Logical Fallacies 31: Hasty Generalization

Video here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaX_-42NptU&feature=watch_response

            Now this one is going to be both a module about a certain logical fallacy and a book recommendation.

            There is an unfortunate human tendency, when presented with a puzzling observation, to accept the first explanation, or seeming explanation, that happens along.  A good example of this occurs when one person asks, “Why does the sun rise?” and another responds, “It is being pulled across the sky by magical horses,” or “It is being rolled across the sky by a giant, magical beetle.”

            “Where did life come from?”

            “God made it.”

            A much more grievous example is examined by UCLA geography professor Jared Diamond in his book Guns, Germs, and Steel.  This book examines why, across the ages, some civilizations have developed further and more rapidly than others.

            Now let me just take a moment to say that I highly recommend this book.  It’s kind of a heavy read, but if you can find the time for it, it’s worth it.  You see, many a cursory examination of history shows us that it was European civilizations that conquered Africa and the Americas, and not the other way around.  So it has often been asked why in the world this should be the case.

            There are those who are very quick to respond to this by simply saying that Europeans are just more intelligent than Africans and Native Americans.  Now there may have been a time when no explanation received more evidentiary support than this one, but even then, this was far from adequate grounds to accept this so-called explanation, given the fact that it accounted for only this one observation.

            Let’s say that we have a list of 100 related, yet randomly selected, empirical observations.  Ah, but wait a minute.  Let me take a moment to clarify that I’m using the word “empirical” in the scientific sense of the word, not the philosophical sense.  So what’s the difference?

            In the philosophical sense, “empirical” is contrasted with “rational.”  Empiricism accounts for everything that can be directly observed while rationalism accounts for everything that can be logically concluded or inferred from that which can be observed.  In the philosophical sense, “empirical” is a synonym for “observable,” while “rational” is a synonym for “extrapolable.”

            In the scientific sense, on the other hand, “empirical” is contrasted with “anecdotal.”  Here we have a slightly different concept with the same name.

            Anecdotal evidence is evidence based on anecdote.  When one points out that two characteristics go together, or coincide, in one particular case, that’s an anecdote.  If that anecdote is documented in a demonstrable or independently-verifiable manner, then we have a piece of anecdotal evidence.

            Empirical evidence, on the other hand, conducts a proper sample to determine what percentage of the time two characteristics coincide or two variables change in unison.  Empirical evidence, in the scientific sense of the word, is necessary in order to establish whether any correlations exist.  If two variables tend to increase in unison or decrease in unison, then we have a positive correlation.  If, on the other hand, increases in one tend to coincide with decreases in the other or vice-versa, then we have a negative correlation.  This is the scientific sense of the word “empirical,” which is the sense I am using here.

            So summing it up, empirical evidence in the scientific sense is evidence intended to make correlations empirical in the philosophical sense.

            So let’s go back to that list of 100 related, yet randomly-selected, empirical observations.  Beginning with the first, if we are setting out to explain them, it’s a good idea to speculate until we have maybe five or six explanations, which at this point, are called hypotheses.  Then, the best thing for us to do is to keep each hypothesis in mind while we examine the second observation.  The hypotheses which explain the second as well are strengthened and supported by the act.  Those which don’t are weakened, unless they can be modified so that they still explain both observations.

            This we repeat with each subsequent observation, modifying each hypothesis as necessary, until one has been modified to the point that it enables us to predict observations which are on the list, but which we haven’t examined yet.  When these predictions can be made with testable, measurable, accuracy, to any extent whatsoever, leaving the door wide open for directed, testable speculation, then we have a school of thought, or in scientific and academic terms, a theory.

            When a given explanation enables you to make these predictions with such a high degree of accuracy that the prospect of that explanation being mistaken would be the greater miracle, the greater scientific revolution, then we have a fact.  Not until we reach this point.  It’s still a theory, but it’s also a fact.  In science, these are compatible concepts.

            The question of different civilizations developing at different speeds, and thus European civilizations conquering African and Native American civilizations is one observation for which many possible explanations can be arrived at through speculation.  If this is the only piece of evidence one is going to use to support this “conclusion,” or perhaps only this and a bare handful of others, then what we have is the Fallacy of Hasty Generalization, also known as the Fallacy of Insufficient Statistics.  That is, it reaches an inductive generalization based on the briefest, laziest, of assessments, and far from sufficient evidence.

            One could also call this “conclusion” the Fallacy of Unwarranted Assumption, which I have explained previously in this series, since it also makes the assumption that the intelligence of the three major ethnic groups in question is the only variable that had any bearing on this.  But of course, such is clearly not the case.

            Jared Diamond, in this book, takes the long road, taking the time to examine as exhaustive a list of related cultural observations as can be reasonably accommodated in just a few hundred pages.  Basically, he goes well out of his way, making a very noble and successful effort to avoid this particular fallacy.

            The rest of this particular video, or perhaps set of videos, I am going to spend expounding on the book.  If you don’t feel like sitting through that, then by all means, click away now.

            Let’s say that you have two neighboring civilizations, A and B, and each, at this point, relies on a nomadic way of life.  But then, after a few centuries, one begins to experiment with agriculture.  What does that entail?

            Agriculture depends on two key practices:

            First, in any undeveloped region, only about 10% of the vegetation is going to provide some manner of sustenance that human beings can digest.  In agriculture, one tears out the other 90% and replaces it with the plants that previously composed that 10, enabling one’s civilization to draw ten times as much sustenance from the same patch of land.

            Second, in agriculture, one domesticates plants, enabling one to apply artificial selection to their reproduction.  This makes it possible to direct the development of those crops in ways that further support the civilization growing them.

            So if a civilization relies on nomadic living, every able-bodied member of that civilization must participate in the search for food in order for that civilization to sustain itself.  If, on the other hand, it begins to make the transition to agriculture, as happened in the agricultural revolution, about 10,000 years ago, suddenly it is able to produce so much food that a large portion of its people don’t need to participate in that and can begin to develop their skills and expertise in other specializations, like soldiery.  Therefore, an agricultural civilization is much more able to sustain an army than a nomadic one.

            This, however, was not a key difference.  The agricultural revolution took off at about the same time in Europe, Africa, the Americas, and Asia.  But this set the stage for other key developmental differences.

            One concept this book explains is the concept of a continental axis; that is a straight line across the surface of the earth between a continents two most distant points.  In the Americas and Africa, this axis runs mainly north and south.  In Eurasia and Australia, it runs mainly east and west.  But this east-and-west continental axis is much longer in the one than the other.  Now what does that mean?

            Well this equated to a major agricultural advantage for civilizations in Europe and those at the same latitudes of Asia, in regions which, today, we call Kazakhstan, Mongolia, and northern China.  After all, the latitude at which a plant typically grows directly affects the amount of sunlight it gets and how that amount changes through the course of the year.  So any given plant adapts much more readily to changes in longitude than changes in latitude.  Plants growing at the eastern-most end of Europe in, say, Portugal, are much more able to make the transition to the Korean peninsula and vice versa than plants adapted to Canada are able to suddenly be cultivated in Ecuador.

            Therefore, given the much greater variety of plants which are naturally going to arise along the Eurasian axis, and given the far greater ease with which those plants are adapted to grow in regions further east and west than in regions further north and south, this resulted in a greater variety of crops which could be grown in Europe and Asia, making civilizations in both regions much more able to adapt to environmental changes the like of which would impact their food supply.  This made European and Asian civilizations, over the centuries, much more able than civilizations in other parts of the world to weather environmental changes that impeded the growth of certain crops.

            Now the relevance of this part will not be immediately apparent, but consider the cheetah.  Its mating practices usually entail three or four males chasing the same female across miles of open country.  This is necessary in order to get the blood circulating in the female’s reproductive organs.  She is in fact unable to conceive unless this chase takes place first.

            Now in order for us to domesticate an animal, we must be able to persuade that animal to breed in captivity.  Breeding cheetahs in captivity would require the construction and continuous maintenance of a cage several miles long; an undertaking for which I am hard pressed to think of any organizations that both have the funds and would find it worth the expense.  Thus, there are practical limitations preventing cheetahs from being domesticated.

            The larger animals of Africa are replete with such limitations.  It doesn’t usually entail a chase, but all of Africa’s largest animals have reproductive practices which depend utterly on factors which cannot be practically duplicated in captivity.  Animals like the elephant, wildebeest and water buffalo can be tamed but not usually domesticated.  That is, we can capture a single animal of this species and train it to survive in captivity, but we are prevented by practical limitations from reproducing them there, at least until the last couple centuries.

            If an animal can’t be domesticated, it can’t be drafted.  It can’t be used to pull wagons, chariots or plows on a regular basis on a national level.  So when the agricultural revolution took off in Africa, this was a big impediment to such activities as empire-building; an impediment not present in Europe.

            Europe, on the other hand, was replete with animals which could be both domesticated and drafted.  This is where cattle come from.  So because large animals were draftable in Europe but not Africa, this was another major advantage to developing civilizations there.

            Now consider the swine flu.  It’s called the swine flu because it originated among swine and made the transition to people.  But did you know that the seasonal flu is another swine flu that made that same jump centuries ago?

            Because European farms had all these draft animals that African farms didn’t, this resulted in European farmers spending a lot more time regularly in contact with other species, which opened the door for a lot more diseases to jump this divide.  As a result of this, European civilizations were much more prone to disease outbreaks, which over the successive centuries, built up European immune systems, while at the same time, making them carriers of many diseases that other civilizations hadn’t encountered.  So when they encountered those other civilization, they usually brought devastating disease, while suffering a great deal less from whatever diseases those other civilizations might be carrying.

            Now consider the wheel.  The wheel, interestingly enough, was invented in two locations, by two different cultures, independently of one another.  That is, they were not in contact at the time.  One was a people in Europe whose name I don’t know and the other was the Incas in modern-day Peru.

            But the wheel didn’t benefit the Incas the way it benefited the European civilization.  Of course, the Europeans, being surrounded with all these draft animals, were very quick to develop wagons for carrying supplies relatively quickly over relatively great distances, while the Incas didn’t have this option.  The Incas had the wheel but they were in the mountains of South America, and the nearest animal capable of pulling a wagon was the Buffalo, thousands of miles away on the plains of North America.

            And then, of course, there’s paper, an invention from ancient China.  Paper, in a pre-electronic age, enables a civilization to design machines, draw maps and develop and maintain a written language, which is necessary in order to maintain records, expound at length on highly abstract ideas, minimize miscommunications over great distances, foster innovation, and many other functions.  This development helped China to get quite a long head start on everyone which lasted for centuries.  Indeed, Chinese ships had reached all corners of Europe by the time Europeans had only begun to experiment with shipping.

            But then came a day when the ruling regime in China, a regime which greatly supported shipping, was replaced by another regime which didn’t support shipping at all.  This regime called back all of China’s ships, decommissioned them, and dismantled China’s ports, thus leaving the door wide open for Chinese shipping accomplishments to be surpassed by European shipping accomplishments.

            This event, though, was not in much danger of being repeated in Europe, because Europe was not unified under one particular government.  Christopher Columbus had many governments to choose from.  He asked one government to sponsor his voyage and they refused.  Then he asked another and they refused.  He kept asking different governments, and finally found one that agreed, and that’s how European civilization first made contact with the Americas.

            Now one thing I find especially interesting is how Jared Diamond uses this part to make an argument against too unified a government.  After all, having Europe divided in this fashion gave each European nation a vested interest in maintaining its exploration efforts, lest its failure to do so allowed it to be overtaken by the exploration efforts of other European countries.

            But much of this is adjacent to the main point of the book.  The question he addresses is, “How come it was European civilizations which conquered Africa and the Americas, and not the other way around?”  A very interesting consequence of that answer is, with just a few environmental differences, it very well could have been the other way around.