time and emotion trying to bury what I say.

"I know I must be right, because so many known wrong people are objecting to my statements."

Circular reasoning makes this one easy.

How do I know people are "wrong"?  They're disagreeing with what I "know" to be true.

So, since they disgree with me, they are wrong, and since "wrong" people are disagreeing with me, I am right."

"I know I must be striking a nerve, because so many are spending a lot of time and emotion trying to bury what I say."

"A lot of people seem annoyed at what I post, so it must 'strike a nerve.' "  "A lot of people are refuting what I say and disagreeing with me, so they must be spending a lot of time and emotion on what I say, which means I must strike a nerve."

Circular reasoning again, and making oneself look SO important, significant.....

[waysider]

If the devil doesn't like it he can sit on a tack.

[T-Bone]

2 hours ago, waysider said:

If the devil doesn't like it he can sit on a tack.

sorry to hear about the tack 

a shame that's the end for the tack

oh wait, there's hope - the tack survived and authored the Left Behind series

fame went to its head - at an awards ceremony it said "nailed it"

[T-Bone]

I wonder if some form of persecution complex is related to this topic...maybe as a way to justify why everyone says I am wrong.

A simple definition of persecution complex: an irrational and obsessive feeling or fear that one is the object of collective hostility or ill-treatment on the part of others.

What Are Delusions of Persecution? (webmd.com)

Persecutory delusion - Wikipedia

Persecution Complex - The Persecutory Delusions - Lots to Read

Strategies to Deal With Victim Mentality | Psychology Today

Persecutory Delusions: Examples, Causes, Diagnosis, and Treatment (healthline.com)

[Mike]

8 hours ago, Nathan_Jr said:

1 - The one who claims to HAVE the Truth is surely the one who does not.
2 - That which can be possessed is not Truth.

Do you "have" the truth regarding sentence #1?

Do you "possess" the truth regarding sentence #2?

[Mike]

8 hours ago, Rocky said:

Oh? Which sage told you that?

I have mentioned often that academia forbids finding the truth, and routinely mocked for it.

Yet, isn't this an example of what I decried?

 

[Mike]

7 hours ago, WordWolf said:

"I know I must be right, because so many known wrong people are objecting to my statements."

Circular reasoning makes this one easy.

How do I know people are "wrong"?  They're disagreeing with what I "know" to be true.

So, since they disgree with me, they are wrong, and since "wrong" people are disagreeing with me, I am right."

"I know I must be striking a nerve, because so many are spending a lot of time and emotion trying to bury what I say."

"A lot of people seem annoyed at what I post, so it must 'strike a nerve.' "  "A lot of people are refuting what I say and disagreeing with me, so they must be spending a lot of time and emotion on what I say, which means I must strike a nerve."

Circular reasoning again, and making oneself look SO important, significant.....

I was poking fun, not writing an Appendix of a logic book.

[chockfull]

4 minutes ago, Mike said:

I have mentioned often that academia forbids finding the truth, and routinely mocked for it.

Yet, isn't this an example of what I decried?

 

This is an example of the symptom…

 

[Mike]

9 minutes ago, chockfull said:

This is an example of the symptom…

 

There is a time for confirmation bias. 
It is AFTER something has past the tests of critical thinking.
(which is considered academically impossible)

Why is confirmation bias good at that time, after truth is discerned? 

To CONFIRM it! 

To make it more firm, and better able to withstand the attacks of the truth-hating academic world.

Every academic insists that error can be discerned.
But then they will blanch at the idea of truth being discerned.

[Bolshevik]

Personally, I use my soap box to get high on a horse when tilting a windmills.  

[waysider]

27 minutes ago, Mike said:

academia forbids finding the truth

[Mike]

7 minutes ago, waysider said:

 "academia forbids finding the truth = "

Well, at least Voltaire forbade it: 
"Doubt is uncomfortable, certainty is ridiculous."

I'd say certainty is being forbidden there, and we are goaded into accepting the discomfort of doubt. This happens over and over in academia.

[Nathan_Jr]

3 hours ago, Mike said:

Do you "have" the truth regarding sentence #1?

Do you "possess" the truth regarding sentence #2?

No.

You either understand or you don't.

 

#1 The one who claims to HAVE the Truth is surely the one who does not.

#2 That which can be possessed is not Truth.

 

I don't need you to beleeve me. I would that you don't beleeve anything at all. Either, know or don't, understand or don't. Be still. Watch. Find out.

Edited January 30, 2023 by Nathan_Jr
Clarity