Facebook

I don't log into Facebook much. Not much at all, in fact during the months of November and December I took a self-imposed FB hiatus and since January 1st have only logged into Facebook four or five times. 

However, I have logged into Facebook, from this very same laptop from which I'm typing out this blog post; from the very same wifi I've logged into Facebook from for the past few years.

After receiving this first screen response letting me know my account's been locked, I then get the second one telling me I have to confirm my own identity. The first test for me was a captcha, one of those annoying ones that doesn't actually spell out any words, just random letter combinations in odd fonts and skewed positioning to make them practically unreadable. Is that "d" or a "c" next to a "1?"

Surprisingly it worked the first time and then I had to go through 5 pages on random pictures of friends, pictures I wasn't tagged in nor that were in my albums (I don't upload images to FB's servers). Not only that, but some of the pictures didn't even have people in them, just flyers or pictures of cars, that I had to identify who was the owner, or who was tagged in the image.

I swear, had Facebook asked for a photo ID I would have deleted the account right then and there.

Dear Jason, 

Your Facebook account was recently logged into from a computer, mobile device or other location you've never used before. For your protection, we've temporarily locked your account until you can review this activity and make sure no one is using your account without your permission.

Did you log into Facebook from a new device or an unusual location?

 - If this was not you, please log into Facebook from your computer and follow the instructions provided to help you control your account information.

 - If this was you, there's no need to worry. Simply log into Facebook again to get back into your account. 

For more information, visit our Help Center here:

http://www.facebook.com/help/account_recovery 

Thanks,

Facebook Security Team

Read More

Libraries for the Win!

Been reading this series since the first book, more rhan 20 years ago when I was in middle school. Now, the culmination in only 909 pages.

Read More

Denver (test)

Testing uploading images from Android to Blogger.

Read More

Writing Tip

Read More

Logical Fallacies

I try to keep these in mind as much as possible when arguing, especially online, but I can't always know all of them all the time. Heck, if it weren't for logical fallacies, online arguments would rarely take place. I must admit, I am guilty of a few of these more than others and I have to catch myself as often as possible. 

Strawman Fallacy:Misrepresenting someone's argument to make it easier to attack.By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate.

The False Cause Fallacy:You presumed that a real or perceived relationship between things means that one is the cause of the other.Many people confuse correlation (things happening together or in sequence) for causation (that one thing actually causes the other to happen). Sometimes correlation is coincidental, or it may be attributable to a common cause.

The Fallacy of the Emotional Appeal:You attempted to manipulate an emotional response in place of a valid or compelling argument.Appeals to emotion include appeals to fear, envy, hatred, pity, pride, and more. It's important to note that sometimes a logically coherent argument may inspire emotion or have an emotional aspect, but the problem and fallacy occurs when emotion is used instead of a logical argument, or to obscure the fact that no compelling rational reason exists for one's position. Everyone, bar sociopaths, is affected by emotion, and so appeals to emotion are a very common and effective argument tactic, but they're ultimately flawed, dishonest, and tend to make one's opponents justifiably emotional.

The Fallacy Fallacy:You presumed that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the claim itself must be wrong.It is entirely possibly to make a claim that is false yet argue with logical coherency for that claim, just as is possible to make a claim that is true and justify it with various fallacies and poor arguments.

The Fallacy of the Slipper Slope:You said that if we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually happen too, therefore A should not happen.The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion fallacy by leveraging fear. In effect the argument at hand is unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture.

The ad hominem fallacy:You attacked your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument.Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument. The result of an ad hom attack can be to undermine someone's case without actually having to engage with it.

The tu quoque:You avoided having to engage with criticism by turning it back on the accuser - you answered criticism with criticism.Literally translating as 'you too' this fallacy is also known as the appeal to hypocrisy. It is commonly employed as an effective red herring because it takes the heat off someone having to defend their argument, and instead shifts the focus back on to the person making the criticism.

The Fallacy of Personal Incredulity:Because you found something difficult to understand, or are unaware of how it works, you made out like it's probably not true.Complex subjects like biological evolution through natural selection require some amount of understanding before one is able to make an informed judgement about the subject at hand; this fallacy is usually used in place of that understanding.

Special Pleading:You moved the goalposts or made up an exception when your claim was shown to be false.Post-rationalizing a reason why someone's falsifiable argument is true. Rather than appreciate the benefits of being able to change one's mind through better understanding, many will invent ways to cling to old beliefs. One of the most common ways that people do this is to post-rationalize a reason why what they thought to be true must remain to be true.

The Loaded Question:You asked a question that had a presumption built into it so that it couldn't be answered without appearing guilty.Loaded question fallacies are particularly effective at derailing rational debates because of their inflammatory nature - the recipient of the loaded question is compelled to defend themselves and may appear flustered or on the back foot.

The Burden of Proof Fallacy:You said that the burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim, but with someone else to disprove.The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever. However it is important to note that we can never be certain of anything, and so we must assign value to any claim based on the available evidence, and to dismiss something on the basis that it hasn't been proven beyond all doubt is also fallacious reasoning.

The Fallacy of Ambiguity:You used a double meaning or ambiguity of language to mislead or misrepresent the truth.Politicians are often guilty of using ambiguity to mislead and will later point to how they were technically not outright lying if they come under scrutiny. The reason that it qualifies as a fallacy is that it is intrinsically misleading.

The Gambler's Fallacy:You said that 'runs' occur to statistically independent phenomena such as roulette wheel spins.This commonly believed fallacy can be said to have helped create an entire city in the desert of Nevada USA. Though the overall odds of a 'big run' happening may be low, each spin of the wheel is itself entirely independent from the last. So whilst there may be a very small chance that heads will come up 20 times in a row if you flip a coin, the chances of heads coming up on each individual flip remain 50/50, and aren't influenced by what happened before.

The Bandwagon Fallacy:You appealed to popularity or the fact that many people do something as an attempted form of validation.The flaw in this argument is that the popularity of an idea has absolutely no bearing on its validity. If it did, then the Earth would have made itself flat for most of history to accommodate this popular belief. 

Appeal to Authority:You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true.It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence. However it is, entirely possible that the opinion of a person or institution of authority is wrong; therefore the authority that such a person or institution holds does not have any intrinsic bearing upon whether their claims are true or not.

The Fallacy of Composition/Division:You assumed that one part of something has to be applied to all, or other, parts of it; or that the whole must apply to its parts.Often when something is true for the part it does also apply to the whole, or vice versa, but the crucial difference is whether there exists good evidence to show that this is the case. Because we observe consistencies in things, our thinking can become biased so that we presume consistency to exist where it does not.

No True Scotsman:You made what could be called an appeal to purity as a way to dismiss relevant criticisms or flaws of your argument.In this form of faulty reasoning one's belief is rendered unfalsifiable because no matter how compelling the evidence is, one simply shifts the goalposts so that it wouldn't apply to a supposedly 'true' example. This kind of post-rationalization is a way of avoiding valid criticisms of one's argument.

The Genetic Fallacy:You judged something as either good or bad on the basis of where it comes from, or from whom it came.This fallacy avoids the argument by shifting focus onto something's or someone's origins. It's similar to an ad hominem fallacy in that it leverages existing negative perceptions to make someone's argument look bad, without actually presenting a case for why the argument itself lacks merit.

It's Either Black or White Fallacy:You presented two alternative states as the only possibilities, when in fact more possibilities exist.Also known as the false dilemma, this insidious tactic has the appearance of forming a logical argument, but under closer scrutiny it becomes evident that there are more possibilities than the either/or choice that is presented. Binary, black-or-white thinking doesn't allow for the many different variables, conditions, and contexts in which there would exist more than just the two possibilities put forth. It frames the argument misleadingly and obscures rational, honest debate.

Begging the Question:You presented a circular argument in which the conclusion was included in the premise.This logically incoherent argument often arises in situations where people have an assumption that is very ingrained, and therefore taken in their minds as a given. Circular reasoning is bad mostly because it's not very good.

The Fallacy of Appealing to Nature:You argued that because something is 'natural' it is therefore valid, justified, inevitable, good or ideal.Many 'natural' things are also considered 'good', and this can bias our thinking; but naturalness itself doesn't make something good or bad. For instance murder could be seen as very natural, but that doesn't mean it's good or justifiable.

The Anecdotal Fallacy:You used a personal experience or an isolated example instead of a sound argument or compelling evidence.It's often much easier for people to believe someone's testimony as opposed to understanding complex data and variation across a continuum. Quantitative scientific measures are almost always more accurate than personal perceptions and experiences, but our inclination is to believe that which is tangible to us, and/or the word of someone we trust over a more 'abstract' statistical reality.

The Sharpshooter Fallacy, or the Cherry Picker:You cherry-picked a data cluster to suit your argument, or found a pattern to fit a presumption.This 'false cause' fallacy is coined after a marksman shooting randomly at barns and then painting bulls-eye targets around the spot where the most bullet holes appear, making it appear as if he's a really good shot. Clusters naturally appear by chance, but don't necessarily indicate that there is a causal relationship.

The Middle Ground, or Compromise Fallacy:You claimed that a compromise, or middle point, between two extremes must be the truth.Much of the time the truth does indeed lie between two extreme points, but this can bias our thinking: sometimes a thing is simply untrue and a compromise of it is also untrue. Half way between truth and a lie, is still a lie.

[via: YourLogicalFallacyIs]

Read More