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.
Well OK, you can fly to Canada from Milwaukee’s General Mitchell International Airport but that’s it.
When they were renaming it quite a few years back, I wrote a letter to the then Milwaukee Journal that they should just get it over with and call it, “General Mitchell Inter-Galactic Space Portal” But, for some reason my letter wasn’t published.
*** cough Anthropocene cough ***
despite the strong “blame humans” advocacy for it to be so named.
Sententia omnium verborum cardinis dependet.
I hope they’re not right and that my schoolboy Latin from the sixties comes close to “The meaning of all words depends on context.”
Every choice of one tense rather than another conveys significance that varies with the perspicuity of the speaker and the perspicacity of the listener.
It is increasing. (present continuous refers to the future). It has increased. (present perfect denotes the past).
Propter nomen may well apply to grand terms, especially jargon, that have spilled out of their domain and into the world at large, but accuracy is more abused by adverbs and conjunctions than extravagant titles given to spurious phenomena.
(please don’t require me to say that in Latin!)
Wittgenstein: “‘realist’, as used by philosophers, is more a boast than a discription”
As oppossed to proper names (John), which used to be descriptive (doloros), but become mere labels, any descriptive name contains an implicit truth claim. ( a common wallboard product is called “ez sand,” I think because it is not easy to sand.)
Natural language is essentially figurative and polysemous (every word has multiple meanings), but science (not Science!) requires a terminological ideal of language that purges terms of associative and conotative meanings such that one thing has but one word, and that one word means only that one thing. Any technical writing that is fat with associative and conotative language is suspicious as science. Although that is not the most suspicious thing about “climate science.”
How about canola oil? It is really rapeseed oil with a lower amount of erucic acid. It was invented in Canada (can), it is an oil (o), it is low acid (la), and that, ta da. equals: canola. Quite a clever marketing trick.
This ‘propter nomen’ relates to something I’ve long thought of as “magical” thinking, where the language used about something alters the perception of the something. Now I have a term that won’t put off my hard-sci and hard-sci-fi friends. 😉
As an example? How about Domino’s “certified carbon-free” sugar? No sh*t — just search the phrase.
The idea that our language guides–or misguides–our thinking is known among linguists as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. It’s had a long history, and in its strongest form is pretty much debunked. However, in weaker forms–where particular words, rather than the argument, guide you towards a belief–it’s pretty much accepted, I would say. George Lakoff has been a big proponent of this, and while I think he goes off the deep end, he does make some points. E.g. the Republican term “tax relief” uses a metaphor where taxes are presupposed to be bad; a contrary metaphor would treat taxes as a membership fee. (Warning: if you’re a Republican, you’ll find Lakoff almost as infuriating as Noam Chomsky. Just try to separate his ideas about language from his ideas about politics.)
Please ask Mr. Lakoff about the difference between voluntary association and naked force.
I’m not saying anything about which metaphor is right, and all metaphors break down at some point. I’m just saying that the choice of words/ metaphor to make one side or the other of an argument appear right has a long history in linguistics, and indeed outside of linguistics. If you prefer a more right wing statement of the same thing, you might try S.I. Hayakawa. Other recent examples of the same thing are the right to life vs. pro choice, and network freedom.
I probably would separate Lakoff’s ideas about language (I have a bit of the philology bug) if he kept them separate from politics. Once he stepped into the political arena to use them as a weapon, the rules change. When you have diametrically opposed premises in an argument, I think both premises can’t be true for the same conditions; though both can be false (to get back to the subject of formal predicate logic).
Very nice, Kip, and well spotted.
My vote for the “propter nomen” error is the term “natural variations”. This term is merely camouflage to avoid saying “we don’t know”. I mean, it’s much more sciencey to say something like “Ten percent of the warming is from black carbon, and the rest is natural variation” rather than to say “Ten percent of the warming is from black carbon, and we don’t have a clue what causes the rest”.
w.
once again we agree
The problem with this is we do not know the extent of what “natural variability” is, do we? No baseline for climate variability. This shark was jumped by the alarmist contingent.
Life Insurance
Islamic State
Gay
British National Party
General Communications Head Quarters
Carbon Neutral Building
“Progressive”…
Although not climate related, one rather (in)famous example of “propter nomen” is the communist “Bolshevik Party”. While still small and nationally very much in the minority, they named themselves the “Bolshevik Party”, i.e., the “Majority Party”. What wonderful publicity to have every newspaper refer to you as the “majority party!
In astronomy, the terms “dark matter” and “dark energy” refer to the quantified gap between observation and standard theory. But most researchers pursue these issues in the vein of matter & energy, very likely because of those terms. So I say “caveat nomen” to that.
Hi,
The best example I know of is the term “unbiased estimator” from Fisherian statistics. When I was young and less experienced in math and critical thinking, I accepted this as something good and sound. Although we have a precise mathematical definition, the name itself is very suggesting and who wants to be biased? Today I reject the definition as a good scientific definition.
Since we are talking statistics, I guess “statistically significant” is THE most damaging terms of all time for science.
Regards
Thorsten Ottosen, Ph.D., Director of Research, Dezide
Hi,
The best example I know of is the term “unbiased estimator” from Fisherian statistics. When I was young and less experienced in math and critical thinking, I accepted this as something good and sound. Although we have a precise mathematical definition, the name itself is very suggesting and who wants to be biased? Today I reject the definition as a good scientific definition.
Since we are talking statistics, I guess “statistically significant” is THE most damaging terms of all time for science.
Regards
Thorsten Ottosen, Ph.D., Director of Research, Dezide
Hm, interesting observation. It’s a case where both ends are clear — things with probability zero are definitely statistically insignificant and things with probability unity are definitely statistically significant — but in between? No clear statistically significant meaning…
. That way, every three decibels is a halving of probability (down from unity/certainty at 
). The probability of the existence of pink unicorns as an undiscovered species here on Earth is a huge number even in decibels given the evidence. The probability that a penny, released from rest over a table, will fall to the table is a very, very small number in decibels — essentially unity. If one avoids attaching any particular cut-off to this concept, it can be quite useful. The point isn’t that some threshold is suddenly “significant”, it is that it represents a process, and knowledge requires a pretty steady motion of 
towards 0 or infinity as one accumulates evidence in addition to a value that is at least “really big” or “really small”. In between all one can really conclude is “wait and see”, or “answer cloudy, try again later” (my favorite from the good old 8-ball:-).
I run into this one in the context of p-values in hypothesis testing (testing random number generators) all the time. One of the most boneheaded rules of all time is the implementation of p = 0.05 as either an accept or reject threshold for a hypothesis. Really? Nineteen to one odds is your threshold for certainty or uncertainty? No wonder it is so easy to slip terrible results in medicine, especially, through a data dredge.
So I agree, but at the same time, the term definitely has asymptotic meaning.
One suggestion of E. T. Jaynes that I favor when addressing science in particular is to map this into a log (e.g. log likelihood) representation and present it in decibels as something like
rgb
I think another term for Propter nomen or using a name to create an idea that has nothing or little to do with the entity being described, is propaganda.
Propaganda does not need to be logical, fallacies from the small to the grand are the tools of its trade, and the primary purpose is to persuade in order to gain power.
Climate science left the pure science sector to gain power in the public sector using propaganda. If the IPCC reports are not examples of this, I do not know what is. The Synthesis report??? Really???
“Bitcoin mining”
“Marriage Equality”
“Spending cut”
“Women’s Health”
“Access to Health Care”
Politically, you can bias a debate by the names attached to groups, things, or concepts (name something ‘radical’ the radical right in the US promotes. The party of the status quo would be closer to the truth).
In science, learning a term is too often a substitute for understanding a concept. Ask a student (and far too many grads) why a large collapsing body gets hotter, and you will almost always get the answer, “gravitational collapse”. That doesn’t explain WHY, it’s simply a term, and you will elicit blank stares if you ask them the mechanism behind gravitational collapse producing increased temperatures. The same is true with why hurricanes in th N. hemisphere have counter-clockwise winds. The coriolis effect! Great, you know the term. Now explain it…..
I think it was Isaac Asimov who wrote that you could be able to identify by name every bird, yet know no science. What we call things in our language is just a short-cut in communication. Unless you understand the subject behind the name, you know nothing, and if you understand the subject behind the name, what you call it is immaterial except for clear communication.
My favorite is “Save the Planet”. It tells you there is something the planet needs to be saved from and that you are able to effect the saving. You become a hero. It is a phrase that as it all.
Just as gun-grabbers invented the convenient neologism lie of “assault weapon”, so have CACA advocates abused “climate change” as a thought-stifling replacement for what they really should say, ie “catastrophic man-made global warming”, but don’t want to do so, since real climate change isn’t man-made, isn’t catastrophic & for going on 20 years hasn’t been warming.
Thanks, Kip Hansen. It is high time we start minding about the discourse, not just the facts. Words are what thoughts are made of.
Tamino’s Open Mind
+10
An example.
In the early days of model railroading there was a standard gauge for larger trains. (I forget the width.)
In 1906 or ’07 Lionel came out with a gauge close to that but different. (2 1/8 width)
He named it “Standard Gauge”.
Think about it in terms of pre-plate tectonics geology. It’s not just names that imply meanings that aren’t necessarily accurate portrayals of reality but also just the naming of something implies an extent of understanding. Stuff were named and characterized (like shield volcanoes vs. stratovolcanoes) such that they could be discussed as if we understood them. We didn’t really understand what was going on but since they were named and characterized the illusion of understanding was created. I wonder how much in climate science will turn out to be like this in the end.
Another example.
Here in the US government handouts are called “Entitlements”.