My thanks to Mr. Heller for inspiring this. His claim against Reuben (argumentum ad ignorantiam) jostled memories dormant since my time at a Jesuit university. Let's take a walk down fallacy lane.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam. "You can't prove there will not be rollover problems, therefore there will be rollover problems.

Slippery slope. "Any break in the supply chain will cause the entire system to fail." The literary version of this is "for the want of a nail, the kingdom was lost."

Appeal to consequences. "If you don't prepare for a Y2K catastrophe, you are sentencing your loved ones to death." The literary version of this is the "Ant and Grasshopper."

Prejudicial language. "The difference between GIs and DGIs: GIs care about their families." Alternative version, "Why are pollies so dumb?"

Argumentum ad hominem. "Don't listen to what Decker is saying. You can't believe him because he's a shill for the [pick an organization.]"

Argumentum ad verecundiam. "Yourdon has 30 years of IT experience and therefore is qualified to gauge the economic and social impacts of computer problems." Alternative version, "The Federal Reserve, FDIC and all economists are wrong about the economics impacts of Y2K. The only exception is Ravi Batra."

Anonymous authority. "Mr. CEO." Alternative versions... much of what was written by Y2Knewswire. (chuckle)

Hasty generalization. "One computer system in Fiji had a critical date problem therefore most computer systems will have critical date problems."

Unrepresentative sample. "A survey from a Y2K website showed that over 90% of Americans are worried about rollover." Alternative version, "90% of Y2K consultants are worried about Y2K."

False Analogy. "Y2K will be like the Civil War and the Great Depression rolled into one event." Alternative version. "The metrics for software development apply to software remediation."

Slothful Induction. "Sure, nothing has happened during 1999. So what. I never expected any problems until 1/1/2000."

Fallacy of Exclusion. "You have to throw out what the NERC, FDIC and other agencies are saying. They are all lying out of pure self interest."

I suppose I've made my point. The spirit here is not to pick on logically-challenged "doomers." Bad argumentation has become a staple of modern American life. Few universities teach logic and/or rhetoric. (It was required where I attended.) People are routinely bamboozled by poor logic and fallacious arguments. It helps to understand fallacies and develop an "ear" for a really bad argument.

Thanks to Stephen Downes

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), July 06, 2000

Answers

I was scared, my wife was scared,I prepped as I saw fit.I'm glad I did.

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), July 06, 2000.

p.s. ken,sorry about the crankyness last year,much better now(whew!)

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), July 06, 2000.

You can't develop an "ear" for bad logic if you can't understand the JARGON of a particular discipline. That was the "magic" for the Doomzies in Y2k.

A simple problem "everyone" could understand they assumed everyone had (latent Y2k Flu), a fixed set of "potential problems" everyone memorized (with the aid of daily repetitions from Brother Gary, Brother Michael and Teacher Diane, ever present "linkMeisters" and her Classes of Dooomzies all nicely "hall monitored" by the Y2k Sysops.)

It was the ultimate "perfect set up" , the techs didn't know enough detail about the business world and the business world could not get past the jargon of either software or the "embedded systems".

So as Nick Z. pointed out here was a technical problem, the public could finally understand. To simplify, the problems pivoted around the Northian "categories". When one of them wore down or was going nowhere, they would revise another. As soon as it was clear that "Locs" and "not enough programmers" wasn't working out for them, they moved "embedded" up the ladder. When the Banks looked scary it was the banks. After it was clear they didn't have a leg to stand on, they tried pure smoke against the Banks, "Bank Runs Coming" (Gary's Wet Dream). NOT ONE RUN TOOK PLACE.

The first to die off was the "Grid will Fail". That sort of melted down when their golden boy, Sailor Rick Cowles changed the name of his web site.

In the end, FEW could answer one question from me: "What are you "prepping for". The best they could come up with was "No body knows what will happen" And for that you were supposed to jingle up Don McElvaney or Hyatt and ask them how much stored food would be "Prudent" to buy.

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), July 06, 2000.

You forgot the fallacy...

Reflexus contra Decker. "When Ken Decker says anything, my knee jerks, my head spins freely on its axis, and scabrous comments come out of my mouth. This proves Ken is the devil."

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), July 06, 2000.

People prepare for hurricanes, earthquakes, fire, etc. Y2K was a unique situation, people were scared because there was a date and a time. There's no point in gloating or crying over spilled milk. Many good things came out of the fear, people banded together and shared information. I don't believe there's one single person here who didn't learn a thing -- good or bad. So whether your a doomer or a polly, it makes no difference now. Excuse me now while I go tend to my garden and goats.

-- eyesonyou (eyesonyou@eyesonyouuu.xcom), July 06, 2000.

For their sakes, I've come the point where I hope Decker & cpr never ever learn that that vast majority of people here and elsewhere aren't nearly as stupid as they think. Somehow that seems charitable. Maybe not.

Less charitably I challenge either for some statistics describing the size of the imagined lost hoard. Assuming an unsatisfactory answer (CAPS & all) the next question would be just who the loving hell do either think their audience is here. Each other maybe. Themselves maybe. Best guesses probably.

Was most disappointed last week when with hands wringing in excited anticipation there was discussion of a possible doomer suicide. Huh. Don't recall involvement of the above mentioned gents but geeze, talk about a turnabout. Doubt the thread was missed but what was missed was denouncement. You all remember the importance of denouncement don't you? Been hammered enough here you aught to.

-- Carlos (riffraff1@cybertime.net), July 06, 2000.

Actually, Carlos, I judge stupidity on an individual basis. Some of the Y2K doomsayers were quite intelligent. I present Wile E. Heller as an example. Intelligence, however, is just one of many human qualities and provides little insurance against foolish behavior.

As for "lost hoard," I'm really not sure what you are muttering about. Unlike Reuben, I have never suggested Y2K prepration was catatrophic for others. Besides, why would I care about how other people spend their money. My original post is about the spate of logical errors made by the Y2K "doomers." You don't have to learn anything from this exercise, nor do I feel any compulsion to justify my motives for writing.

Here's the short form for you Carlos. Why did some people 'get it' wrong? One, they had a predisposition to believe in an apocalyptic scenario. Two, they didn't spot the logical errors in their arguments. Three, they were unwilling or unable to learn anything from the people who saw these errors.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), July 06, 2000.

eyesonyou hits the nail (probably inadvertently) on the head.

If one was truly prepared for hurricanes, earthquakes, fires, etc then one would automatically also be prepared for Y2K. One of the more interesting things (about Y2K) was the fact that many of the people who were most concerned about it WERENT concerned (or prepared) for hurricanes, earthquakes, fires, etc..

They were panicky about something with a low probability of occurring but rather blasi about disasters that had a higher probability of occurring.

And that is the crux of the entire thing.

-- The Engineer (spcengineer@yahoo.com), July 06, 2000.

Ken:

[One, they had a predisposition to believe in an apocalyptic scenario. Two, they didn't spot the logical errors in their arguments. Three, they were unwilling or unable to learn anything from the people who saw these errors.]

Close. They certainly decided what they wanted to believe, and it certainly didn't take much to trigger the belief.

In no real sense were they led down the primrose path by faulty logic in their analysis, however. These aren't nearly so much logical fallacies as they are "any port in a storm" desperate justifications and rationalizations to support their belief.

Amusingly enough, pointing out these errors, daily and in some detail, had no chance of any persuasive effect, serving only to motivate people to dig in all the deeper. For some people no error that supports their convictions, regardless how stupid, is ever rejected. I'm certain that if God Himself had appeared to debunk y2k, many here would have changed religions, or at the very least become convinced that God was failing to consider the interconnectedness of things.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 06, 2000.

Four, they didn't know who to trust.

-- Carlos (riffraff1@cybertime.net), July 06, 2000.

I've never been terribly predisposed to believe in an apocalyptic scenario,flint.That's what made the mania of y2k and world wide millennialist angst to so novel.How often does the entire world agree to freak out at the same time without needing a war to do it?Y2K WAS GREAT!

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), July 06, 2000.

Best I can tell zoobie the only ones who freaked out (one way or another) were on internet forums. Rest of the world hardly shrugged.

-- Carlos (riffraff1@cybertime.net), July 06, 2000.

The Mohawked Ex-yuppies will do the nasty to your rear-end because you didn't try to warn them that y2k was going to be so bad.

-- The Zoobie Wannabe (just@like.zoob), July 06, 2000.

WHAT'S THE DEAL WITH YOU GUYS LIKE CREEPER AND DECKER AND ANDY RAY AND FLINT AND HMMMM AND DOOMERSTOMPER AND SUPER POLLY AND CARLOS AND THE ENGINEER?? WHY ARE YOU SO OBSESSED WITH A SUBJECT THAT IS OBVIOUSLY HISTORY AND THE REST OF THE WORLD HAS FORGOTTEN ALL ABOUT IT, IS YOUR KNOWLEDGE BASE SO MINISCULE THAT YOU CAN'T THINK OF ANY OTHER THINGS TO DISCUSS, OR WOULD YOU BE EMBARRASSED TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS ON OTHER TOPICS BECAUSE MAYBE YOU AREN'T EXPERTS OR PROFESSIONALS AT OTHER THINGS LIKE BEAUTY AND LOVE AND GOD AND HUMANITY, OT ARE YOU JUST SO COMPUTER-NERDED OUT THAT THIS IS THE ONLY THING YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT AND YOU LIKE TO TRY TO IMPRESS OTHERS BECAUSE YOU CAN SPEAK ABOUT TECHNICAL THINGS AND LOOK LIKE YOU ARE A SMARTY BIGSHOT AND TELL EVERYONE ELSE HOW WRONG THEY ARE? HMMMMM??? ARE YOU STILL GOING TO BE TELLING YOUR GRANDCHILDREN 20 YEARS FROM NOW HOW YOU WERE SUCH GENIUSES BECAUSE YOU CONCLUDED THAT Y2K WOULD BE NO PROBLEM AND THEREFORE YOU ARE SOME KIND OF SUPER-PROPHETS AND YOUR GRANDCHILDREN WILL BE SO IMPRESSED AND GO OOOOH AAAAAH BOY YOU ARE SO MUCH BETTER THAN EVERYONE ELSE? DOES THIS PRETTY MUCH SUM UP THE ENTIRE SCOPE OF YOUR RATHER PATHETIC LIVES, BECAUSE THAT SURE IS THE WAY IT SEEMS JUDGING BY THE KIND OF REDUNDANT BORING EGO-GRATIFYING TRIPE YOU KEEP POSTING OVER AND OVER AGAIN ON THIS FORUM.

-- JUST WONDERING (HOW PATHETIC @ ARE. YOU? VERY? YES!), July 06, 2000.