Guest Essay by Kip Hansen
In the current round of discussion over at Climate Dialogue, which is about the effects of the Sun on Earth’s climate, one of the participants, Dr. Mike Lockwood, in his essay “The sun plays only a very minor role”, lists the following item as one of seven fundamental considerations which are often overlooked in discussions of climate issues:
“7. Logic based on the name given to a phenomenon, interval or feature is bad science, because the name is often inadequate and misleading.”
— Mike Lockwood
Dr. Lockwood later gives a specific instance saying “The ‘Little Ice Age’ — I dislike this name as it has been used to build arguments that rely on the name which, as mentioned in point 7, is inherently bad science.”
His point 7 struck me as much more widely true and as a logical fallacy or error in critical thinking of which I was aware, and which I would often call out in discussions as invalid logic, but not quite in that finished sense.
Presuming much more learning and authority than I have, I suggest in the title of this essay a proper Latin name which might be used for this error: Propter nomen with a casual translation of “Because of the name”.
We could restate Dr. Lockwood’s consideration this way:
“Propter nomen: A logical argument in which the assumption of truth or logical validity is based on the name or title of a thing. Such logical assumption, based on the literal name or title given to a thing, is fallacious, because the name or title itself may be false, self-serving, inadequate and/or misleading.”
This informal logical fallacy can lead to, depend on or contribute to other logical fallacies: take the World Bank whose name appeals to authority (which grants itself, by name, worldwide authority in financial matters — which it does not have) or the self-serving organizational name Center for Science in the Public Interest which, by name, claims appeals to the scientific authority of “science” and assures us that their efforts are “in the public interest”. (CSPI is really a Washington lobbying organization, not necessarily made up of scientists, sometimes called “The Food Police”, infamous for being nearly always scientifically wrong about the issues it lobbies for, thus almost never acting in the real public interest). If we were to base our logic on the names of either of these organizations, we might think that the World Bank must be honorable, well-meaning and in charge of world finances or that CSPI was certainly operating in our best interest out of concern for us poor benighted ignoramuses. Then we have the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project and its products which some people use while literally accepting the acronym as fact, Propter nomen — “because of the name”.
How many studies and news articles have we seen in which the authors claim that such and such a local or regional phenomenon is caused by Global Warming? — without any data in the study about the temperature record in the region or at the locale under consideration — assuming that since Global Warming is named “Global” Warming, that such data is not needed…after all, the whole globe is warming — it’s right there in the name.
We often see this with Global Mean Temperature. Giving this data set such a name is not the same as it actually being global or the mean or the temperature. It is not meant to be the temperature of the globe itself as a three-dimensional object. It is not strictly a mean but could be seen as “an average of averages of averages”. It does not literally represent an average (mean) of Earth temperatures at any given time. Thus, when some specific phenomena is listed as caused by an increase in Global Mean Temperature, it is nearly invariable false. Propter nomen — fallacious logical assumption that Global Mean Temperature is actually literally as named, thus, like Global Warming, if it is rising, it must be affecting all things everywhere on the globe.
We have seen in the main stream media, and especially in the environmental media, articles which refer to “the 6th mass extinction” or “current ongoing mass extinction” which is fallaciously granted power and magnitude by its name alone — even though it is apparent, based on data from the IUCN, that it is not only not ongoing, it is not great and there is no mass extinction (nor has there been any in the 19th, 20th or 21st centuries). The IUCN Red List has as “extinct” only 828 plants and animals since records began to be kept, the vast majority of these occurring on islands and other isolated niche micro-environments: island extinctions almost invariably caused by arrival of rats, cats, dogs and pigs brought by sailors and colonists. The Red List has not yet been updated for the re-discovery of Rhachistia aldabrae — the Aldabra Banded Snail — so there are only 827 correct listings. Many of these articles start with “the 6th Mass Extinction” as a given, assumed true because of its name, and go on to build a logical house of cards from there. Propter nomen — you can’t create something just by giving it a name — the name does not grant actual existence nor physical (moral, natural, chemical or any other kind of) properties to the thing — to assert or assume so is a logical fallacy, an error in critical thinking.
Yes, I know that there are real, scientific definitions of Global Warming and GMT and that it is possible if one searches long and hard in the literature, one could find out exactly what is really meant — but there are many different data sets, all calculated differently resulting in different values and often based on different definitions — and yet still called by the same, sometimes misleading, names. Sometimes the names or titles themselves are mistakenly believed to be literally true and used as the basis for logical argument — Propter nomen.
I have no wish to argue or discuss Global Warming or to complain about the commonly used names of climate science things, everything must have a simple common name if we are to refer to it often in speech or text — this is about Logic and Critical Thinking — the error of assuming in a logical argument that the Name or Title of a thing grants it existence or properties, literally as named.
I would like to read your experiences in which Propter nomen has raised its head in providing a false logical step or false basis to a logical argument. Do you think that such an error in logic or critical thinking really exists? Would you like to supply a better definition?
# # # # #
Author’s Reply Policy: This essay is not about Global Warming, Anthropogenic Global Warming, Global Cooling, the effects of the Sun on Earth’s Climate, proper scientific calculation of Global Mean Surface Temperatures or any of that boring stuff. This is an idea about a newly defined (maybe — it might be on someone’s list somewhere) Informal Logical Fallacy or maybe just an Error in Critical Thinking. It is meant to be interesting, informative and fun. I’d like to read your examples and ideas. I’ll reply as I can as my wife and I are on the move again.
Oh did anyone mention greenhouse effect.
It’s not about the effect of a greenhouse.
It’s not about being green and there is no house involved.
Nor has the effect shown itself in last 18 years.
At least, the Little Ice age was cold.
Great essay. Thanks.
The notably large number of papers, organizations, meetings and jobs that exist to market so-called “climate change” is, for me. an indicator of how unserious and unsure the climate concerned actually are about the reality of their obsession. Evolution has not had to be renamed or re-branded and evolution is controversial, but the science is strong. Quantum physics was controversial and is difficult for the public to understand. But the science is strong. Climate science has a whole sub industry devoted to selling it to the public and to policy makers. An expensive well funded one.
One other point. I believe that Lockwood has actually inverted the definition of propter nomen. Or am I missing something?
How about ‘The World Series’ for that stupid game that no one else plays except north Americans. They may as well call the winners ‘Champions of the Galaxy’.
As stated earlier in this thread, “World” refers to a name of the a newspaper that sponsored the series. You may also want to note that baseball is very popular in Japan, so unless Japan has floated over to North America you are wrong again.
Unless of course snopes.com is correct. Calling it the “World” Series couldbe interpreted as meaning a competition between the world’s two best baseball teams, which of course would be American teams at the time. Sort of, but not quite like brand new temperature stations recording record-high temperatures (simply because there never existed any previously-recorded temperatures for that location).
Everybody has it wrong. I have it on good authority(Al’s) that the correct name is the World Serious.
==============
In the UK “world” is used to describe darts and snooker championships. However in these cases everyone knows and accepts that this is Propter Nomen. And that its a joke – a sort of self parody. Its called irony. Americans generally use irony rather less. In labeling a baseball “World Series” – despite historic origins with a newspaper, there is more of a sense of earnestly willing the propter nomen to be true – as evidened by comments here about Japan, forced to play baseball at the barrel of a gun after WW2.
“. . . forced to play baseball at the barrel of a gun after WW2.”
Not really–baseball was popular there before the war. The Yankees toured the country in the thirties. Their catcher spied on Japan–there was a book about his exploits.
Why think small, when Universe is equally true?
Don’t try selling that to the Japanese… they’re more fanatical about baseball than most Americans.
Yes, like all those nobodies in Japan, Mexico, Cuba, Taiwan, Puerto Rico, Dominican Republic, Korea, among others.
This is really all about marketing, period, and I don’t understand the point of the essay.
Naming something has ALWAYS been all about marketing to some degree or another, so how is this news to someone?…anyone?…Beuhler?
When they start doing real science, we can start worrying about whether or not they named something correctly. This is arguing over how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.
In the public mind, a label that is useful and descriptively adequate may indeed be mistaken for an explanation. My candidate: “punctuated equilibrium.”
This is really an interesting essay and thread. I believe that the “propter nomen fallacy asas illustrated by Lockwood is part of the well recognized fallacy of “Euphemism”
Euphemism
This fallacy involves the use of a different word for a word we wish to avoid using, yet still containing the SAME meaning that we need to transmit. This is done to purposely obscure or confuse the reader to the true motives of the arguer, to make the reader or listener believe one desires to commit to one action when one really is favoring the opposite, or merely avoid making embarrassing admissions outright. In some cases the motivation is merely to aesthetically please – such as calling a toilet the ‘necessarium’ in front of the hoity-toity. The worst misuses of euphemisms may occur to people unaware that they are in fact using it – self delusion.
Here is an infamous example of a euphemism being used to avoid making an embarrassing admission: One commits a crime by failing to comply with a law, so Dinkins is using a euphemism. This allows him to avoid the politically embarrassing situation of admitting in public that he is a law breaker, it not only fails, it also serves to show him as a cowardly liar.
It is no coincidence that I have chosen to use a politician as an example of euphemisms, for they are the worst offenders of this brand of fallacy – watch for how our government works. (I.e. – The Korean Conflict instead of War). For example, consider:
Republicans create new policies – Clinton Flip Flops. Clinton was a pothead – George W. Bush had a ‘substance abuse problem’. Clinton has affairs – Henry Hide had a youthful indiscretion (in his 40s). Clinton raises taxes – Reagan ‘enhanced government revenues’.
Lastly, consider the following three step transitions from good connotation to bad connotation, while all the words used have the same denotation. This method best explains the range of possible word choice when speaking about the very same phenomena:
I am firm; you are obstinate; he is a pigheaded fool. I have reconsidered it; you have changed your mind; he is going back on his word. I failed to comply with the law; you committed a crime; he is a felonious social deviant.
Warning Catchphrase to look for: The solution to uncovering this fallacy is simple in theory, but difficult in practice – as a logician you must ask the meaning of terms when you are unsure of them. If some military figure tells you that there will be a ‘predawn vertical insertion’ find out what the crap this means. (It means armed troops are going to parachute into some hostile country, and start killing poor bastards – but they don’t want to tell you it that way…) Don’t just pretend to be smart, ask and BE smart. If the military figure reveals that there has been some ‘friendly collateral damage’, be honest with yourself and say to him ‘what the hell is friendly damage, buddy?!’ You’ll find out that it means that innocent bystanders were killed during a battle or a bombing mission. Again, the military guy ain’t too pleased to tell you this. Asking someone what they mean takes on the risk of ‘looking dumb’ but remember, that is the very thought process being taken | advantage of in a euphemism! When Reagan looked America in the eye and spoke of revenue enhancements, he knew the average Republican voter had no idea what he meant, and that none of them would risk admitting ignorance to find out. That’s how people trick you – by using your own hang-ups against you! Note: The opposite of Euphemism is ‘dysphemism’, which is the act of replacing a favorable term with a nasty, unfavorable term. ”
http://editthis.info/logic/Informal_Fallacies#Fallacy_of_Composition
Lockwood is trying to change old well established and useful names like “Little Ice Age” because they do not serve his goal of selling the idea that we are experiencing something unique and dangerous, like ‘climate change’ which is of course a euphemism for something that is not happening, ‘global warming’.
From Wikipedia. “Prior to his marriage, Bush had multiple episodes of alcohol abuse.” and “(Clinton) was impeached for perjury before a grand jury and obstruction of justice during a lawsuit against him, both related to a scandal involving a White House intern.”
a) didn’t we all?
b) I think the pothead accusation was said because he denied ever smoking marijuana although he claims to never have really denied it. The “didn’t inhale” was a joke http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2518382/I-didnt-say-I-holier-thou-Bill-Clinton-claims-denied-smoking-marijuana.html
c) Your implied bias by one side of politics is not real.
“Science”, when those who are using the word are merely appealing to authority. Science has no authority; it is just a way to discover truth. However, because it has proven to be a very successful way to separate truth from fiction, especially for natural phenomenon, the less informed (like the media) elevate its practice to the infallible state of authority and then proceed to invoke it in areas in which science cannot possibly be used to get at the truth.
jimmaine above said: “This is really all about marketing, period, and I don’t understand the point of the essay.” and I tend to agree.
And that brings to mind that as long as the AGWite side can keep everyone so focused on only Earth’s atmosphere and opposed to Earth’s atmosphere in relation to the science and physics of *all* atmospheres, I’m sorry, they have you bound, captured and enslaved, in your minds.
There are some global relationships the AGWites absolutely do not want you to ever realize. These come from other branches of science.
If you would just sit in to some statistical mechanics courses you should become aware that all gravitationally attracted bodies in motion above a gravity well have an inherent negative heat capacity component. It’s true. If these ‘orbiting’ particles are not interacting in any meaningful manner like a billion non-colliding satellites about an airless Earth then when you add energy to such a system the conglomerate of bodies cool. That is, they move away from the gravity well and slow so their characteristic temperature is lowered. But if there is interaction like the atmosphere’s molecules there is introduced a fraction that have components in the vertical z axis which are no longer to be considered in this negative heat capacity phenomena so you should end up with an imprint factor to be something like 1-0.333, or 2/3. Think on that. Not sure if that factor is correct but both the virial theorem and the vis-viva equation say that some factor does exist there in all atmospheres.
There is another hidden fact they never raise, best you not even know about.
Take Venus’s atmosphere, it is about 739 K at the surface so the l.w. radiative power found there is about 16,900 W/m². Why does not that power express itself at the top of the atmosphere ready to exit to space, where the outgoing long wave radiation (OLR) is only measured to be about 160 W/m²? Well, there is about 1,080,000 kilograms/m² (per NASA fact sheet) that this i.r. radiation has to transverse upward and it is attenuated at a rate of about 0.0155 W/m²/kg. Multiply and subtract from the total power at the surface and you will find the remnants of the 160 W/m² OLR expressed at the top.
Now take Earth, our column mass is about 10300 kg/m². Our surface at about 396 W/m² so 10300 kg times the same 0.0155 W/m²/kg mass attenuation leaves our OLR here on Earth to be, yep, about 237 W/m². Maybe we are twin planets, one is just more that a little overweight. 😉
Myself, this explains worlds of why our atmosphere system is so darn stable and also why such tiny factions of carbon added between two oxygen atoms is not going to make any dent in our climate anywhere on this planet barring an asteroid stripping part of the atmosphere away or a solar flare-up or cool-down.
It is thoughts like this, that has taken me six years to uncover, that we should really be investigating. I have more inconvenient factors, but I have also found that usually all I that just wrote will be wadded up and tossed trivially in the trash and I can never understand that. Now tell me who really has an ‘agenda’ in this discussion? Or, maybe it just that everyone here is actually quite science illiterate though they don’t really understand that to be so. They know a lot of science terms, concepts and simple equations and relationships and can definitely toss them about in such discussion sessions but never stop to really learn enough to look down into the core of such matters.
Like I said…it’s all just marketing. Always has been, always will be.
Any object or concept (especially in a specialist profession), must have an unambiguous name. It’s not uncommon for several different ones being tried but when a particularly apt one is found, it sticks. It’s Darwinian like that.
However, when a word is used which clearly doesn’t describe the thing, it usually means there is deliberate deception being practised.
eg. When you see a country named The People’s Democratic Republic of X, it nearly always means it’s not run for the people, isn’t democratic and is a thinly disguised dictatorship.
Pointman
So in essence “propter nomen” is indicative of oxymoron in practice. Not like “military intelligence”, or “hot ice”, but as “Sisters of mercy” rock band.
Nice 🙂
Pravda. Nuff said.
”propter nomen”—-How about ”Greenhouse Gas”? Whoever named any gas one has no clue as to the workings of a real greenhouse. Since a greenhouse works by removing convection from the inside how can any gas in an open atmosphere stop convection???
Nor do they have a working knowledge about the behavior and properties of gases.
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”
Perceptions due to the name of something is quite common in politics. How many communist dictatorships contain the words Democratic or Republic in them. None of them being democratic nor a republic?
Sometimes you can almost see the extent of the thought process exerted to come up with a name or acronym that is useful to the proponents.
It’s why the Alarmists keep changing the language. It’s why liberal progressives and other socialist and populace controlling ideologies spend so much time and effort on redefining language.
I tell as many folks as I can to stop using the language of your opponents. When you do, you’ve lost half the battle.
They first impression last the longest and that’s what’s being done here.
They “say” first impressions last the longest
The reason that I like this article is that it at least makes you think about words.
The phrase “climate change” no longer means anything to me but it is much used
by the younger generation and always as something to be worried about.
When I ask them what they mean, they invariably look as me with some amusement
implying that I should know.
I also have a “B” in my bonnet about the cronic overuse of the word “nice” which I
maintain contains no information because whenever it is used in my presence, I
always ask, but what was it like.
It’s capital C Climate Change, that’s supposed to mean CAGW. Like capital Native American has a different meaning that lower case native american.
“… name or title itself may be false, self-serving, inadequate and/or misleading.”
Ex-BBC environment correspondent Richard Black’s ‘Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit’ fits all four categories perfectly. Quite a ‘distinguished’ Advisory Board too, including:
– the Bishop of London
– Dr Emily Shuckburgh
– Lord Oxburgh
– Sir Crispin Tickell
plus the near obligatory former WWF media relations careerist as team member.
Birds of a feather the lot of them.
The biggest ones of all in the Warmist dictionary of course is “Climate Change” and “Climate Disruption” being used instead of AGW.
Bending the use of Climate Change to become a catch all and Climate “Disruption” to mean anything mildly unusual weather event.
Shouldn’t it be “ocean de-basicfication?”
Great, now you want all the bass in the sea to go extinct… cretin. </sarc>
Oh, & I just realized “skepticalscience.com” which is in reality, neither. .com = $$$$$
Good argument, but I think it misses the point.
The kind of name this discusses is where it is used as an attempt to summarise the properties of the “thing” being named. It is inevitable that any such name is going to be inaccurate and will be ambiguous. Removing ambiguity means making names or definitions longer. Would you prefer “global warming” or “Rise in the anomaly in the mean of the mean daily temperature of the atmosphere measured at random points throughout the globe at approximately 2 metres from the surface of the earth earth, sea or ice and adjusted blah for blah blah…”
The point is not that the name misleads but that the namer intended to mislead. Intention is the whole point. If the intention of “World Bank” was part of a hubristic plan to replace or govern all the other national central banks then that is bad. If it was simply shorthand for a bank that operates around the world, then that is not so bad.
Most of the time I suspect the problem is that names are hi-jacked and used for something that was not originally intended by the original namer.
This problem can be partly avoided by using a meaningless name, a random collection of letters making a sound that is used as a unique identifier of a “thing” without attempting to define it. For instance “Prius” is used as the identifier of a brand of car. As far as I know it has no actual meaning in any language. In fact marketing companies go out of their way to pick names that mean nothing in any language so as to avoid causing offence or derision. You can then attach a long winded written definition to the name if you wish, or send a glossy brochure with full specifications and price list, or a set of charts or however is most appropriate.
Maybe we should call “Global Warming” a meaningless name, “Flubbit” perhaps or, as it is a process rather than a thing, perhaps “Flubbitation” is more appropriate?
Yeah, I know, Flubbit probably means testicles in Serbo-Croat, but you get my point.
Extreme weather
gotta love the German language with it regular use of compound words.
Rechtsschutzversicherungsgesellschaften – auto liability insurance as one word.
Danny Kay. Master of Languages. I do believe he may have said that word in the movie The Court Jester. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTSp-ex5zpg
Interesting idea, but I like solutions rather than problems 😉 If this becomes a generally used logical fallacy then written and verbal debate is pretty will defunct without agreeing a complete glossary up front. In most cases it’s not usually a problem because both sides usually have a common intent to gain clarity. In fields that propagandise the intent is reversed.
And I prefer to call it the tweedledum fallacy (words mean exactly what I want them to mean.) In discussions I often have to refer people back to the dictionary of their choice.
Pesadia: it’s a ‘bee’ in your bonnet that annoys you 😉
And I was taught that the only proper use of nice was to describe a distinction. Capitalised it is a town in France or a biscuit.
1 – I do hope Christopher Monckton chimes in here.
2 – Controlling vocabulary is a well known and standard tool of propaganda.
controlling vocabulary or trying to control it is one of the core regulatory functions of all social groups.
True, but very much a surprise to hear it from you. AKA “groupthink” and “groupspeak” one can see it on this and other blogs and wherever a rah rah consensus of the like minded arises.
What do we do about it?
gymnosperm – Some Ideas:
1) Welcome alternative views and debate them without guessing they are from trolls or children. Some people just disagree.
2) Don’t all pile in with “I agree” . Congratulate wittiness, original thought or a very good research but not just the yeah yeah yeahs..
3) Accept that some people may agree on some things and disagree on others. The Solar threads and Carbon cycle threads are most fun because that happens. Politics, not so much.
4) Occasionally stand up and oppose the orthodoxy if you see any merit in doing so. It is easy to be cowardly and let the debate die into group smugness..
5) Broaden the reach of the blog. If it is only Texan Republicans reading then you have a problem. If it’s only Brighton Greens then you have a problem. A global perspective can provide different approaches to the same questions.
Just off the top of my head.
Mmmm.
Reasonableness
Community
Discourse
Conversation
Acceptance
Assumption