Sigmund Freud had a dream. In fact, he had quite a few, which he chose to analyse in his little book of dreams. Each dream had something to tell us about the nature of the unconscious mind and, if you believe the internet, one dream in particular had something special to say about climate change sceptics. The dream goes by the title Irma’s Injection. I’ll spare you the details but it is a dream in which our father of psychoanalysis can be found surrealistically flirting with multiple but contradictory attitudes toward poor Irma’s condition. Upon awakening, he was able to explain that not only was such incoherence a sure-fire indicator of a dreaming state (a conscious, rational mind would never engage in such a blatant illogic), it was also a demonstration of how the unconscious mind can defy the authority of real-life logic when pursuing the ego’s transcendent desire to meet a basic need – in this case the need to be proven right. To further illustrate the point, Freud recounts a humorous anecdote in which a man returns a borrowed kettle in a damaged state. In his defence the man first claims that the returned kettle is undamaged, before adding that the kettle was already damaged when borrowed and that he had not borrowed it anyway! This style of arguing, in which contradictory assertions are bundled into one desperately defensive argument, has now found a home in the psychologists’ taxonomy of fallacious thinking. It’s filed under the title of ‘kettle logic’.

Unfortunately, many have failed to appreciate that the kettle anecdote was only a joke, coined to exemplify the illogic that can also enter into dreams. Freud was just demonstrating how the absurdities in a joke’s set up are very similar to the incoherent inconsistencies encountered in dreams, particularly since they can both betray an unconscious desire to fulfil a wish. He was not suggesting that kettle logic was a thing that rational people can fall into the trap of using during their waking state. But that didn’t stop people from filling the internet with supposed examples of genuine kettle logic perpetrated by decidedly wakeful individuals who were not joking. And, in particular, it didn’t stop the accusation that kettle logic is a real-life affliction that can be found in most climate denial argumentation. Yes folks, we’re here again. We are in the world of the half-baked expert pathologizing the sceptical brain.

Urban Spacemen

Ask any AI what ‘kettle logic’ means in the context of climate change and it will readily tell you that it is a denialist’s aberration of thinking. The example most commonly offered is the supposed argument that global warming isn’t happening, but it is natural and not caused by humans – and besides which, it is now too late and expensive to fix the damage that humans have caused. Certainly, this would qualify as kettle logic, and if someone were to offer such an argument in your presence you would be perfectly justified in suspecting that you were dreaming – a suspicion that could readily be confirmed by flapping your arms and soaring up to the ceiling. Personally, I have never had that particular dream, nor have I encountered anyone acting it out in real life. What I have seen, however, are statements to the effect that global warming isn’t happening, but if it were, then one would still be justified in questioning what is causing it; and if it turned out to be us, that wouldn’t automatically mean that we can do anything about it within the required timescale. That’s not kettle logic; that’s just conjecturing with regard to a number of issues. Also, if one looks into a forum and sees a multitude of different but mutually contradictory ‘denialist’ positions expressed, that isn’t kettle logic either; that’s just people disagreeing. The reality is that the kettle logicians are denizens of the dreamworld, a figment of the imagination that has been used as a cartoon depiction of denialism – a depiction created to convince the world that climate change scepticism is nothing more than an abandonment of basic logic in pursuance of wish fulfilment. But here comes the twist: like the urban spaceman baby, we don’t exist.

Now for some pot-calling-the-kettle-black logic

And yet it isn’t the trumped-up charge of denialist kettle logic that I find the most annoying thing here. It’s the underlying assumption that only climate sceptics have wishes to fulfil and are prepared to throw away logic in their pursuit. What would have been so wrong with AI offering ‘examples’ in which the alarmists were fraternising with kettle logic? Because, believe me, they are not hard to find.

For example, what about the argument that the transition to green energy will be incredibly cheap and save everyone money immediately, but we must be prepared for significant economic sacrifice and degrowth to save the planet? Or how about the view that renewables are already more efficient than fossil fuels, so the market will naturally switch on its own, whilst it also seems quite okay to have massive state intervention? And then there is the argument that we have passed the point of no return because the feedback loops are already locked in, yet we still have 10 years left to save the world (every fraction of a degree we prevent makes a massive difference, so we must never give up). As for the required technology, we already have all the technology we need to solve global warming today, which presumably is why there is the call for a ‘Manhattan Project’ level of massive investment in new R&D to find solutions! And finally, my personal favourite: there is supposed to be this thing called the genius-idiot denier, who suffers the Dunning-Kruger effect but is still so clever that he can use his intellect to hide his own irrationality from himself (feel free to change the miscreant’s gender if it makes you feel more comfortable).

Far from being a paragon of logical consistency, the world of alarmist proselytising is a gish gallop of arguments that are often perfectly inconsistent and yet proffered nevertheless because there is a wish to be fulfilled. It’s no more kettle logic than is the denialist collective, but it is very telling that alarmism is allowed to get away with such incoherence without so much as an AI’s inkling. Why is it that we can so readily believe in the real-life existence of a logic-defying sceptic – one that ought only to exist in our dreams and jokes – and yet we can’t see the possibility of an alarmist being similarly afflicted?

How did we get here?

Should we be surprised that the alarmist position is so seemingly incoherent and yet blithely accepted? Well, not really. At least not here in the UK, particularly when one considers the basis upon which the government formulates its climate strategy. I think it is well-known that UK governments are now just gimps to the dominatrix that is the UK Climate Change Committee, an organisation that owes its raison d’etre to Professor Nick Pidgeon with his report of the APPCCG inquiry. To compile the report, Nick and his team undertook a ‘data synthesis’ that involved little more than the collation of views solicited from both experts and members of the public (at least those who could be bothered to respond to the questionnaire – mostly readers of The Independent as it turned out). For that reason, we find several contradictory views sharing the same page. For example, the idea that we should all be prepared to accept the hardships of a ‘war footing’ can be found alongside the one that net zero will make all our lives a lot easier. It was a classic case of throw all you have at the wall to see what sticks. In fact, taken as a whole, the report is the very definition of kettle logic. At least it would be if its thoughts and recommendations were all taken on board without discretion – which of course they were!

So, to conclude, I think kettle logic is a much-misunderstood concept that has little or no relevance outside the world of Freudian psychoanalysis. But it is an alluring idea that has gained a real-life potency, since the allegation of kettle logic can be readily aimed at any group that embraces a multiplicity of ideas. Traditionally, victims of such target practice are the outgroups, such as climate change sceptics. True to form, psychologists seem to have led the way here, simply because talk of kettle logic sounds a bit sciencey and because the downfall of climate scepticism seems to be part of any typically left-wing liberal’s wish list. I’m not very impressed by any of this, and I am even less impressed that the alarmist case has escaped scot-free when it comes to the kettle logic allegation, whereas (if anything) it should be first in the firing line.

11 Comments

  1. Nicely done, John, thank you.

    As you say, there are numerous examples of mutually inconsistent alarmist arguments that are sometimes run alongside one another.

    The one that (currently) annoys me most is the claim that renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels, which sits alongside the need to offer 20 year state-guaranteed CfD contracts to persuade renewables energy companies to proceed with projects which should be profitable enough to stand on their own two feet if renewables really are cheap.

    Next up is the claim that increasing reliance on energy systems that are heavily dependent on foreigners, especially China, enhanced UK energy security and independence.

    I am sure other Clisceppers will have their own favourites.

    Liked by 4 people

  3. Thanks Mark.

    As I say, there is a difference between an incoherent political campaign and an individual making a statement that contains an obvious logical contradiction. The former is not to be confused with kettle logic but, if such confusion is to occur, I would want it to be applied even-handedly – which it clearly isn’t. The latter may be kettle logic but, given the obvious and explicit self-contradiction involved, one would have to say that someone earnestly offering such an argument would be a sign of a serious mental pathology; which is exactly the nature of the accusation being made when it comes to climate sceptics. It is reminiscent of Lewandowsky’s claims regarding conspiracist ideation, i.e. that one is dealing with someone who is quite capable of simultaneously holding self-evidently contradictory beliefs. However, one must not forget that the notion of kettle logic was invented within the context of Freudian psychoanalysis, in which the absurdities are either consciously and deliberately constructed (as in a joke) or subconsciously and involuntarily constructed (as in a dream). There is no suggestion of there being any clinical mental impairment.

    The only other place where kettle logic has a legitimate home is in a philosophy classroom, as here, for example:

    Like

  4. I asked the AI whether there are any examples of Ed Miliband engaging in kettle logic. It didn’t really see this in terms of public statements initially, but rather as the contradictions in policy. The best example seems to be the claim that renewables are cheaper (which he has said, ad nauseam), which pairs well with the provision of subsidies to raise prices above wholesale. His reasoning is that the subsidies are necessary to make projects viable in the short term. But this hardly explains why the subsidies are now on offer for two decades.

    Liked by 4 people

  5. Jit,

    There is kettle logic and then there is lying. Stating a belief and then acting as though you don’t believe it may not technically qualify as kettle logic but it is equally unacceptable. In Miliband’s case, the stated belief seems designed to support a rhetoric and the actions seem designed to address a reality. The excuses given by Miliband to explain the mismatch are unconvincing, but that’s to be expected when one is trying to hide a duplicity.

    Liked by 3 people

  6. I can’t work out how Miliband has never been seriously challenged by TV MSM on his NZ madness.

    New wars, oil, gas, fertilizer prices will go sky high, but the UK has only it’s “green NZ” wind & solar to keep the energy flowing.

    Like

  7. “How I’ve learned that certainty is the thing to really fear”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1w5z1d447lo

    Not an uninteresting article, but the fact that it’s written by a TV journalist is more than a little eyebrow-raising? Climate change anyone?

    …The tone has always been feisty and combative, but in recent years it seems to me like opinion has ossified, weaponised, and tribalised. There’s a growing fear (among political scientists and others) that in our modern, social media-driven world, every issue is reduced to a zero-sum game and shoved into a political tick box. I feel that I’m walking on eggshells. Causes and positions are embraced uncritically. Nuance and understanding are viewed as signs of weakness. Either you’re with us, or you are history.…

    Liked by 2 people

  8. Does this qualify as an example of Kettle Logic?

    “How can we really protect Britain’s environment?

    Well-intentioned laws designed to safeguard nature frequently have the opposite effect”

    https://www.theguardian.com/books/2026/mar/08/how-can-we-really-protect-britains-environment

    The importance of protecting nature is not up for debate. One in six species in Britain is threatened with extinction. Since 1970, more than half our flowering plants have decreased in areas where they once thrived. In the 1950s, Britain’s hedgehog population was 30m strong. Now, it is believed to be under a million.

    All this demands action. The problem is that a lot of the action we’ve taken – mainly in the form of legislation – fails to target the biggest drivers of nature loss. Instead, it bites when we try to build: wind turbines, solar farms, railways or nuclear power plants, making their construction lengthier, more expensive or, in some cases, impossible.

    You’ll notice that these are all examples of green infrastructure – precisely the things we’ll need more of in order to reduce reliance on fossil fuels, which ultimately cause habitat loss on a massive scale. Greening the grid and providing clean electricity to homes, transport and industry is one of the most urgent tasks facing us. The only way to do it without generating a cost of living crisis that would dwarf our current predicament (and cause an anti-green backlash) is to get building – and fast….

    …One planned offshore windfarm is set to spend £170m protecting seabirds such as the black-legged kittiwake, whose population has declined by 70% in my lifetime because rising sea temperatures and overfishing have killed off the sand eels they rely on for food. Technology that could slow the warming that threatens these birds is being hamstrung by mitigation measures that do nothing to address the actual cause of their decline.…

    Like

  9. Mark – that Nicky Campbell link was interesting & boring. He mentions “political scientists” a few times, with this standing out –

    ” Over the last decade or so, political scientists in most high-income countries have recorded a rise in what they call “affective polarisation” – which is where people don’t just disagree on policy, but start to strongly disapprove of people in the opposing camp.

    “People are increasingly disliking each other,” says Prof Sander van der Linden, who researches social psychology at the University of Cambridge. “People are less willing to work with people from the other side, to engage in romantic relationships with people from the other side, and to even cohabitate with people from the other side. “That sort of affective polarisation has seen a sharp increase.”

    The rest was lightweight, but surprised Trump was never mentioned !!!

    Like

  10. Mark,

    Regarding the Guardian article you referenced, it would be kettle logic if it were arguing that green infrastructure was not endangering the local environment and, furthermore, that the endangerment was not as great as the endangerment that would result from not building the green infrastructure. But that doesn’t seem to be what is happening here, since the potential for local damage is not being denied, it is just being downplayed. It is an argument for a different set of priorities that would hinge upon a weighting of evidence to determine whether there was a greater good to be achieved.

    To the sceptic there may appear to be an inconsistency in the idea of trashing the environment to save it but, to qualify as kettle logic, an inconsistency in an argument must be structural and explicit and not dependent on a subjective or technical weighting of the evidence. If an argument requires an external epistemic judgement (e.g., “I find the data for X more robust than Y”) to uncover a potential flaw, it is a factual or technical dispute, not a logical fallacy. One cannot treat every complex scientific disagreement as a disputed logical fallacy simply because one party values certain datasets differently. Even if one can ultimately demonstrate that, due to an incorrect evaluation of evidence, an argument had been implicitly self-contradictory or an action self-defeating, one cannot then accuse the individual of having engaged in kettle logic. The error has to have been an explicit logical contradiction requiring no such demonstration. Essentially, someone has to have been explicitly stating ‘p and ¬ p’.

    For what it is worth, I disagree with the argument being made by the Guardian because I think it is based upon an unsound weighting of the evidence, if indeed there is any serious weighting being performed.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. A good example of someone who just doesn’t get it is Jeff Sparrow, a man who often loves to dismiss climate sceptics as ‘far right bloggers and angry pensioners’, fully engaged in kettle logic. Here he is again in full flow:

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-11/sparrow-maurice-newman-v-the-un/6460160

    The problem is that he is a perfect example of someone who doesn’t know his Freud but doesn’t let that stop him from bullshitting. He thinks the kettle anecdote describes a real patient who was in denial. As I point out in my article, it was in fact a humorous anecdote invented to link into Freud’s work on dreams and wish fulfilment.

    My dream would be for Sparrow to come on this website of angry pensioners to debate the reality of kettle logic. Perhaps that would give me the opportunity to school him on doxastic logic and the KD45 system. Or maybe on discussive logic and the benefits of denying the adjunction in order to enable the logical analysis of belief systems that accept discursive participants who hold logically contradictory views. But I’m imagining that such details would not suit his own wish fulfilment, in which we sceptics are just paranoic, burbling idiots.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a comment