It is better to be an Optimist than a Pessimist

Now it’s for our wrap up. L-l-let’s we’ve got. R-r-r-ready? Begin. R1: Faulty Logic In Pro’s first two pillars, several studies are shown in arguing that optimistic thought is strongly related to advancement of one’s physical or mental, going on the conclusion that it is optimism in of itself that fuels these benefits, and is such an inherent result of optimism. The logic behind Pro’s first two arguments is heavily dependent on conclusion of definitive a cause through a series of indefinite correlations [1], in other words, the Post Hoc or False Cause fallacy. The Post Hoc fallacy goes through the following line of though. Premise 1: X occurs before Y Conclusion: Therefore X is the cause of X [2] The problem with this logic is that, as mentioned previously, correlation does not equate to causation. Simply because X comes before Y, that doesn’t mean that it caused Y. A more tangible example can be seen in Pro’s first two pillars, on the correlation between Optimism and personal health. Take the excerpt below: “The study reviewed 97,253 women over the age of 50 who participated in the Women’s Health Initiative, and found that the most optimistic women were 30 percent less likely to die of heart disease — and 14 percent less likely than their pessimistic counterparts to die from any cause during the study period” The line of thought made by Pro thusly in this argument can be summed as followed: Premise 1: Optimist women tend to die less of heart attack Premise 2: Pessimist women are more likely to die of a heart attack Conclusion: Optimism is better for one’s healthy. It can be seen above that such a deduction is parallel to a Post hoc argument, denoting a singual correlation and thus concluding the cause. Pro tries to defend this conclusion further in the sentences afterwards: “This may be due to optimists having healthier lifestyles. For example, they smoke less, they are more physically active, they consume healthier foods, and they consume alcohol moderately [3]. “ However, Pro here only ends up being guilty to the same faulty line of thought, if anything, the justification for Pro’s previous fallacy ends up more fallacious in of itself. As Pro makes an unproven assertion about the state of the average optimist, as well as another correlation which fails to prove a sufficient relationship with the cause. Thusly, it goes to show that the basis of Pro’s first two pillars are founded on faulty and even fallacious logic, making an arbitrary series of unconnected correlations work together on the hastily made cause. Therefore, the first two arguments, out of the three made, are most certainly fallacious, Sources: 1. https://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://www.nizkor.org... R2: Problem of studies It can be safe to assume that a major pillar of my opponent’s argument stands primarily from inductive reasoning and scientific studies. As said studies were used to in justifications of all three of my opponents pillars and the majority of her sources and citations are scientific studies. As such, the basis of my opponent’s justification in each of said arguments are that scientific and inductive observations either affirm or back up what has already been said. A large problem not only lies in the validity of such studies (which Pro hasn’t gone into detail of such) but also in defining the “pessimist” from the “optimist”. Take for example, the excerpt from Pro’s argument which I had used in my previous rebuttal: “The study reviewed 97,253 women over the age of 50 who participated in the Women’s Health Initiative, and found that the most optimistic women were 30 percent less likely to die of heart disease — and 14 percent less likely than their pessimistic counterparts to die from any cause during the study period” Pro cites a study from MedicalDaily, however, what Pro fails to take note of is the rather arbiturary usage of “pessimist” and “optimist” women. As pessimism and optimism are primarily philosophical positions, one’s that stand in flux with personal preference, then it would make little sense, medically speaking, that such philisopical positions would be conudicive to better or worse cardiovascular health. In the largest project of its kind, Brian Nosek, social psychologist and head of the Center for Open Science in Charlottesville, Virginia, and 269 co-authors repeated work reported in 98 original papers from three psychology journals, to see if they independently came up with the same results. [1] According to the replicators' qualitative assessments, as previously reported by Nature, only 39 of the 100 replication attempts were successful. (There were 100 completed replication attempts on the 98 papers, as in two cases replication efforts were duplicated by separate teams.) But whether a replication attempt is considered successful is not straightforward. Today in Science, the team report the multiple different measures they used to answer this question [2]. One reason behind this is the common usage of data dredging or “p-hacking” used by many studies of this nature, which involves automatically testing large numbers of hypotheses about a single data set by exhaustively searching for combinations of variables that might show a correlation [3] In short, given the nature of most scientific studies done in the field of psychology, it is not sound to depend so strongly upon said studies of inductive nature to justify one’s argument. Despite that, In Pro’s argument, such poor workings of statistics are used frequently in proving each and every one of her arguments. Sources: 1. http://www.nature.com... 2. Open Science Collaboration. Science http://dx.doi.org... (2015). 3. https://en.wikipedia.org... Conclusion Pro in her first two arguments is guilty of the Post Hoc fallacy, the line of logic is highly faulty due to her failiure in sufficiently connectiong the correlations she had brought up and credibly connecting them to her constructed cause. Throughout all three arguments, inductive reasoning and scientific studies were the very basis of her proof, however, as the dubious nature of such studies were revealed doubt is only inevitably casted on the validity of Pro’s justifications of her arguments, and in turn, the validity of Pro’s argument in general. To affirm what has already been previously said: When one inevitably fails, optimism not only betrays the trust that high expectations had brought forward but also forsakes the individual with the greater depression of disappointment. It builds one up just to break them down again. By putting one’s trust in their expectations and investing inner peace for factors that rest beyond their control, they sacrifice sovereignty of the mind. It is in pessimism that truly identifies and evaluates the reality as a whole, when high expectations are no longer capable of betraying the trust of one’s own well being, it in pessimism that one is protected from the tensions of expectations, shielded from the anxiety of defeat and truly empathetic towards the downtrodden. In short, Pessimism is not only a practical means of tackling anxiety and reducing the tensions of expectations, but it is also ethically sound as a moral lens from which empathy is born. Therefore, it is fare better for one to be a Pessimist than an optimist. All thanks to Pro for putting up a thought provoking debate, I’d be lying if I were to say this wasn’t anything short of one of the most challenging debates I’ve had thus far. With that, I conclude my side of the debate.