Ten Leaky Buckets

[Lord Muck oGentry]

I came across this handy phrase in the writings of Antony Flew, although I cannot say whether he coined it. It refers to the idea, in his words, that "ten leaky buckets will hold water where one leaky bucket will not": that is, that a cluster of individually weak arguments may, taken together, have considerable force. The central feature is precisely that the individual arguments are fallacious and can therefore be defeated if tackled singly.

Of course, those who like to use TLB do not describe it in these words; if they acknowledge it explicitly, they are likely to speak of, for example, individually weak strands combined to make a strong rope. However, this defence gives a clue to the confusion that underlies the use of TLB. It confuses individually bad arguments with individually indecisive pieces of evidence. A fallacious argument does nothing at all to establish its concusion, but small pieces of evidence may be accumulated to support a substantial conclusion, provided each piece does its work.

In my limited experience of the internet, TLB has come up when some philosophizing cove thinks he has found a new argument to prove the existence of a deity or a spiritual realm or something of the sort. Before we see the masterwork, we are treated to his account of Aquinas, Paley and other giants on whose shoulders he has stood. When we point out the weaknesses in his masterwork, we are told that it derives support from these earlier works. So back we must go, demolishing them one by one- if we can find the patience.

TLB resembles certain other arguments, including arguments from repetition and arguments from multiple anecdotes. However, I think it may be distinctive enough to merit its own title.

[Janot]

I came across this handy phrase in the writings of Antony Flew, although I cannot say whether he coined it. It refers to the idea, in his words, that "ten leaky buckets will hold water where one leaky bucket will not": that is, that a cluster of individually weak arguments may, taken together, have considerable force. The central feature is precisely that the individual arguments are fallacious and can therefore be defeated if tackled singly.

Of course, those who like to use TLB do not describe it in these words; if they acknowledge it explicitly, they are likely to speak of, for example, individually weak strands combined to make a strong rope. However, this defence gives a clue to the confusion that underlies the use of TLB. It confuses individually bad arguments with individually indecisive pieces of evidence. A fallacious argument does nothing at all to establish its concusion, but small pieces of evidence may be accumulated to support a substantial conclusion, provided each piece does its work.
In what context did Flew say this? It seems to me that it holds no value in a scientific context, but (for example) it is exactly the manner in which Classics operates. As a specific example, lets say Stoic cosmology (as you do). Here, we have virtually no direct evidence of what they thought, but quite a few short quotations from Stoics in later writers. To build up a picture of their cosmology, you take all the bits of indecisive pieces of evidence and try to form an overall theory which is consistent with the evidence. This is how it has to be, because that is all we have.

Perhaps Flew was referring to indecisive pieces of evidence for the existence of a deity, which seems to me to be the way most thoughtful theists might conclude there is one.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

It comes from Flew's book God and Philosophy ( the 1966 edition- not the recent one, in which his views have changed). As my copy is on loan to a friend, I can't quote the full context. But I'll let you know as soon as I get it back, if you like.

If I remember correctly, he refers to building up a factual case in a court of law: each piece of evidence has a part to play, but none is decisive on its own. He had in mind, again IIRC, comments from some theologians to the effect that discredited traditional arguments ( first cause, first mover, contingency, design, personal experience and the like) might, although failing of their purpose as arguments, nevertheless " point to" or suggest or imply the being whose existence they were meant to establish. His TLB point is that this rescue attempt is doomed: a bad argument isn't evidence of the desired conclusion, because it isn't evidence at all.

Not that I was ever much of a classicist, but I suppose that the example you give, of trying to create a picture of Stoic cosmology from surviving fragments, would meet with his approval as the only way to proceed. That would be my view too.

For Flew's more recent views:
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/stenger_25_2.html
He appears to have been taken with what he understood to be modern scientific arguments in favour of Design. FWIW, I agree with the younger Flew, not the older.

[Janot]

each piece of evidence has a part to play, but none is decisive on its own. Am I right it interpreting the TLB metaphor as meaning that if one weak argument is unacceptable, then ten such arguments are equally as weak, i.e. ten buckets will leak as much as one? But this is contrasted with ten bits of inconclusive evidence, which together build a strong case?

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Am I right it interpreting the TLB metaphor as meaning that if one weak argument is unacceptable, then ten such arguments are equally as weak, i.e. ten buckets will leak as much as one? But this is contrasted with ten bits of inconclusive evidence, which together build a strong case?

Just about. With the rider that the traditional arguments I mentioned are weak in quite specific ways. The First Mover Argument, for example, is internally inconsistent. Other arguments ( Contingency, Experience) trade on muddles and ambiguities. These weaknesses are different from the weaknesses of a case that is inconclusive but not unreasonable.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Sorry, Janot. I meant to add a word of clarification. Flew's point is that the weakness of the traditional arguments is quite different from the weakness of a piece of evidence that needs support from other evidence to make the case. If that is what you meant, then you have hit the nail on the head. :smiley:

[Janot]

Sorry, Janot. I meant to add a word of clarification. Flew's point is that the weakness of the traditional arguments is quite different from the weakness of a piece of evidence that needs support from other evidence to make the case. If that is what you meant, then you have hit the nail on the head. :smiley:Yep, that's what I meant. Spot on. :smiley:

[Janot]

Edit:

I have come across some appalling German scholarship in Classics, where arguments are bits of evidence supported by the arguments of previous German scholars. I have had to examine the previous scholarship and usually found the original argument complete bollox, but accepted by the second scholar because it was written by a Professor Dr. Dr. someone who was important, and thus must be right. Once the original argument could be rejected, the scholarship built on it became one more leaky bucket. Whilst doing this, I had to read several papers and theses written from 1860 to 1920 by Germans, but written in Latin (!). This might have something to do with why the later scholars just accepted the findings without examining the actual argument.

[Dr B]

Surely ten bits of inconclusive evidence lead to inconclusive interpretations.

The only thing one can really conclude is the need for more research, which hardly needs ten leaky arguments to support it in the first place? O0

[Mongrel]

Would I be wrong in thinking that this fallacy is similar to the creationist tactic "The Gish Gallop (http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Gish_Gallop)"?

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Would I be wrong in thinking that this fallacy is similar to the creationist tactic "The Gish Gallop (http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Gish_Gallop)"?

Yes, there is a similarity. And in practice one may shade into the other. But, to my mind, what makes the TLB distinctive is that each discredited argument is said to derive support from the other discredited arguments. The effect, if the buggers get away with it, is that the bad arguments are dead but won't lie down.

[Mongrel]

Yes, there is a similarity. And in practice one may shade into the other. But, to my mind, what makes the TLB distinctive is that each discredited argument is said to derive support from the other discredited arguments. The effect, if the buggers get away with it, is that the bad arguments are dead but won't lie down.


Whereas 'The gallop' is just a solid wall of teh stupid. Gotcha O0

[Janot]

Surely ten bits of inconclusive evidence lead to inconclusive interpretations.

The only thing one can really conclude is the need for more research, which hardly needs ten leaky arguments to support it in the first place? O0For the sciences, agreed. But I was referring to classics, where the research relies on a very limited and more or less constant number of ancient texts. All interpretations in this field are really probabilities, so ten bits of inconclusive evidence could support a theory which is likely to be correct, but just one bit prevents any theory from being made other than speculation, i.e. a much lower probablity of being correct.

[Admin]

I had a discussion the other day about Victor Zammit's challenge to skeptics to debunk (or rebut as he says) his claim that the afterlife exists.

His argument is based upon an accumulation of evidence (from NDEs and EVPs to mediums etc.) each of which is not conclusive in itself but, he claims, gains the status of being irrefutable (I'm paraphrasing) when considered as a whole. It brought the 'ten leaky buckets' argument to mind - which I used.

My argument made the distinction between tangible and intangible evidence.

If you have 10 pieces of evidence that are individually inconclusive, they can be pieced together to make a strong case if the evidence is tangible (material evidence, CCTV footage, fingerprints, etc., in a crime); but if the evidence is intangible (the psychic, dowser, and table tippers all indicated the presence of a ghost), then you cannot build a strong case from the pieces of evidence.

So I don't think the '10 leaky buckets' argument is fallacious in itself; it's more a case of it not being valid when the evidence is not tangible.

[Drop Bear]

I had never heard of the term before and I'm fascinated.

Have I missed the point in seeing the idea of a legal case based on circumstantial evidence in the same way?

[Harryprice]

If you have 10 pieces of evidence that are individually inconclusive, they can be pieced together to make a strong case if the evidence is tangible (material evidence, CCTV footage, fingerprints, etc., in a crime); but if the evidence is intangible (the psychic, dowser, and table tippers all indicated the presence of a ghost), then you cannot build a strong case from the pieces of evidence..

There is another key difference in your example. When putting together evidence about who commited a crime, you at least know the crime itself took place. You do not know there was ever a ghost, or spirit, present at a given location.

The 'buckets' type argument is usually used to support the existence of ghosts in general rather than any one ghost in particular. Some people talk about twigs, rather than buckets. If you have a lot of 'twigs' (bits of weak evidence) apparently supporting the idea of ghosts, together they make a sturdy bunch capable of holding up the concept. In reality, these 'twigs' only support evidence for ghosts because of they way they are interpreted by people who already believe ghosts exist.

it is actually quite easy to demonstrate that there is something weird being reported at a particular location. All you need is multiple, independent witnesses reporting similar things. What is much more difficult is demonstrating that the 'weird thing' is a spirit or other paranormal entity. Most of the 'evidence' for that comes from psychics!

[Lord Muck oGentry]

I had a discussion the other day about Victor Zammit's challenge to skeptics to debunk (or rebut as he says) his claim that the afterlife exists.

His argument is based upon an accumulation of evidence (from NDEs and EVPs to mediums etc.) each of which is not conclusive in itself but, he claims, gains the status of being irrefutable (I'm paraphrasing) when considered as a whole. It brought the 'ten leaky buckets' argument to mind - which I used.

My argument made the distinction between tangible and intangible evidence.

If you have 10 pieces of evidence that are individually inconclusive, they can be pieced together to make a strong case if the evidence is tangible (material evidence, CCTV footage, fingerprints, etc., in a crime); but if the evidence is intangible (the psychic, dowser, and table tippers all indicated the presence of a ghost), then you cannot build a strong case from the pieces of evidence.

So I don't think the '10 leaky buckets' argument is fallacious in itself; it's more a case of it not being valid when the evidence is not tangible.

John, is this what you meant?
http://www.victorzammit.com/skeptics/challenge.html

If the discussion you mention was conducted online, I'd certainly be interested in seeing it.

[Graham Lappin]

I had a discussion the other day about Victor Zammit's challenge to skeptics to debunk (or rebut as he says) his claim that the afterlife exists......


John, is this what you meant?
http://www.victorzammit.com/skeptics/challenge.html

Trouble is he talks about "genuine" mediums and "genuine" psychics. I think those buckets are not leaking as much as the bottom has fallen out.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Trouble is he talks about "genuine" mediums and "genuine" psychics. I think those buckets are not leaking as much as the bottom has fallen out.

Zammit is so preposterous that it's hard to know where to start.

His condition 2, for example:

2. The offeror and the applicant will agree that the applicant has demonstrated the technical skills to rebut the evidence. This is a fundamental and most important condition.

This is supported ( if that's the word) by this:

Because there have been applicants who wasted a great deal of our precious time and money who had not examined the evidence in detail, it has become essential and a pre-requisite that prior to any actual submission of any rebuttals of the evidence in Stage Two of the Challenge, a potential applicant must initially submit to the offeror a detailed exposition of how the applicant is going to rebut the evidence outlined in the above Preface.Further, see 2 below.

and by this:


15. Because the afterlife evidence is highly technical, first, the applicant must exhibit understanding of iScientific Method; secondly, of the admissibility of evidence - inter alia the differences between objective, subjective and anecdotal evidence and thirdly, the applicant must have been identified in recognized public news-media that the applicant is a genuine, bona fides investigator of the afterlife.

All of this, according to Zammit, because:

Also, it was suggested that the psychics ought to put up a similar challenge reflecting the skeptics' own conditions for the stated prize.


There is, of course, literally nothing in the JREF Million-Dollar Challenge corresponding to Zammit's preening and question-begging.

If there's a prize for a Cargo Cult MDC, Zammit is a strong contender in a good year.

And if he's going to talk legal Latin, he ought to be able to tell the difference between bona fides and bona fide.

[Croydon Bob]

And if he's going to talk legal Latin, he ought to be able to tell the difference between bona fides and bona fide.

He claims to be a lawyer. I understand that it has been established in the past that he has some kind of legal qualification and has had some kind of legal job. But he doesn't display the organised thinking and intelligence of most of the real lawyers that I've met. He's not very bright and a total raving nutter.

I did a talk about him many years ago and his website is now totally different but no more sane.