Straight and Crooked Thinking-”Why online trainings (sic) are not so successful?”

In the Learning, Education and Training Professionals Group on LinkedIn (www.linkedin.com), an argument still smoulders. It is headed “Why online trainings are not so successful?”

After several hundred postings and a number of weeks, it is astonishing to see how many unsupportable conclusions have been reached. The latest was, “I think most of us agree that Online doesn’t compete with Onsite from a results perspective.” You may think it, but that does not mean it is true! I’d refer all readers of online discussions that would like to tell you what we all believe  back to the 1930′s book, “Straight and Crooked Thinking”, by Robert H. Thouless.

It’s all there:

• Begging the question – as in that discussion, where the proposition which requires proof (“online trainings are not so successful”) is assumed without proof.
• Appeal to authority - where something is accepted as correct without challenge because it is originated or endorsed by a person or a source that is commonly regarded as reliable. (So many experts in a Forum, it makes your head spin).
• The bandwagon fallacy – which usually begins with “Everybody knows…” (“Most of us agree…” is a case in point)
• Proof by example – “I’ve taken part in a very successful online project so it must work.” An attractive argument for the supporters of online learning, but logically flawed, all the same.
• The continuum fallacy – which insists that if something is not 100% compliant or 100% accurate then it cannot be acceptable.
• False dilemma and black and white thinking where an argument considers two alternatives, when in fact there are many other options.
• Argument to moderation – taking the extreme position at either end of an argument is always wrong, and so a “blend” is always the right solution (not if you apply logic, it isn’t!).
• Special pleading – where a generally accepted rule or principle has been broken, but without justifying the exemption. For example, “Even though I am an enthusiastic supporter of online learning, I still do most of my work face-to-face”.
• Appeal to consequences – “…if you trainers are happy to look for another job, all you have to do is endorse online learning.”
• Appeal to motive (The Mandy Rice-Davies argument) – “Have you noticed how the best arguments for online learning come from the people who supply it? They have a vested interest therefore their evidence must be unreliable.”
• Irrelevant conclusion – this is a deliberate attempt to muddle by changing the subject.

Aristotle must be turning in his grave!

FOOTNOTE First published in 1932, the book was required reading for British soldiers to help them to defuse enemy propaganda.I’ve picked out only a few but Thouless describes 38 dishonest tricks that are commonly used in arguments and shows you how to recognise and refute them. If you can get a copy, do! Straight and crooked Thinking, by Robert H. Thouless, First published Simon and Schuster, 1932, ISBN 0-330-24127-3

About Phil Green

Phil Green has written 58 post in this blog.

Phil identifies himself as a perfomance consultant and teacher who helps people and organisations to do the best they can at work. He has strong skills in designing learning materials and workflow support, and draws from a wide spectrum of methods and technology. Co-designer of a certificated qualification in blended learning, he has trained hundreds of others from many industry sectors in how to create effective learning solutions, both online and offline.

• View all posts by Phil Green →
• Blog

No related posts.