I recently read Michael Shermer's book "Why People Believe Weird Things". In this book, Shermer lists "25 Ways Thinking Goes Wrong" leading to fallacious beliefs. I am now going to attempt to use Shermer's list to discredit anti-smoking's argument that "secondhand smoke kills".

It is very important to understand these are ways thinking in all humans goes wrong, not just any group you happen to disagree with. All people make these mistakes in their determinations simply because it seems to be the way people just are.

My application here is admittedly arbitrary, but I believe I am correct in applying them to determine if anti-smoking beliefs are based on solid ground.

(IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: I am basing this on material written by Michael Shermer that has been reprinted elsewhere on the internet, readily available with an internet search. My use of Mr. Shermer's "25 Ways Thinking Goes Wrong" IS NOT meant to imply that Mr. Shermer would agree with anything I say. I do not know Mr. Shermer's position on the secondhand smoke debate and he may completely disagree with any or all of my reasoning based on his points. Only the list of "25 ways thinking goes wrong" reflects the writing of Mr. Shermer. I am sharing my own inferences based on that list, to be accepted or rejected as the reader sees fit.


Here is a quick list of the 25 ways Shermer says that thinking goes wrong.


http://skeptically.org/logicalthreads/id2.html

http://www.amazon.com/People-Believe-Weird-Things-Pseudoscience/dp/0716733870

1. Theory Influences Observations
2. The Observer Changes the Observed
3. Equipment Constructs Results
4. Anecdotes Do Not Make a Science
5. Scientific Language Does Not Make a Science
6. Bold Statements Do Not Make Claims True
7. Heresy Does Not Equal Correctness
8. Burden of Proof
9. Rumors Do Not Equal Reality
10. Unexplained Is Not Inexplicable
11. Failures Are Rationalized
12. After-the-Fact Reasoning
13. Coincidence
14. Representativeness
15. Emotive Words and False Analogies
16. Ad Ignorantiam (if you cannot disprove a claim it must be true)
17. Ad Hominem and Tu Quoque (Literally "to the man" and "you also," these fallacies redirect the focus from thinking about the idea to thinking about the person holding the idea)
18. Hasty Generalization
19. Overreliance on Authorities
20. Either-Or
21. Circular Reasoning
22. Reductio ad Absurdum and the Slippery Slope
23. Effort Inadequacies and the Need for Certainty, Control, and Simplicity
24. Problem-Solving Inadequacies
25. Ideological Immunity, or the Planck Problem

1. Theory Influences Observations

My thoughts on anti-smoking: If you operate on the theory that secondhand smoke kills people, you will seek to find results in the real world that fit that theory because the theory has given you context for the idea in the first place.

2. The Observer Changes the Observed

My thoughts on Anti-smoking: People act differently when they are being observed. I can't think of a good example where this one applies to anti-smoking.

3. Equipment Constructs Results
My thoughts on Anti-smoking: If I construct equipment that will test the toxic or carcinogenic effect of secondhand smoke, I may view the data from the equipment that was pre-fabricated to find my desired result, or design my equipment around a preconceived idea of what is harmful. For example, anti-smoking may create a device to detect the harm-causing chemicals in secondhand smoke, but it does not indicate that the same chemicals are easily found in a glass of water and jumps to the conclusion that these chemicals are the cause for disease.

4. Anecdotes Do Not Make Science
My thoughts on Anti-smoking: For example; "My grandmother, aunt and stepfather were all exposed to secondhand smoke and they all died of lung cancer and never smoked. Therefore, secondhand smoke causes lung cancer." I'm actually being quite generous here because, despite the rapid progress anti-smoking has made with its secondhand smoke assertions, they still have not been
able to produce people claiming such anecdotal experience. This is likely to change at some point as a result of reason #1.


5. Scientific Language Does Not Make a Science

My thoughts on Anti-smoking: For example, if I were to say:"The dose-response relationship of ETS in relation to carbon monoxide in a matrix independent of pre-existing paradigms for pathogenic and psychogenic predisposition to non-squamous carcinogenicity via biological and genetic propensity shows a clear pattern of increased pulmonary-bronchial carcinoma."

It only proves that I can use big words. It shouldn't imply that my opinions are correct or accurate.

6. Bold Statements Do Not Make Claims True
My thoughts on Anti-smoking: We all know this one. For example, "63,000 people die a year from secondhand smoke" or "There's no safe level of exposure" or "Even brief exposure can cause cardiac arrest" or "It would take a hurricane to remove those fumes from the room" or "I drove by someone smoking in their car and both of us had our windows shut and I had an asthma attack because of that person's ETS", etc.

7. Heresy Does Not Equal Correctness

My thoughts on Anti-smoking: This one is easy to fall into. It basically says "They laughed at Galileo and he was right. Now they're laughing at me, so I must be right." I have to admit that almost anyone trying to assert a point that isn't popular uses this defense, including us. Anti-smokers use it, too, though. They just don't use it so much anymore, because they're no longer in the minority.

8. Burden of Proof
My thoughts on Anti-smoking: I've seen anti-smoking's epidemiological reports with relative risk results of 1.2, 1.8, 1.16, 2.0, etc. I've seen the concluding remarks on these reports that basically say that ETS is a grave risk to public health.

I've also seen reports on drinking whole milk, exposure to power lines, exposure to exotic birds, and semi-daily shaving that have shown similar relative risk results with concluding remarks indicating that basically said 'don't worry about it'. The bold claim that "63,000 people a year die from secondhand smoke" needs to be backed up with some victims. I'm not very
impressed with speculations regarding one waitress and a couple of comedians compared to 63,000.

The burden of proof is on anti-smokers. You can not prove a negative. I can not prove that no one ever died from secondhand smoke, and I'll never be able to, because that is not how "burden of proof" works.

9. Rumors Do Not Equal Reality
My thoughts on Anti-smoking: Regarding direct smoking, we all saw the pictures of "smoker's lungs" that we were shown as kids. They displayed a pair of lungs that were shriveled and blacker than night. If you were like me, I spent my teen years thinking that every person smoking a cigarette had lungs that looked like that. We were never told that we were either
looking at cancerous lungs from coal miners. The rumors spread so far that even our health teachers believed it. (BTW, about four years later, I saw the health teacher who ran this past me in the eighth grade smoking a cigarette in the gym office. He saw the look on my face and said "Uh-oh. Winston caught me. Well, this is one of the two a day I smoke." I thought, "Whatever.")

In most cases, urban myths have become reality in terms of anti-smoking; anti-smoking co-opts them and uses them to their advantage. Perhaps the most evil of their monopoly of such ideas is that secondhand smoke causes Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. Others include the idea that comedians like Andy Kaufman died from secondhand smoke. In my mind, the whole idea of secondhand smoke as a cause of death is the governmental propagation of something equivalent to an urban myth.

10. Unexplained is not Inexplicable

My thoughts on Anti-smoking: Implicit I think. The SIDS example easily applies. Also, the epidemiological studies that show a small increased rate of cancer for people exposed to secondhand smoke can never take all of the socioeconomic, dietary, occupational, risk aversion, environmental, and mind-body variables into account. Because they can't otherwise explain such
small deviations, they attribute it to secondhand smoke because it serves their interest.

11. Failures Are Rationalized

My thoughts on Anti-smoking: The studies on ETS that have shown an actual protective effect are simply dismissed with a wave of the hand. The studies that haven't had concluding remarks indicating that there is no harm are simply waved with some excuse of "big tobacco" or "everyone knows that's a deadly risk, so why aren't they saying it too?" No victims of ETS have
been provided, but this fact is selectively ignored.

12. After The Fact Reasoning

My thoughts on Anti-smoking: In other words, B causes C, instead of A causing B causing C. Ice cream sales heavily correlate with Crime rates, but this does not mean that ice cream causes crime. Both phenomena occur because of warmer weather, which corresponds with more human activity, in general, taking place outside the home.

Anti-smoking takes the small increase in lung cancer among the wives of smokers to mean that secondhand smoke cause lung cancer. They disregard, though, the idea that this usually reflects a whole range of "don't worry about it" behavior.

This is tricky because it seems to indicate that anti-smoking should prevail because it implies, in the mind of an anti-smoker, that one should oppose all non-risk averse behavior. It implies that one should say "Okay, maybe it wasn't ETS, but we should attack all of the behaviors that caused this small increase". This view is the view of a collective. It seems to imply that the ultimate definition of good is death prevention, regardless of the age and circumstances of death. Death is an inevitable and natural part of life and this view is a sure road to totalitarianism, which is the essential, larger problem of anti-smoking that goes beyond inhaling smoke from sticks, because it will never end. 2,000 years from now, humans will continue to be mortal. Thoughts on this very easily become a 1,000 page book, so I'll stop there.

13. Coincidence
My thoughts on Anti-smoking: For example, "They banned smoking and Emergency Room rates for Heart Attacks decreased". Many of us know that a claim like this has been floating around for a couple of years and it is very easily debunked. If a person should happen to have a heart attack in the presence of another smoking, anti-smokers will find it convenient to jump to the
conclusion that secondhand smoke caused the heart attack. Another example was previously mentioned, "My aunt's dog died and my aunt smoked with the dog in the house", etc.

14. Representativeness
My thoughts on Anti-smoking: The forementioned person who had a smoking aunt who had a dog that died may be ignoring the ten other people s/he knows who don't smoke who had a dog who died under similar circumstances. People tend to forget anything that doesn't fit the pre-defined criteria of anti-smoking and give special credence to the incidences that fit their pre-conceived conclusions.

15. Emotive Words and False Analogies
My thoughts on Anti-smoking: Emotivewords: "Toxic", "Chemicals", "kills", "cancer", "preventable deaths", "carcinogens", "no level of safe exposure", "deadly", "killer", "cancer sticks". False analogies: "More people die from ETS than from murder, suicide, and AIDS combined", "allowing people to smoke is like crashing three full 747s every day", "Kissing a smoker is like kissing an ashtray", and of course "it could be killing you and you would not even know it". (Side point: A pharmaceutical ad currently running on TV shows some healthy looking person walking around, then warns the audience that this person is about to be "dropped" by something less than the size of a pin. As we zoom inside the soon victim's body we're told that they have a "clot" they "don't know" about. The message: "See? See? It CAN happen. I CAN be worried." Then we're told what drug to ask our doctor about, to prevent such a catastrophe.)

16. Ad ignorantiam

My thoughts on Anti-smoking: If you can't prove otherwise, than it must be true. In other words, if I can't prove that Ghosts or God or Bigfoot or the Lochness Monster don't exist, than that means that they do exist. It moves the burden of proof where it doesn't belong. In our case, it's us. We are not obligated to prove that secondhand smoke doesn't cause harm. Rather, anti-smokers are obligated to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it does. Again, one can not prove a negative.

17. Ad Hominem and Tu Quoque

My thoughts on Anti-smoking: We know this one all too well. Literally, "to the man" and "you also". In other words, for us,"You've been paid by the tobacco industry", or "You're biased by your addiction". Essentially, it attempts to discredit the view, no matter how reasonable, with an attack on the source of that view. A good example is Judge William Osteen's decision to throw out the EPA's claim that secondhand smoke causes lung cancer. Osteen once worked for the tobacco industry. However, his reasoning for throwing out the EPA's claim is quite sound and anyone not knowing about Osteen's former ties, and not knowing that the issue involved tobacco, would probably be very compelled by his reasoning.

18. Hasty Generalization
My thoughts on Anti-smoking: For example, "The people who broke into my house were black, so all blacks are criminals". For those who choose to smoke it can be "the least productive workers in my office all take smoke breaks, so smokers are lazy and unproductive".

19. Over-Reliance on Authorities

My thoughts on Anti-smoking: I think you know already. As Shermer points out, the famous skeptic James Randi says that people who have attained a Ph.D. also find it difficult to say "I'm wrong" and "I don't know". The qualification fallacy is a very easily and widely accepted fallacy. When experts are telling you something that you think is wrong, how do you overcome such discrepancies? Examine the evidence. My view, more specifically, is, examine the numbers. Most people (and I am one of them) have a much easier time understanding words than numbers. Our view very often comes down to, as Michael Chrichton puts it, consensus versus data.

Please make no mistake: there is no law nor is there any force in the universe (ignoring religious considerations) stating that "right" will prevail, despite the best numbers in the face of all ignorance. In fact, history has shown the opposite. This is only hard to believe because you are probably living in a relatively free nation, like the U.S. or U.K. and have
grown up in it.

Let me put it to you this way: Adolph Hitler is not an exception, he is a rule. The freedom we've enjoyed is the exception and it has always been. Even in the face of heavy, undeniable evidence of the benefits of freedom, most societies have chosen government oppression. Want to know what killed more people in the twentieth century than smoking? War, Genocide, Murder, Hate, and conflict. Authorities have power and that power tends to magnify the disastrous results of mistaken conclusions.

20. Either-Or
My thoughts on Anti-smoking: For our issue, this view states "If smoking is wrong, then anti-smoking must be right." If you accept the view that 440,000 people die each year from smoking and that 63,000 people die each year from secondhand smoke, then anti-smoking must be right. It says that one or the other must be true. This is a very important belief system, in my mind, where a distinction certainly needs to be made.

For me, at least, it is much more important that a person reject anti-smoking than "like smoking". In truth, my sole and exclusive reason for being here is the former rather than the latter.

This causes a very sticky dilemma though. Nightlight has pointed this out many times. It's a terrific balancing act to say simultaneously "I want you to reject anti-smoking" and, at the same time, say "I don't expect you to like smoking". To put it in perspective, it's a bit like saying "I want you to reject racism" then say "I don't expect you to like me because I'm black". I don't think that these views have to be mutually exclusive, though, on an individual level, but on a societal level, they send a very mixed message.

I'm heterosexual. I don't understand homosexuality because, well, I'm heterosexual. This doesn't necessitate that I EITHER hate homosexuals OR become one. I don't own a cellphone, but this doesn't necessitate that I EITHER hate cellphones OR go out and get one myself.

21. Circular Reasoning

My thoughts on Anti-smoking: You say "None of the studies on secondhand smoke have shown a harmful effect."

They respond "The effects of secondhand smoke are well documented, all of the scientific authorities have stated that secondhand smoke cause a harmful effect, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a dupe of the tobacco industry". If you attempt to show them the study indicating that not shaving poses a greater risk for stroke than secondhand smoke poses for lung cancer, they simply refer to authority, consensus, and the ad hominem attack that "you're supported by the tobacco industry".

Their reasoning is circular; they back up unsubstantiated ideas with a bedrock of other unsubstantiated ideas.

22. Reductio Ad Absurdum and the Slippery Slope
My thoughts on Anti-smoking: Anti-smokers love Reductio Ad Absurdum which is taking your argument to an end via logic that is beyond the practical. Example: Some rape victims were raped because their husbands left the front door unlocked. Reductio Ad Absurdum: Men leaving doors unlocked causes women to be raped, therefore men encourage rape.

Though a certain thing may be true under unique circumstances, it does not mean that a generalization should be made. The Reductio Ad Absurdum of anti-smoking is "smoking, in the long term, may do harm to the smoker over a period of many years. The smoke is harmful to them, therefore it is harmful to non-smokers. Therefore, smoking shouldn't be allowed inside or within 30 feet of an entrance."

23. Effort Inadequacies and the Need for Certainty, Control, and Simplicity

My thoughts on Anti-smoking: It says "Well, I keep hearing it, anecdotal experience fits it once I've heard it, and I won't be convinced until I see evidence otherwise. By the way, I'm not interested in looking at evidence otherwise. "

Many, if not most, people do not have the educational and cognitive skills to make a determination other than what a trusted source tells them. Asking them to see a different viewpoint is like asking them to hit a ball over the fence when they've never held a bat before.

I don't think this can be overemphasized or underestimated. It is very difficult for people who have a set of knowledge that they are readily familiar with to understand that others do not have that knowledge and they will likely attribute your reasoning to another motive. For example, I could hit a ball over the fence when I was 10 and I am perplexed by the lack of
ability for other men to even hit a ball, or hold a bat properly, because I have 30+ years of context for the experience.

It's a bit difficult for me to realize that it never even entered their world. Without evidence otherwise, the people I speak of might conclude that such an act was impossible. On that note, non-smokers have no context for smoking, so they're not interested in hearing rational arguments for smoking rights because it's much more convenient to have their world view reinforced.

24. Problem Solving Inadequacies

My thoughts on Anti-smoking: people tend to immediately accept a hypothesis and look for evidence to fit that hypothesis. If they are presented with evidence that is too complex, they adopt overly simplified explanations to fit the hypothesis. If they are proven wrong, ego intervenes and they tend to believe the whole thing is a trick and they will probably resort to more emotional tactics to defeat your argument. If most people share your opposition's lack of understanding, they will find approval in their emotional arguments.

Secondhand smoke is a great example of this, but I'll provide another one; the idea that using a cellphone can cause a fire at a gas pump. This idea has been thoroughly debunked; the fires were caused by the static electricity people create when they get out of their cars. Many people still hang on to the belief that cell phones cause gas pump fires though, including the service stations themselves. They heard the idea and they hung onto it and it is extremely difficult to talk them out of it. (This is also a great example of #12, "after the fact reasoning".)

25. Ideological Immunity

My thoughts on Anti-smoking: If you wanted to degrade anti-smoking based on the intelligence of its proponents, you would probably find you were making a mistake. Why? Because more intelligent people have a terrible habit of realizing that they are more intelligent, so even when they make mistakes in their reasoning, they are more likely to hold onto them. This has a double effect in that most people who achieve a higher income and a higher grade of education also have a higher propensity to conformity. Usually, these people are not achieving these goals for the love of knowledge. They're achieving them for the love of the buck and to conform to a standard of success that they've assigned to themselves, so they arbitrarily assign it to others. If someone's way of thinking has always worked for them, they're not likely to admit that there's a problem when a deficiency in their reasoning is revealed.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: WinstonSmith,

2. The Observer Changes the Observed

My thoughts on Anti-smoking: People act differently when they are being observed. I can't think of a good example where this one applies to anti-smoking.
-------------
Might not apply to what you're thinking of, but when people are diagnosed with a disease and asked about their exposure to something (SHS) they tend to then exaggerate their exposure to that substance. I think it has to do with people wanting to find THE answer to the question of, Why?

4. Anecdotes Do Not Make Science

My thoughts on Anti-smoking: For example; "My grandmother, aunt and stepfather were all exposed to secondhand smoke and they all died of lung cancer and never smoked. Therefore, secondhand smoke causes lung cancer." I'm actually being quite generous here because, despite the rapid progress anti-smoking has made with its secondhand smoke assertions, they still have not been
able to produce people claiming such anecdotal experience. This is likely to change at some point as a result of reason #1.
-----------------
If I'm understanding you correctly you're saying they haven't played the anecdotal card much? If so I'll see if my state still has the webpage for this.

Several years back our state professional antis had a campaign to put the names and faces on those who had died from SHS. You could go to their website and write:

My aunt Mary never smoked, but lived across the street from a guy who smoked cigars whenever someone had a baby. She died from his SHS. She was only 91.

They had crap like that. I remember writing a letter to my paper saying how in the hell can a layman say what killed their $#@# aunt if her doctor couldn't.

I think on #2 what you're describing, though probably accurate, is more misattribution than the observer changing the observed. An example would be, for instance, people acting differently when they are on camera. I don't think that people acting differently because of a perceived and implied expectation would be the same either, I think it has to be subtler; just being observed changes behavior.

4. You've got to link me to that site, if you can find it. It's so manipulative that it's scary.

Winston, I just did a quick search and didn't find it. I then checked my letter that was published in the paper back then about it. It's dated March, 2002.

Since 2002 the Wisconsin tobacco control group was moved into the state health agency and they might have dropped that webpage. I'll search harder later as I know it was fun in the past to read some of the entries.

This is a part of the letter that I wrote back then:

David Gundersen, executive director of the Wisconsin Tobacco Control Board, issued a press release stating that secondhand smoke kills 1,200 Wisconsinites each year. He would like people to share their secondhand smoke stories with him because "we need to demonstrate that these statistics are real names and faces."

Isn't this putting the cart before the horse, claiming 1,200 lives are lost each year and then asking for proof? If doctors can't find the cause of death as being from secondhand smoke, how's the layman supposed to know?

Thanks, Squeezer. Just unbelievable that they would do that.

what with all the bans in place, what are the anti's going to say about people dieing still 20 30 years from now are they still going to use the same ole same ole SHS excuse

I was just thinking. Obviously, I'm on everybody's side here (except "I Know It All") he..he...but anyway, I have a confession to make. I am guilty of using anecdotal experience to defend my stances as well. Consumer Reports rates Volkswagens as unreliable cars. I've never had a major problem with them, so therefore, Consumer Reports, to me, is full of poop. As far back as the 1970's, I started hearing the claims of children living with smokers having more ear infections. I dismissed this as BS because all of my friends' parents smoked, and none of them had ever had any type of ear infection. There is also a very strong anecdotal fact that millions of us as children grew up with smokers. Why are we not dead, hooked up to respirators, or have had bypass surgery? Many, perhaps most, of you guys do much more thorough research than I do; as I often rely on heresay (as long as it's in OUR favor), so I am gulity as charged with some of the very practices the Anti's employ. HOWEVER....IMO, what it boils down to is a lack of basic intelligence on the part of the Anti Movement to believe that a miniscule trace of smoke from a 3-inch-long stick of paper and tobacco that dissipates almost immediately in air can possibly travel thirty of forty feet across a room or even travel through vents or WALLS, and then enter a nonsmoker's body. This defies any semblance of common sense, and is EXACTLY synonomous with a favorite analogy to the logic behind the "dangers" of shs I use: If you are in the same room with someone eating a red-hot burrito who farts or belches downwind of you, you will get heartburn. I mean, really....... What am I missing?

Pat I really find your post to be funny ,, I was imaging that the smoke particuls are intelligent and can move around at will and just for shits and giggles seek out those non-smokers and attack them

sorry my imagination is getting the better of me

Winston,
I couldn't find the webpage I mentioned. I'm sure it was discarded when the state tobacco control program was moved to the state health dept. I'd have to guess that anecdotal stories just didn't have a place with them.

This is the best I could find, but this just says that they were actually going to do it:

Publication: PR Newswire
Publication Date: 25-FEB-02
Format: Online - approximately 451 words
Delivery: Immediate Online Access

Article Excerpt
MADISON, Wis. -- Following Tuesday's release of the Burden of Tobacco Report, The Wisconsin Tobacco Control Board (WTCB) is seeking second-hand smoke case study submissions from Wisconsin residents. The report showed environmental tobacco smoke is to blame for an additional 1,200 lung cancer and heart disease deaths in Wisconsin each year.

According to David Gundersen, executive director of the WTCB, "The Burden of Tobacco Report reminds us that second-hand...

NOTE: All illustrations and photos have been removed from this article.

I always wondered why I got heartburn when I wasn't the one eating the burrito...thanks Pat!

Last year Deborah Rowe of WLS AM talk radio in Chicago had a show devoted to the effects of second hand smoke. During the show she had on the president of the association that regulates the life insurance industry. He stated that there had not been one single claim that had ever been paid out where the cause of death was listed as "second hand smoke". He went on to say that he had never seen a death certificate which lists second hand smoke as the cause of death. Deborah Rowe a former smoker and advocate of some smokers rights could not believe what she had just heard. She emphatically stated, "not a single claim"...

The president of this life insurance association ended by saying there is only conjecture by the doctors and family as to how the person derived the illness that killed them.

Of course there would have to be extensive science to exclude other factors like genetic predisposition for cancer, chemicals in products we use and eat every day, to air polluted with the black soot coming out of trucks and unknown exposure to carcinogenic products like cleaning solutions, etc. Maybe Uncle Bob's liver cancer came from the case of beer he drank weekly.

These tests on the deceased would never be done because its always easier to simply blame that damn second hand smoke! The question I have is where do they get all those numbers in the thousands that die from second hand smoke? Remember not ONE death certificate lists second hand smoke as the cause of death.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: MikePop,