We are a friendly group that explores a range of topics from both contemporary and classical philosophy. The topics are intended to be interesting, understandable and participative. New members are very welcome.
| Status: | Active, open to new members |
| Leader: |
Graham Robinson
Tel: 01947 229048
|
| When: | On Monday afternoons 2:15 pm-4:00 pm 1st & 3rd Monday of each month (not 5th) |
| Venue: | Rifle Club (Whitby) |
| Cost: | £1 per session |
We meet in the downstairs room at the Rifle Club (near Leisure Centre).
Location, fee and, parking information is at the foot of this page.
Remaining dates for the current term are:: May 18th, June 1st and June 15th.
To email me click on my name just above.
1st June 2026 - "Seek First to Understand"
During our conversation on the 20th of April 2026, one of Stephen Covey's maxims, "Seek First to Understand", cropped up.
Today (24 Apr 2026), by coincidence, one of my podcasts hit very directly on a very similar theme. To date, I believe that I have not given any "homework". I think that I am going to violate that precedent. But to be fair, you have over month to check this out...
If you are willing and able, I would like you all to watch/listen to the video/podcast with the tagline: ""The Jewish Art of Constructive Disagreement". Granted, it is about an hour long. But, I think it is good value if you are able to carve out the time.
I would be sincerely gratified if you could come to this session with a thoughtful reflection on the words of Daniel Taub.
The links to video or audio are at:
https://www.seenandunseen.com/re-enchanting-art-constructive-disagreement
18th May 2026 - What is "Culture"?
Are some cultures inherently "better" than others? If so, how, and why?
Is "culture" anything more than a way of marking in-group/out-group differences (Us and Them)? If no, does culture determine how "We" should treat "Them" or are other factors involved? If culture is more than a marker… what more? Is it important? Why/why not?
Many thanks to Sue T for offering to guide this session in my absence.
4th May 2026 - No Meeting Due to Venue Unavailability
Happy Star Wars day - May the fourth/force be with you.
20th April 2026 - Is Philosophy Relevant?
Philosophy deals with questions that don’t go away. What is truth, what is right or wrong, how should we live and what counts as knowledge?
Law, politics, science, technology and everyday decisions rely on these questions. Questions about national and local democracy, AI ethics, free speech, or privacy are basically modern versions of philosophical problems.
Should there be a requirement to register as a resident of North Yorkshire in order to use North Yorkshire Council funded Household Waste Recycling Centres?
Surely clarity of thinking needs to be brought to bear on this question before the additional administrative costs of registration and enforcement are incurred as well as the minor inconvenience for everyone and a major inconvenience for a minority. Is this a narrow question of the costs borne by local government or is this a national question that needs to be accommodated by appropriate support for local administrations.
Should we, as a very small philosophy group within u3a, "re-brand" ourselves to show that we care both about clear and effective thinking as well as real-world and local issues that will resonate with a wider number of people?
6th April 2026 - Easter Monday
Due to the holiday there will be no meeting.
Looking forward to our meeting on 20th April 2026.
16th March 2026: Cognitive Biases as a "cause" of logical fallacies
If a logical fallacy is how reasoning goes wrong then, to some extent, cognitive biases explain why reasoning goes wrong.
Cognitive bias: a tendency in thinking leading to deviations from rational judgment or objective analysis caused by mental shortcuts being taken. Often operating unconsciously, they influence how we perceive information, evaluate evidence, and make decisions.
Some very common biases are:-
Confirmation bias: favouring information that supports existing beliefs while discounting contradictory evidence.
Anchoring bias: relying too heavily on the first piece of information encountered when making decisions.
Availability bias: overestimating the likelihood of events that are more easily recalled, often because they are recent or emotionally vivid.
Halo effect: allowing one positive characteristic of a person or object to influence overall judgment.
Recognising that we succumb to cognitive biases is an important step toward better thinking.
Some examples logical fallacies and the bias that may drive them.
Ad Hominem: Attacking the person instead of the argument.
In-group bias: favouring “our side”.
Fundamental attribution error: blaming character instead of reasons.
It feels easier to dismiss who said something than engage with what they said.
Straw Man: Misrepresenting an argument to make it easier to attack.
Confirmation bias.
Simplification bias (preference for easy targets).
Preference for winning against a weaker version of the opponent’s view.
Hasty Generalization: Drawing broad conclusions from too little data.
Availability heuristic.
Representativeness heuristic.
Vivid or recent examples feel more “real” than statistics.
Anecdotal Fallacy: Using personal experience instead of systematic evidence
Availability heuristic.
Egocentric bias.
First-hand stories feel emotionally trustworthy even when misleading.
False Cause (Post Hoc): Assuming that because B followed A, A caused B.
Pattern-seeking bias.
Illusory correlation.
Humans are excellent at seeing patterns even imaginary ones.
Slippery Slope: Claiming one small step will inevitably lead to disaster.
Negativity bias.
Catastrophising bias.
Fear grabs attention faster than careful probability analysis.
Appeal to Authority: Treating authority as decisive proof.
Authority bias.
Halo effect.
We’re wired to trust confident, high-status figures.
Appeal to Popularity (Bandwagon): Claiming something is true because many people believe it.
Social proof bias.
Conformity bias.
Belonging feels safer than being right alone.
Appeal to Ignorance: Claiming something is true because it hasn’t been proven false.
Overconfidence bias.
Need for closure.
Uncertainty is uncomfortable; conclusions feel relieving.
False Dichotomy (Either/Or): Presenting only two options when more exist.
Binary thinking bias.
Cognitive load avoidance.
Two choices are easier than complex nuance.
Circular Reasoning (Begging the Question): The conclusion is hidden in the premise.
Confirmation bias.
Belief perseverance.
If you already believe the conclusion, the logic feels “obvious.”
Sunk Cost Fallacy: Continuing a position because of past investment.
Loss aversion.
Commitment bias.
Admitting error feels like wasting effort, even when continuing costs more.
Red Herring: Diverting attention to an irrelevant issue.
Attentional bias.
Emotional salience bias.
Emotionally charged distractions hijack focus.
No True Scotsman: Redefining a group to protect a claim.
In-group bias
Cognitive dissonance avoidance.
Changing definitions is easier than revising beliefs.
Genetic Fallacy: Judging an argument by its source rather than its merit.
Source bias.
Affect heuristic.
We confuse where an idea comes from with whether it’s true.
2nd March 2026 (not 16th Feb): Logical Fallacies
We will continue our topic from last session by moving on to look at the logical fallacies. Logical fallacies are often grouped into two categories: (A) formal fallacies which have problems with their structure and (B) informal fallacies that may have okay structure but have problems with the content, language, or context.
(A) Formal fallacies
These are spotted by looking at the logical structure/form.
They are the evil twins of the ‘laws of logic’ we looked at last time.
- Affirming the consequent
If P is true, then Q is true. Q is true. Therefore, P is true.
If it’s raining, the streets are wet. The streets are wet. Therefore, it’s raining.
The streets could be wet for other reasons. - Denying the antecedent
If P is true, then Q is true. P is not true. Therefore, Q is not true.
If I study, I will pass the exam. I didn’t study therefore I will not pass.
You might pass for other reasons. - Undistributed middle
All X are Z. All Y are Z. Therefore all X are Y.
All cats are animals. All dogs are animals. Therefore, all dogs are cats.
The “middle term” doesn’t properly connect the two groups.
(B) Informal fallacies
This is not about the structure/form. The reasoning is bad in the use of meaning, relevance, or assumptions.
Common types
- Ad hominem: Attacking the person instead of the argument.
You shouldn’t listen to her argument about climate change. She’s not even a scientist.
Non-scientists can make valid arguments. - Straw man: Misrepresenting an argument to make it easier to attack.
He: We should reduce military spending.
She: He wants to leave the country defenceless.
That’s not what was claimed. - False dilemma: Presenting only two options when more exist.
Either you support “the right to roam”, or you hate freedom.
There are many nuanced positions in between.If we allow this, chaos will follow. - Appeal to popularity: Something is true because many people believe it.
Everyone believes this app is secure, so it must be safe.
Popularity is not truth. - Appeal to Authority: Treating authority as decisive.
The president said so, it must be true.
The particular authority may not be relevant or qualified. - Slippery Slope: One small step will inevitably lead to disaster.
If we allow employees to work from home one or two days a week, soon no one will come into the office at all, productivity will collapse, and the company will fail.
More…
Depressingly, there are many more (all too common) types of informal fallacy.
Tu Quoque (You too): Dismissing an argument by accusing the speaker of hypocrisy.
Poisoning the Well: Pre-emptively discrediting a source before they speak.
Red Herring: Introducing an irrelevant issue to distract from the main point.
Appeal to Tradition: Defending a claim solely because it has long been accepted.
Appeal to Novelty: Assuming something is better merely because it is new.
Appeal to Emotion: Manipulating feelings instead of using relevant reasons.
Appeal to Fear: Using threats or fear to persuade.
Appeal to Pity: Using sympathy in place of evidence.
Appeal to Force: Coercing agreement through intimidation.
Appeal to Consequences: Judging a claim by its outcomes rather than its truth.
Appeal to Nature: Assuming something is good or right because it is natural.
Appeal to Ignorance: Claiming something is true because it has not been proven false.
Begging the Question: Assuming the conclusion within the premises.
Circular Reasoning: Restating the conclusion as support for itself.
False Dilemma (False Dichotomy): Presenting limited options when more exist.
False Equivalence: Treating unequal things as if they are the same.
Hasty Generalization: Drawing a broad conclusion from insufficient evidence.
Faulty Analogy: Relying on a weak or misleading comparison.
Composition: Assuming what is true of parts is true of the whole.
Division: Assuming what is true of the whole is true of the parts.
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc: Mistaking sequence for causation.
Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc: Mistaking correlation for causation.
Cherry Picking: Selecting only evidence that supports a conclusion.
Texas Sharpshooter: Imposing patterns on random data after the fact.
No True Scotsman: Redefining a group to dismiss counterexamples.
Moving the Goalposts: Changing standards after they have been met.
Special Pleading: Applying rules to others while exempting oneself.
Loaded Question: Asking a question that presupposes a disputed claim.
Complex Question: Forcing acceptance of an assumption by how a question is framed.
False Cause: Attributing causation without adequate justification.
Equivocation: Shifting meaning of a term within an argument.
Amphiboly: Exploiting grammatical ambiguity to mislead.
Suppressed Evidence: Omitting relevant information that weakens a case.
Middle Ground: Assuming compromise between two positions must be correct.
Genetic Fallacy: Judging a claim based on its origin rather than its merits.
Guilt by Association: Discrediting a claim due to its associations.
Appeal to Ridicule: Mocking a position instead of addressing it.
Appeal to Silence: Treating lack of response as agreement or proof.
Bandwagon: Pressuring acceptance because others have accepted it.
Oversimplification: Explaining a complex issue with an overly simple cause.
(C) Practical Examples
Example 1:
Dr. Mehmet Oz, a cardiothoracic surgeon and television personality says:
(i) Green Coffee Bean Extract, Raspberry Ketones and Garcinia Cambogia supplementation offers weight loss without diet or exercise.
(ii) Hydroxychloroquine is an effective treatment for COVID-19.
(iii) Selenium supplements are the "holy grail of cancer prevention".
(iv) Apple juice contains dangerous levels of arsenic
(v) Placing a bar of lavender soap under bedsheets can cure restless leg syndrome.
Example 2:
Regarding lawsuits against Trump University, Donald Trump said Judge Gonzalo Curiel was biased because of his Mexican heritage.
Example 3:
Brexit. “Remainers want to ignore democracy, overturn the referendum, and keep Britain trapped in the EU forever.”
Example 4:
From President Bill Clinton’s August 17, 1998 grand jury testimony.
“There is no sexual relationship.”
(D) In Conclusion:
Why are fallacies so tempting?
We might fall prey to them because we are only human.
This may be because of: cognitive biases, emotional reasoning, group identity/loyalty or information overload.
The principle of charity (Steel Man vs Straw Man)
Interpret others’ arguments in their strongest reasonable form. It is about understanding not winning.
Separate who is making the claim, and those who believe it, from the actual claim being made.
Try to evaluate the reasons without being swayed by one’s own prejudices, predispositions and emotions.
Try not to extend the implications beyond those actually supported.
Diagnosing an argument being given.
What exactly is the claim/conclusion?
Is this claim supported by premises/reasons?
What are these premises/reasons and are they true?
Do the premises/reasons actually support the conclusion?
Is there a common fallacy at work?
Will you be more likely to:
- spot bad arguments?
- avoid a fallacy?
- make better arguments?
2nd February 2026: Reasoning and Fallacies
We will continue picking off items from our list topics for this term with a look at reasoning and fallacies.
- What Is Reasoning?
Reasoning is giving evidence/support in an attempt to affirm/refute a claim/conclusion.
Why reasoning matters: making decisions, disagreeing well, avoiding being misled.
When did poor reasoning cause a disagreement to go badly?
When did someone giving reasons change your mind? - Arguments: claims, assertions, premises, evidences, conclusions, validity, soundness.
An argument is not a fight; it is a structured statement.
first > premises (because, since, given that): context, reasons, evidence.
then > conclusion (therefore, hence, so): what is claimed.
Arguments can be good (valid and sound) or bad (invalid and/or unsound), regardless of whether the conclusion is true. - The classical ‘Laws of Logic’
Identity (A is A).
A thing is what it is.
A coffee mug is a coffee mug.
Non-Contradiction (not both A and not-A).
Something can’t be true and false at the same time (in the same way)
A door cannot be fully open and fully closed at the same time.
Excluded Middle (either A or not-A)
“Either it is, or it isn’t.
The meeting is happening today, or it isn’t.
Putting them together: “This milk is spoiled.”
Identity: This milk refers to the same carton the whole time.
Non-contradiction: It can’t be both spoiled and not spoiled right now.
Excluded middle: It either is spoiled or it isn’t. - Types of truth
This is a controversial topic worth a session in its own right.
However, it is worth making one important distinction as it plays into some of the premises used in arguments.
This is the analytic/synthetic distinction.
Analytic truth: true because of the meanings of the words alone.
No need to check the world to know it’s true - you just need to understand the terms.
- All bachelors are unmarried.
- A triangle has three sides.
- If something is a square all its internal angles are 90 degrees.
Once you know what bachelor, triangle, or square mean, the statements can’t be false.
Analytic truths are true by definition.
Synthetic truth: true/false because of how the world actually is,
You have to check reality.
- It is raining outside.
- The cat is on the sofa.
- Water boils at 100°C at sea level.
These could have been otherwise, and you need experience or observation to confirm them. - Responding to someone making a statement.
Is this: a claim? an assertion? a conclusion? some evidence? An argument supported by evidence? - Good Reasoning vs Bad Reasoning
The three broad types of reasoning:
Deductive: aims at certainty by applying rules.
All men are mortal and Socrates is a man therefore Socrates is mortal.
Inductive: aims at likelihood by spotting patterns.
Every time I drink coffee after 8pm I can’t sleep so drinking coffee late probably keeps me awake.
Abductive: aims at explanation by following clues.
The grass is wet this morning the best explanation is that it rained last night. - What makes reasoning good:
Premises are relevant.
Premises are plausible or true.
The conclusion is implied or actually follows.
Reasoning is a skill that can be improved and/or learned.
People can reason badly without lying or being stupid. - Valid vs Sound.
(i) Because mammals are warm blooded and since whales are mammals then whales are warm blooded.
(ii) Because birds can fly and since penguins are birds then penguins can fly.
(iii) Because birds are warm-blooded and since mammals are warm-blooded then birds are mammals.
(iv) All cats are reptiles. All reptiles can fly. Therefore, all cats can fly.
(v) All sound arguments are valid but not all valid arguments are sound.
Which of these are valid and which are sound? - What is a fallacy?
A fallacy is a common pattern of bad reasoning that is often persuasive, emotionally appealing or unconscious. It is not really about being wrong but how/why reasoning goes wrong.
a) Ad Hominem
Attacking the person instead of the argument
“You’re wrong because you are a capitalist.”
b) Straw Man
Misrepresenting someone’s view to make it easier to attack
“You want regulation? So you want total government control.”
c) False Dilemma
Presenting only two options when there are more
“Either you support this policy or you don’t care about safety.”
d) Appeal to Popularity
“Everyone believes it, so it must be true.”
e) Appeal to Authority
“Einstein said so, it must be true”.
f) Slippery Slope
Claiming one small step will inevitably lead to disaster.
Have you come across examples of these fallacies? - Why are fallacies so tempting?
We might fall prey to them because we are only human.
This may be because of: cognitive biases, emotional reasoning, group identity/loyalty or information overload. - The principle of charity (Steel Man vs Straw Man)
Interpret others’ arguments in their strongest reasonable form. It is about understanding not winning.
Separate who is making the claim, and those who believe it, from the actual claim being made.
Try to evaluate the reasons without being swayed by one’s own prejudices, predispositions and emotions.
Try not to extend the implications beyond those actually supported. - Diagnosing an argument being given.
What exactly is the claim/conclusion?
Is this claim supported by premises/reasons?
What are these premises/reasons and are they true?
Do the premises/reasons actually support the conclusion?
Is there a common fallacy at work? - Closing
Will you be more likely to:
- spot bad arguments?
- spot/avoid a fallacy?
- make better arguments?
11th January 2026: “They’re Made Out of Meat”
NOTE: THIS IS NOT A SESSION TOPIC
It is just a random thing, following our topic of:
“Are Humans Special?”
Gifted with afterthought, I realised we should have had a look at the 1991 very short story by Terry Bisson. It is a dialogue between two extra-terrestrials surveying our sector of the galaxy to catalogue life-forms.
Official text version:
http://www.terrybisson.com/theyre-made-out-of-meat-2/
An almost verbatim audio version:
https://youtu.be/5usXhX0zaO4?si=oMhBVoXMt9DhcXa3 (YouTube 6 minutes)
Wikipedia entry:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/They%27re_Made_Out_of_Meat
I did know that there was a good video adaptation set in an American diner that I set out to watch again.
https://youtu.be/7tScAyNaRdQ?si=twLKYSrMc5A9OdBV (YouTube 6 minutes)
What I didn't know was quite how many adaptations have been published. So I did go down the ‘rabbit hole’ for a while. I discovered lots of very poor versions but also a few quite good ones.
Another audio version:
https://www.wnyc.org/story/168264-theyre-made-out-of-meat/
Improv:
https://youtu.be/9X73CZIRHxk?si=ZOjd4URZKG0fk7Gz
Simple:
https://youtu.be/GggK9SjJpuQ?si=xtFs6n3P3DEEgIJW
1950's style:
https://youtu.be/X0yRsQK9vG0?si=eLM6zkJLT-DyBltH
Crazy Animated Musical:
https://youtu.be/hJ7g1U_Lfdg?si=jUj3l0RsVAdJ4l8A
Blues Brothers?
https://youtu.be/gmdApMDb3kM?si=FSl7kXytcxsRHzwM
19th January 2026: Artificial Intelligence
As a background, I think it will be useful to explore the history, basis and types of Artificial Intelligence. Then, briefly survey the key application areas for AI.
Then we can look at the social and ethical (including ecological) implications of the current generation of Large Language Models (LLMs) and the generative AI diffusion models used in image creation tools.
We can then maybe speculate about the future emergence of Artificial General Intelligence and the possible existential threat these may or may not pose.
One energy estimate from MIT Technology Review is...
https://www.technologyreview.com/2025/05/20/1116327/ai-energy-usage-climate-footprint-big-tech/
Let’s say you’re running a marathon as a charity runner and organizing a fundraiser to support your cause. You ask an AI model 15 questions about the best way to fundraise.
Then you make 10 attempts at an image for your flyer before you get one you are happy with, and three attempts at a five-second video to post on Instagram.
You’d use about 2.9 kilowatt-hours of electricity—enough to ride over 100 miles on an e-bike (or around 10 miles in the average electric vehicle) or run the microwave for over three and a half hours.
5th January 2026: Notes to Session
During our conversation, we mainly discussed how the true nature of reality, in general, and humans, in particular, provide a basis for for assessing whether humans are special.
We primarily looked through the lenses of Physicalism/Naturalism (Julian Baggini, Daniel Dennett), Analytic Idealism (Bernado Kastrup), Substance Dualism (Thomas Aquinas) and also touched on a more general Christian perspective.
In my prep work for the session I created these ChatGPT conversations.
5th January 2026: Are Humans Special? <updated>
Often the first question to ask is: "What do you mean by...?"
The answer to this question clearly hinges on what we understand a human to be, the context of the question and what is meant by "special".
This topic is strongly linked to our understanding of the nature of reality and the nature of persons that we have covered in past sessions.
Is the nature of a human (a) consciousness/awareness, (b) essence or (c) physical/material, (d) ..... ?
Does special mean (1) rare/unique, (2) of particular importance, (3) separate from other types of beings, (4) ..... ?
I won't play any videos in the session but these may be interesting to look at in advance:
A physicalist view (we've used this before)
https://www.ted.com/talks/julian_baggini_is_there_a_real_you?utm_campaign=tedspread&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=tedcomshare
Aristotle/Aquinas
https://youtu.be/9twxzDealBY?si=ZEoyjkTlBJ2-ud7e
Analytic Idealism
https://youtu.be/aQEEHH11jRU?si=0YScDPSF2s3Q0dhm
One Christian View
https://youtu.be/ggAIMiSW9A8?si=wUQwE9VyNXcD_rqY
If it works in the session... I would like to try to look at this question through three very distinct pairs of eyes each of which takes a particular view. These are the eyes of Saint Thomas Aquinas (Christian Substance Dualism), Bernado Kastrup (Analytic Idealism) and Daniel Dennett (Naturalism). [The linked comparison table was created during a conversation with ChatGPT,]
Topic Choices for 2026
Thank you for all your thoughtful contributions through 2025.
We have chosen some topics for the term starting in 2026:
Are Humans Special?
Reasoning and Fallacies.
Philosophy of Science.
John Gray’s Seven Types of Atheism
Philosophy of Language.
Artificial Intelligence.
15th December 2025: Topics for Next Term. ..and.. What is Politics - continued.
Topics for Next Term: At the start of the session I thought we could sketch out some topics for the first few meetings of the new term.
What is Politics: At our last session we did not tackle the points bullet by bullet, but by discussing various cases (health, education, gambling, justice system, national/local social issues) we touched on many of the key points.
At this session we will continue to explore cases that impinge on the remaining key points.
1st December 2025: What is Politics?
Political philosophy asks big questions about how power, authority, rights, and justice ought to be
arranged in a society. While there’s no single agreed-upon list, most traditions revolve around a core set of principles and problems:
- Justice
What is a fair distribution of benefits and burdens in society? - Liberty (Freedom)
How free should individuals be, and from what? - Equality
In what ways should people be equal? - Authority & Legitimacy
When is political power justified?
Central idea: Legitimate power must be justified, not just enforced - Rights
What rights do people have, simply by being human? - Power
Who should have power, and how much? - The Role of the State
What should government do? - The Common Good
Should politics aim at individual happiness or collective well-being? - Obligation & Obedience
Why should citizens obey laws? - Forms of Government
What is the best political system?
Archived Session Plans/Notes
These are links to PDF documents.
Venue and Parking
We meet in the downstairs room at Whitby Rifle Club.
There is some limited free parking on the Rifle Club grounds whilst in the meeting.
NOTE parking charges may be due if you park in the marked bays of the Leisure Centre car park.
There is also 3 hour disc parking on Crescent Avenue. (please ensure you check the signage as some disc parking in town is only 1 hour)
There will be a venue fee of £1.
I do not plan to run a tea kitty but the ground floor kitchen should be open from 2pm.