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.
“Propter nomen”- “Proper name” (accurate naming)
propter nomen – proper noun
My understanding in regard to “propter nomen” and the example of LIA :
“ice age is not a “proper name”, Ice Age is a “proper name” and so is the LIA (the Little Ice Age)
Sun funny enough does not make it as a proper name, just a proper noun at best, I think.
Also funny enough LIA seems to be good enough as a proper noun, a very rare, unike case, as far as I can tell, in climatology.
To my understanding, in climatology, the most “proper name” is LIA, you can’t get confused at what it means and what value of expression and description it carries.
The extention of the general term “ice age” is what the ice ages can be used to refer to, it is what the definition expresses. If you know about ice ages you have no problem with the LIA as its very essential characteristic the short term period, corresponds to the very clear description, the Little ( the Little-ice age).
Even the term Ice Age is not such a clear cut, people still get confused while in the argument about the Ice Age.
Most of the other “proper name” in climatologic terminology are not so descriptive and clear as LIA.”
—
I don’t know, probably I am wrong with my understanding of all this, …..hopefully some one may clarify it for me if that’s the case.
I am sure that many out there have mixed feelings about LIA, some probably don’t like even the sound of it and hate it….but I am sure that all concearned in the matter know well enoughh and are very clear and can’t be confused at what LIA is….funny enough there is never any much arguing about it, unless while the argument is about the worthiness of that information and knowledge about and related to LIA.
How good and easy for some if LIA did not even exist…..and erasing the “nomen” is the first step to erase it off the argument and the climatology debate, or at least destroy its real proper accumulated academic value.
I don’t know…..perverse, maybe- maybe not….immoral, maybe- maybe not……..devious, maybe- maybe not……stupid, in this one the only thing I can say is “of course, no doubt ”
Really sorry I can’t see it any other way
Once upon a time, this same kinda of creed tried to destroy the academic and scientific value of the Darwin’s “The Origin of Species” under similar methods, the “propter nomen” argument about the word Species.
To me, a serious and a heavy debate and argumenting in the terms of “propter nomen” as a valuation in some matter, is no any better than the moral lecturing given by a prostitute…….ah sorry..again to harsh with my expression of thought…but again that’s the way I see it.
cheers
Minor nitpick – Latin “propter” means “due to” or “on account of”, NOT “proper”. Latin for English “proper” or “correct” is “rectus.”
Global Warming could be described as a name emerging from the rectum though…
sirra
November 7, 2014 at 10:33 pm
Thanks for the reply.
As you say “propter” means “due to” or “on account of” or perhaps I would add “in favour of”, or my favorite one; “depending on”,….. but my problem is that I do see the English “proper” meaning the same thing (“pro-per”) as a word or a concept.
Even while “proper” and “correct” in the English may be similar,….. in constract as words these two words are not the same. While “correct” is “rectus” I don’t think “proper” is “rectus” …seems to me that “proper” more like “propter”, …only a “t” has dropped there. :-).
To me the difference between “propter” to “rectus” is as same as the difference between “proper” to “correct’
To me that difference can be portrayed as in the case of the “relative” and “absolute” estimation or evaluation………………
The “propter” (load) is a relative estimation, a “due to” one, and so it seems the case for the English “proper” (“due-to” or “pro-per”)…and
The “rectus” (load) is an absolute estimation or evaluation and so it seem the case for the English “correct”.
Now, whatever I have said in this reply to you may be not proper or correct, please do take it as a simple funny argument…..but I still looking forward to any other “rectus to rectum” argumentum..:-)
thanks again.
cheers
I assumed that this was intentional. As an analogue of post hoc, ergo propter hoc this does make sense. I believe that the translation would be that it is an informal fallacy to ascribe a truth value to some assertion in an argument on account of the (or a) name. Hence my assertion that it is clearly a variant of the existing referential fallacy, but one worthy of independent mention because it embraces a whole range of other fallacies formal and informal in context — begging the question (which is also precisely what it is when one discusses Anthropogenic Global Warming because using the term at all in most discussions begs the question of whether or not the referent exists!), special pleading (galore), Jaynes’ mind projection fallacy (which is another thing that it often is in its entirety). It’s a blanket term describing a particular use of several fallacies in the context of creating a name that is deceptive in that there is no certain or agreed on referent in reality corresponding to the name.
This concept is not new. I would remind people of the term “stereotype”. In some deep sense, the use of stereotypes is often the commission of the propter nomen fallacy. It is a false generalization — but because of the name. Worldly Oriental Gentlemen (wog). Heathen. Heresy. To name someone a Heretic was at one time a death sentence, and yet it was almost impossible to defend against the accusation because by the time the name was given, no one dared to argue against it because argument defending Heresy was Heresy! Powerful name! Child Pornographer (or Child Molester) has almost equal force now when applied against a sharp age cutoff, as if one single day divides a life-shattering felony from something we merely frown upon but that is completely legal, or applied without regard to the mutual relative ages of the participants.
The problem with all of these things is that the use of the name itself eliminates by substitution for any application of human judgement. By using the name while arguing against it you grant it conceptual force. The entire concept of the Politically Incorrect, which has gained such social force that it threatens the entire live comedy industry and has shattered careers in star chambers everywhere is substantially Propter Nomen, even where in many cases the underlying arguments, if made without the benefit of the name, would still stand. Why is the name needed, then, in the other cases? When did political correctness become a form of common law, where anyone with a grudge can make an accusation of political incorrectness in any of a dozen contexts and stifle free speech and humor?
As nothing more than a warning to remain on one’s guard, it is useful. It’s a further warning to try not to let opponents control the language of a debate, because a clever sound bite, an insidious Propter Nomen, can often win the argument without reason.
rgb
With respect, “propter nomen” is itself a conceptuum falsus, in that framing any conclusion solely on a basis of the name customarily given to the particular phenomenon has no relation to science – it is simply fallacious and should never get past any critical review process.
But the more a natural phenomenon stands out from its forerunners or antecedents, the more likely it is to be called by some distinguishing name, if only for ease of reference. Surely the answer is to do as the lawyers do – define terms first with precision, such as “In this paper, unless the context otherwise requires, the expression LIA refers to climactic conditions in Europe and North America between 1300 CE and 1870 CE”, and so on.
In short – if you wish to spout latin, get the lawyers in!
Since lawyers have no official description of what “is” is, the few terms that are defined in statutes find themselves defined by undefined terms. This is a noble effort but it ain’t “the solution”.
Correction: in the UK statutes are enacted under the interpretation rules of the Interpretation Act 1978 – which doesn’t use “is” for definition. For example Schedule 1 includes: “Person” includes a body of persons corporate or unincorporate, and “The Tax Acts” means the Income Tax Acts and the Corporation Tax Acts – amongst many other definitions. The word “is” is not used to framing the executive definition.
Clinton’s famous statement may not have made it to the UK but I thought it was a good allegory for the situation where the vast majority of words used in framing any statute do not have definitions other than in dictionaries.
For that matter, there’s nowhere in your Interpretation Act 1978 that it’s stated that the use of the present tense of the verb ‘include’ means for all time time and in all instances. In English the present tense is also used to indicate a single event in the future (Tomorrow, you go to Crewe) or a single event in the past (He shoots, he scores.)
We rely on ‘common sense’ and though it is common, it’s also all too rare.
I’m sad I was slow to note your “climactic” typo, above!
Don’t worry: all covered here in the UK. Statutes always speak as at the present time until repealed (and you can be sure the Interpretation Act would be replaced in updated form if ever repealed); by judicial precedent the UK courts then look at the Oxford English Dictionary for guidance – or if not there is always specific judicial precedent to fall back on. And thanks for picking up my typo: yes, I meant “climatic”. Now: any more nits to pick, or would you actually like to address the substance of my posting above?
“Universal health care”
Rationed care is by definition not universal.
Nice article. Climate science is full of propter nomini.
A good example is ‘temperature anomaly’ which gives the impression something unusual is happening.
Until corrected by someone who actually knows Latin, I insist on propter nomina (plural accusative neuter 3rd declension)
… Then there’s the talk of temperature change “since pre-industrial” which seems to be designed to create the misleading impression that before industry, the world’s temperature was constant.
This might be more of a problem than misleading names.
“Dr Elizabeth Hanna: Well, the main points of course is that warming is unequivocal … Without concerted action on carbon, the temperatures are going to increase in the coming decades and it could be almost up to 5 degrees by the end of this century.”
Even if fiddled a little, climates have warmed in general since the LIA (that was just a little colder than now). Her statement is made so that warming of 5 degrees by the end of the century is also unequivocal but only proof of the the first claim is needed.
And ‘global climate’ might be another Prompter nomen. Climate refers to weather in regions and are we good enough at estimating global averages of anything to use that term?
I often wonder is the use of the word “anomaly” in terms of temp or heat change anomalous?
No. Astronomers and geophysicists use it for the difference from the average.
If its normal to be anything but the average then it shouldn’t be referred to as an anomaly, strictly speaking. A GMT that has changed 1°C and was calculated from temperatures that differ by over 100°C might be taking it a little too far.
Anything by the government described as “Free.” Free cellphones, free internet access, free food, free housing, free healthcare, etc.. Everything from the government is taxpayer funded.
Boston Cream Pie
Ain’t a pie. It’s a cake. A very delicious cake that is center stage on my table every July 18th. The day of my birthday.
“Propter nomen” implies an appeal to authority of language or generally reference.
Another term in the same spirit is semantic game, that is played with an intent to manipulate perception through exploiting language. Semantic games are similar to rhetoric, but are decidedly negative or change-oriented.
I suppose that neither can be assumed to have a negative connotation, but that they often have that character in practice.
Greenhouse Effect…now that can go anytime.
Propter Nomen:
Climate change (as if something unusual).
Anthropocene
Forcing
Pre-industrial
Greenhouse gas
Ocean acidification
Climate model
Climate sensitivity
Back-radiation
Pauze
Sea level
The worst of the lot is simply “climate science”. Climate is a multi-faceted and complex area of study with uncertain and potential chaotic feed backs. Climate studies are similar to economic studies, neither is truly science, neither leads to truly testable/falsifiable hypotheses. Both use the same scientific and mathematical toolboxes to advance, neither deserve the label science.
@ur momisugly Phill
November 8, 2014 at 3:45 am
What is funny about “climate science” is that the real name is Climatology, but not really heard so much as it implies that a high degree of logic should prevail within it…the very thing lacking with “climate science”. 🙂
“Propter nomen” could not be invoked on “climate science” as that not actually a proper name. 🙂
cheers.
If anyone’s heard one of the SkS kidz end an ‘argument’ with “…that’s WHY they’re called deniers,” they will have noticed that the ‘argument’ began with an implicit “they’re called deniers, so….” and was therefore a canonical Propter Nomen.
Kip, thank you for giving us a 2-word comeback suitable for audiences used to rebuttals such as “strawman!” and “Dunning Kruger!”
Those who are criticising you for failing to identify a completely unique fallacy are not being fair. Your essay is (or will be) a valuable contribution to the discourse if it gives us a new weapon in the War on Inept Thinking. Thanks!
How did we miss this one!
“The Ozone Hole“
A Rose is a Rose……………………
The one I am most surprised at being missed in this post; “unprecedented”
“7. Logic based on the name given to a phenomenon, interval or feature is bad science, because the name is often inadequate and misleading.”
The term “Global Warming” is the preeminent example of this. The term exists only because of flawed computer models which are based on the (wrong) assumption that CO2 is the primary climate driver.
How about “United Nations” ?
Andrew Klavan regularly comments on words. He’s entertaining and as always, on-point.
If you can’t refute the science attack the description warmists find so upsetting. Or is that me being cynical?
Yes. NOTHING has been attacked in this essay. It should have been, but it WASN’T. It actually excused and searches for a soft landing for those who would use such misleading words. And frankly I’m a little embarrassed for those here, many whom I admire, who have bought the softsoaping hook, line and sinker, choosing instead to believe that one among them has said something new and brilliant and important.
They haven’t , it’s nothing but mindscaping BS.
A bit late, but I would put forward “global” as in global warming. Obviously not every spot is warming so how much coverage does it take to call something “global”. 90%, 75% or is 55% enough? And then, iwithin what time frame? 10 years, 30 years, 100 years? The IPCC doesn´t say but the MWP is obviously NOT a global phenomen because it wasn´t “global” enough? So, somewhere, somebody actually now what “global” means, but dare not to define it?
JPC,
Outstanding! I’m a bit of a newbie, but I REALLY look forward to the thread associated with this one. I’ve wondered this myself and am truly looking forward to what folks know about this definition. It is on my list, so your bringing it up here will hopefully add to many’s “enlightenment” on this topic. Much thanks!
Kip, I call this logical fallacy Argumentum ad Liturgiam, or Reference to the Formulaic. It’s basically the bastard love-child of ‘ad populum’ and ‘ad verecundiam’. The word Liturgiam is pertinent in a number of ways. It alludes to the ancient Greek form of public service by wealthy individuals, and is thus inextricably linked to forms of public worship and religious rites and texts.
But the primary context I had in mind when I came up with the idea was the Holy See’s Liturgiam Authenticam, on the thorny problem of translating and publishing liturgical texts into the vernacular. That text makes very interesting reading in light of what you’re saying here and the wider debate on the religious tone of the ‘true believers’ in CAGW.
Ultimately I guess we’re talking about ‘faith on a plate’, a formulaic creed – gnosis precogitated and regurgitated using specific nomenclature by the ‘approved authorities’ for the purpose of mass consumption and herd cohesion.
An excellent topic, Kip. Would it be correct to say that “propter nomen” arguments might also apply to names that carry negative connotations? Words such as “fracking” are used by environmentalists to imply a host of evils.
Interesting. So whomever is wielding the “sword” modifies the use of the “sword”?