The Stroop Effect

A phenomenon in which individuals take longer to name the color of words printed in a non-matching color, such as the word blue printed in red ink, than when the words are printed in the same color as the word designates, such as the word blue printed in blue ink.

With the following video, try saying the color of the word, not the word that's spelled.

If the printed word and color matched, you would likely be able to say the color much faster. This is because reading words is more automatic than naming colors.

More on the Stroop effect here

Forest Xylophone

Back in 2011 the Japanese telecom company Docomo created a large forest xylophone to promote the then new Touch Wood SH-08C cell phone. A wooden ball rolled down the steps of the instrument playing Bach's Cantata 147 as it progressed to the bottom.

The xylophone was reintroduced at the 2015 Hokkaido Garden Show where visitors could purchase a ball from a vending machine to play the instruments tune.

Denying the Antecedent

Denying the Antecedent is a formal logical fallacy which consists of a conditional premise, a second premise that denies the antecedent of the conditional and a conclusion which denies the consequent of the conditional. The general form of the argument is:

P1. If P, then Q

P2. Not P

C. Therefore, not Q

Since P was never asserted as the only sufficient condition for Q, other factors could account for Q. Therefore, the argument is deductively invalid.

For example:

P1. If Queen Elizabeth is an American citizen, then she is a human being

P2. Queen Elizabeth is not an American citizen

C. Therefore, Queen Elizabeth is not a human being

With this example, both premises are true statements yet the conclusion is false. This of course is due to the fact that being an American citizen is not the only sufficient condition for being a human being. 

Wikipedia: Denying the antecedent

Affirming the Consequent

Affirming the consequent is a formal logical fallacy which consists of a conditional premise, a second premise that asserts the consequent of the first conditional premise, and a conclusion which asserts therefore the antecedent of the conditional is true. The general form of the argument is:

P1. If P then Q.
P2. Q
C. Therefore P.

Since P was never asserted as the only sufficient condition for Q, other factors could account for Q. Therefore, in terms of deductive logic, the argument form is invalid.

For example:

P1. If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox, then he is rich.
P2. Bill Gates is rich.
C. Therefore, he owns Fort Knox.

Obviously the consequent that Gates is rich is the result of factors other than owning Fort Knox.

It is important to understand that though affirming the consequent is a fallacy in terms of deductive reasoning, it can be used as a perfectly acceptable form of inference when used inductively or abductively. This of course is due to deductive reasoning's requirement that with a valid argument, if the premises are true then the conclusion must be true. On the other hand, induction and abduction do not have this certainty requirement and instead make inferences based on probability and plausibility.

For example:
P1. If the baby is hungry she will cry
P2. The baby is crying
C. The baby is hungry

This is not deductively valid since there are other reasons the baby may be crying. Perhaps she needs a diaper change or maybe she hit her head. On the other hand, depending on the circumstances, this could be considered a strong abductive argument. If we add more information through additional premises the strength of the argument becomes less ambiguous.

P1. If the baby is hungry she will cry
P2. The baby is crying
P3. The baby eats about every three hours
P4. The baby last ate about three hours ago
P5. The baby does not have a dirty diaper
C. The baby is hungry



Wikipedia: Affirming the Consequent 09/10/15

Reasoning: K. P. Mohanan and Tara Mohanan

Ted Cruz's statement in support of Kim Davis

In regards to the arrest of Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis, republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz released an open letter declaring his support for Davis. You can read the full letter here.

Part of the letter included the following:

“For every politician — Democrat and Republican — who is tut-tutting that Davis must resign, they are defending a hypocritical standard. Where is the call for the mayor of San Francisco to resign for creating a sanctuary city — resulting in the murder of American citizens by criminal illegal aliens welcomed by his lawlessness?

"Where is the call for President Obama to resign for ignoring and defying our immigration laws, our welfare reform laws, and even his own Obamacare?

“When the mayor of San Francisco and President Obama resign, then we can talk about Kim Davis.

I believe this could be considered a version of the Tu Quoque fallacy, which essentially is an attempt to dismiss an opponent's argument by pointing out that the person or group making the argument has said or acted in a manner which is inconsistent with it. Generally, the problem with this sort of attack is that just because someone has acted hypocritically doesn't necessarily mean their argument is wrong. 

A classic example of the Tu Quoque is:

Dad: "John, you shouldn't smoke. It is very bad for your health!"
John: "I don't see how you can tell me not to smoke, when you smoke yourself."

Clearly smoking is bad for you and just because the father is being a hypocrite by smoking himself doesn't effect the truthfulness of his argument. Actually, in this particular example, the hypocrisy could serve to strengthen the fathers argument since he has personal experience dealing with addiction and the damaging effects of smoking.

Going back to the Cruz quote, he seems to be implying that if a politician didn't call for the mayor of San Francisco or President Obama to resign, then their inconsistent call for the enforcement of the rule of law should somehow invalidate their argument here. Just as smoking is bad for John's health regardless of whether his father smokes, the law should govern the nation as opposed to the arbitrary decisions of individual government officials. Whether or not a politician has consistently affirmed this principle doesn't change its rightfulness.

Best laid plans of mice and men

The phrase "the best laid plans of mice and men often go awry" or simply "best laid plans" is a simple proverb meaning that even carefully planned projects may sometimes still go wrong.

The saying is an adaptation from a 1785 poem by Robert Burns titled "To a Mouse, on Turning Her Up in Her Nest with the Plough." The line as originally written goes "The best-laid schemes o' mice an' men Gang aft agley." It was also used by John Steinbeck for the title of his 1937 novel "Of Mice and Men."

His reaction when he breaks the glass