Critical Reasoning...Propaganda, fallacies and loaded language
alikh86
other_means_of_persuasion_propaganda__.pptxOther means of persuasion, propaganda, & fallacies
What conception of the mind underlies critical reasoning? How do other means of persuasion rely on a different conception of the mind/self?
What conception of mind underlies critical reasoning?
Review slides 1 – 7 & 10 in Week 1’s power point: “What is critical reasoning anyhow?” & slides 2 & 5 in Week 3’s (Week 4 for the in-class section) power point: “What is an argument in logic?” (This is very important to doing your final essay. You may also want to review the description of the course on the syllabus).
Underlying this conception of critical reasoning is a conception of the mind that has varied somewhat in the history of Western philosophy, but tends to treat the mind as separate from the body [Descartes] and/or from the emotions [Kant], or if the emotions are taken into consideration, they are treated as subservient to the intellect [Socrates/Plato]. An exception to this “rule” is the philosopher Hume, who stated that reason is the slave of the emotions. Nietzsche can be interpreted as following in Hume’s footsteps.
Therefore, in critical reasoning, our capacity for logical thinking takes precedent over our desires, and logical non-contradiction takes precedence over efficient means to achieving our desires; appeals to “good reasons” to support our claims take precedent over appeals to emotions or to authority or to tradition.
In other words, evidence is supposed to replace even an expert’s judgment or the judgment of a tradition. This becomes tricky when an expert or authority is basing their judgment upon evidence that the rest of the public may not understand, or if any field of study has traditional ways of doing research, etc.
What does this conception of mind entail?
This conception of mind might underlie what Kant calls “enlightenment”, and it might also be part of the foundations of democratic thinking, insofar as the American and French revolutions were partly based on the idea that every individual citizen was capable of logical thought and had rational capacities, so deserved the vote.
Those who were still denied the vote, such as women or slaves, were often considered suspect in their ability to reason or think rationally.
Therefore, our conception of freedom was partly tied to the ability to think rationally, rather than to our capacity to feel pain or pleasure or to pursue our own desires.
This also involved the notion that our thinking is conscious.
Do we still believe in this same conception of mind?
Can we separate the emotions from rationality or thinking? This has been questioned by both recent neuroscientists, such as D’Amasio (who wrote a book, “Descartes’ Error”), and recent philosophers.
Should we want to separate the emotions from rationality? In what ways might emotions distort or undermine our rationality or our search for evidence, and in what ways might emotions contribute to our rationality and our search for evidence?
For instance, do we need emotions to arouse our attention in the first place (that is, to care enough to do the research), and to continue to pay attention to our research? Do emotions help us set priorities – what counts as dangerous, etc? Do emotions such as anxiety play a role whenever we doubt an explanation or the results of our research – the philosopher, mathematician, and logician, Charles Peirce thought that this is what drives inquiry in the first place – we want to overcome this anxiety.
On the other hand, do we blind and double-blind our random controlled experiments, in part, to control for possible biases that occur from emotional involvement by participants or researchers?
Does “Metaphors We Live By” challenge this conception of mind?
Lakoff in this article brings together the intellect (that is, rational capacities), imagination, & emotions, so that “the concepts that govern our thought are not just matters of the intellect.”[124]
“Primarily on the basis of linguistic evidence, we have found that most of our ordinary conceptual system is metaphorical in nature. And we have found a way to begin to identify in detail just what the metaphors are that structure how we perceive, how we think, and what we do.” [124]
Notice that Lakoff does not confine metaphors or concepts to the realm of beliefs (or assumptions), but includes our actions, and even how we observe the world. Thus, metaphors will also play a role in both observation and inference, and ultimately will “filter” reality for us.
“The essence of metaphor is understanding and experiencing one kind of thing in terms of another.” [125] This is a broader notion of metaphor than that found in an English class – this is not simply a matter of language that makes a comparison without the words “as” or “like”;
We cannot think and we cannot even have experiences without comparisons that actually start with our embodiment. Why do we think in terms of “up” is good and “down” as the opposite [which are metaphors]; and s how we experience “more is better”[128] or “bigger is better”? This is related to our experience in space. Why do we associate people as either “warm” or “cold” in their personalities [which is also a metaphor]? This could be related to how we held by our mothers when we are babies, where we experience the mother’s body as “warm”.
Conventional metaphors are those that structure the “ordinary conceptual systems” and, thereby, the experience of a particular culture. “The most fundamental values in a culture will be coherent with the metaphorical structure of the most fundamental concepts in the culture.” [128]
By introducing new metaphors we can introduce new meanings, and influence what actions people take. [128ff] The example Lakoff examines is “Love is a collaborative art”. [129]
More on Lakoff’s conception of mind
“But our conceptual system is not something we are normally aware of. In most of the little things we do every day, we simply think and act more or less automatically along certain lines. Just what these lines are is by no means obvious. One way to find out is by looking at language….” [124]
Our thinking, therefore, may often be unconscious. We dealt with this possibility when we examined implicit assumptions – some of which may be hidden because we are trying to deceive other people, but some of which may be hidden from ourselves.
Traditionally, critical reasoning relies on the possibility that our thinking can be made conscious, and that we can consciously correct its errors.
Metaphors for argument, theories & ideas
Lakoff claims that our concept of “argument” is shaped by the metaphor “argument is war”, which is conventional in our culture. “This metaphor is reflected in our everyday language by a wide variety of expressions:” [see the expressions on p. 124, which include use of language such as “defending” our own claims and “attacking” the claims of our “opponents” and “winning” or “losing” arguments.]
“Many of the things we do in arguing are partially structured by the concept of war. Though there is no physical battle, there a verbal battle, and the structure of argument – attack, defense, counterattack, etc. – reflects this.” [124]
How does this compare or contrast to how we define “argument” in logic and what we do when we build and evaluate arguments in critical reasoning?
It is this notion of “argument as war” that Socrates criticizes (does he attack it? Or does he question it?) in many of Plato’s dialogues, where Socrates denies that he is a rhetorician (speech-maker), who tries to win debates by making the weaker argument look stronger. Rather, Socrates claims that he is a philosopher – or “lover of wisdom” – and through his face-to-face question-and-answer dialogue with those around him, he will seek the “truth” or “essence” of concepts, such as “justice”, “holiness”, “beauty”, etc. [See later slides on Lakoff’s view on “truth”]
What if another culture relied on the metaphor “argument is dance”? Would how we “do” arguing and evaluate arguments change? [see p. 125]
“Our conventional ways of talking about arguments presuppose a metaphor we are hardly ever conscious of.” [125]: Do you agree that we are not conscious of this metaphor? Are we conscious that it is a metaphor?
More metaphors for argument, theories & ideas
“THEORIES (and ARGUMENTS) ARE BUILDINGS”: Is that the foundation for your theory? The theory needs more support. The argument is shaky. We need some more facts or the argument will fall apart. We need to construct a strong argument for that….” [125]
How does this metaphor compare or contrast with our definition of “argument” in logic and how we build and evaluate arguments in critical reasoning? Do you think that this metaphor actually fits together well with the previous metaphor, “argument is war” and how or how not? Is there a problem in moving from metaphor to metaphor? Do we consciously choose our metaphors?
See also the wide variety of metaphors for ideas on pp. 125 – 126.
Metaphor, Truth, and Action
“The idea that metaphor is just a matter of language and can at best only describe reality stems from the view that what is real is wholly external to, and independent of, how human beings conceptualize the world – as if the study of reality were just the study of the physical world. [Lakoff will reject this view.] Such a view of reality – so-called objective reality – leaves out human aspects of reality, in particular the real perceptions, conceptualizations, motivations, and actions that constitute most of what we experience. But the human aspects of reality are most of what matters to us, and these vary from culture to culture….Cultures exist within physical environments, some of them radically different – jungles, deserts, islands, tundra, mountains, cities, etc…..The conceptual systems of various cultures partly depend on the physical environments they have developed in.” [132]
However, “the social reality defined by a culture affects its conception of physical reality….Since much of our social reality is understood in metaphorical terms, and since our conception of the physical world is partly metaphorical, metaphor plays a very significant role in determining what is real for us….”
In this way, it might be difficult to draw the distinction between reality and value assumptions that we do at the beginning of this course.
In this way, “a metaphor may… be a guide for future action”, and actions will reinforce our metaphors, sometimes like “self-fulfilling prophecies”.
Metaphor, Truth, and Action (continued)
“Though questions of truth do arise for new metaphors, the more important questions are those appropriate to action. In most cases, what is at issue is not the truth or falsity of a metaphor but the perceptions and inferences that follow from it and the actions that are sanctioned by it.” [133]
This has implications for all aspects of life, including politics. See Lakoff’s examples of metaphors that have influenced politics on pp. 132 – 133.
“We do not believe that there is such a thing as objective (absolute and unconditional) truth….We do believe there are truths but think that the idea of truth need not be tied to the objectivist view….As we have seen, truth is always relative to a conceptual system that is defined in large part by metaphor.” [134]: Lakoff is not confining this values.
Metaphor as Imaginative Rationality
Subjectivity and objectivity are not our only choices. (Lakoff would consider this the fallacy of bifurcation or false dichotomy. See later slides).
Metaphor unites reason and imagination.
“Reason…involves categorization, entailment, and inference. Imagination…involves seeing one kind of thing in terms of another kind of thing – what we have called metaphorical thought. Metaphor is thus imaginative rationality….ordinary rationality is therefore imaginative by its very nature.” [134]
“Metaphor is one of our most important tools for trying to comprehend partially what cannot be comprehended totally: our feelings, aesthetic [artistic] experiences, moral practices, and spiritual awareness.” [134]
Does “The Persuaders” challenge the conception of mind found in critical reasoning?
After watching chapters 4 & 5 in “The Persuaders”, try to figure out what conception of mind might underlie the means of persuasion used by Clotaire Rapaille (the marketer) and Frank Luntz (the political consultant).
How are their means of persuasion different from that of critical reasoning?
Which means of persuasion do you think actually “work”? Are any of these means of persuasion “propaganda”[see later slides]? Do they respect our ability to reason, or do you think that is unimportant? Are any of these means of persuasion “dangerous”, and how or how not? Do they undermine what we learn in critical reasoning or do they reinforce it?
It is recommended that you also watch chapter 6 of this movie, which ends with the suggestion that ultimately “we persuade ourselves”. What might this mean, especially given the slide #20 below on “Other considerations in propaganda and persuasion”.
Chapter 6, which addresses “narrowcasting” also raises questions as to whether political campaigns “divide and conquer” by appealing to different segments of the population with different messages that address their specific self-interests rather than broader policy considerations. Does this detract from what arguments are supposed to accomplish in critical reasoning? Does it keep people within their own “filter bubbles”? [see slide #20]
Clotaire Rapaille & marketing – chapter 4 of “The Persuaders”
Does Rapaille think that we know what we are talking about when we give reasons for our actions and decisions or does he think our motivations are unconscious?
What does Rapaille mean by “codes”? Thus, what is the code for buying a Hummer, according to Rapaille? Are those who buy a Hummer necessarily aware of this code or do they give alternative reasons for buying Hummers? Why does Rapaille reject the reasons that consumers themselves give?
How does Rapaille’s conception of the mind rest on “reptilian hot buttons”, what does he seem to mean by this, and how is it connected to “codes”? “Reptilian hot buttons” refers to the idea that different parts of the human brain evolved differently – there is the part of the brain that we inherit from lizard ancestry, and share with the lizards or reptiles; the part of the brain that we inherit from mammals, and share with other mammals; and the part of the brain [the cortex] that is a an evolutionary development of primates.
Do “reptilian hot buttons” prevent a role for cultural influences? Compare the code for cheese in the United States to the code for cheese in France.
How does Rapaille go about trying to discover the “code” for “luxury”?
Rapaille, continued
Daniel Rushkoff, the narrator of “The Persuaders” asks Rapaille whether or not environmental activists should be appealing to the “cortex” [where our logical capacities lie] of consumers, so that we will be more willing to buy environmentally friendlier small cars. Rapaille claims that small cars are “off code”, so that strategy will backfire. Do you agree?
If you were trying to sell small cars how would you appeal to consumers? Would you make small cars a new “status symbol” – that is, would you try to influence the “code”? Or would you emphasize that small cars are better on mileage, and thereby, have a lesser carbon “footprint” than hummers – appeal to logic and evidence? Some other way?
Do you think that the only reason that consumers buy hummers is the “code” that Rapaille offers, and how or how not?
Do you think that this is a bifurcation? [see slides on fallacies] In other words, are these the only choices – hummers and small cars? What happens if you are an environmentalist who wants to encourage use of public transportation or use of bicycles? Would this be a losing battle? If so, due to “reptilian hot buttons” and “codes” or due to our culture?
Frank Luntz and political consulting – chapter 5 of “The Persuaders”
Does Luntz think that we are primarily rational or primarily act on emotions and feelings?
Does he think that Americans care about policies or care more about entertainment, pop culture, sports, etc.? Do you agree with him? Do you think that it is possible to change this? Do you think that Americans should care about governmental and social policies?
Luntz is criticized for caring more about the language around issues, rather than the issues themselves (although he is admired for his ability to recognize which language will change the actions of voters). [See the next slide for examples.]
Frank Luntz (continued)
Consider Luntz’s use of “focus group” of Republicans and Democrats listening to a speech by a utility executive, in which they clicked in response to the different portions of the speech on how much they liked or disliked what we they heard. Why was Luntz doing this, what language did Luntz think the utility should use in order to draw the most support for its own position, and does this approach sidestep the question as to whether or not the utility’s own position (on how it is regulated by the government) is in the public interest in the first place? In other words, does it sidestep the issue as to what, if any, regulations should be in place for utilities? Is Luntz simply promoting the agenda of his client? Is his focus group aware of that?
Luntz is well known for replacing the language of “estate tax” with “death tax”, by which he succeeded in shifting public opinion to being indifferent or for the estate tax to being against the death tax. Google “estate tax” – what is it? Does it apply to everybody in the United States when they die? Or does it only apply to certain people upon the occasion of death? Is it actually a tax on death itself? Does “death tax” clarify the underlying issues, as Luntz claims, or does is obscure them? On the other hand, is “estate tax” itself unclear? Are there other options than the two offered here? Do you think that Luntz himself wants to promote the elimination of this tax, and, if so, which part of the American population would this favor?
Luntz is also well known for replacing the language of “global warming” with “climate change”. Google both of these phrases – they both have scientific uses, but are they the same thing? How are they different from each other? Does one sound more threatening than the other? Do you think that both have their uses in discussion of public policy? Why might Luntz [and the Republican party for whom he consults] prefer “climate change”.
Luntz does consult for the Republican Party. However, Lakoff is a self-proclaimed “progressive”, and Democrats also use “narrowcasting” which is discussed in Chapter 6 of “The Persuaders”.
What is propaganda? (pp. 459 – 462 of your text)
“Propaganda uses words to shape public consciousness and manipulate people to think, vote, and act as the propaganda machine suggests. Propaganda can come from all directions – left, right, and center.” [459]
Key words are manipulation, deception and appeals to emotion, which are the basis of many fallacies (errors in reasoning – see later slides).
“Propaganda serves important ideological functions. It attempts to influence the opinions or actions of others by appealing to their emotions or prejudices or by distorting facts. The goal itself may be bad (e.g., genocide) or good (e.g., peace). What marks propaganda is the manipulation, not the desired end.” [460]
Does marketing or political consulting as depicted in “The Persuaders” ever make use of propaganda or its tricks (see later slide), and how or how not?
Do you think that propaganda is ever necessary? Can it be dangerous?
An entire term could be devoted to this topic. The view given here is not complete.
What is propaganda? Continued
Education-advertising-propaganda-indoctrination- thought reform
The above is a continuum from what cult specialist, Margaret Thaler Singer, sees as an increasing degree of manipulation from left to right.[459]
“Singer says that propaganda centers on the political persuasion of a mass of people, whereas thought reform centers on changing people without their knowledge so they can be manipulated and controlled. Propaganda has a manipulative, controlling element as well, but it involves persuasion. Thought reform involves no full awareness on the part of the subject and usually has a hidden agenda.” [459]
Propaganda tricks (and corresponding fallacies) – pp. 460 – 462 of your text
Name-calling: [fallacies of ad hominem abusive or circumstantial, or question-begging epithets - dyslogisms: See later slides]: see examples on p. 460 in text.
Glittering Generalities: [fallacy of question-begging epithets – eulogisms: See later slides]: Example: Development means progress. [What do we mean by “progress”? How does development contribute to it?] [See also examples on p. 460 in text.]
Tabloid Thinking [fallacy of hasty generalization: see later slides]: Notice that the examples in the text are similar to the reality assumptions that we examined at the beginning of this course: “You can’t change human nature”. “Every person has a price.” However, here the emphasis is on how the generalization isn’t based on an actual study. Perhaps the reality assumption is unwarranted.
Testimonials: [Fallacy of ad verecundiam, or appeal to improper authority]: The examples used on p. 460 of the text address the improper use of public or political “authorities”. ]
Bifurcation (this is the name of a fallacy but it is also called the fallacy of “false dichotomy”] [See examples on p. 461 in text.]
Association [fallacies of weak or false analogies and possibly ad populum] [See examples on p. 461 of text]
Identification [a version of ad populum or appeal to the people] [See examples on p. 461 in text]
Band Wagon: [ a version of ad populum] [See examples on p. 461 of text]
Card Stacking: This uses loaded language in such a way to combine many of the previous propaganda tricks, and fallacies. “The use of distortion, exaggeration, forgery, deception,a nd misinformation to sell an idea.” [p. 462: The example given here could also involve the fallacy of suppressed evidence – see later slide.]
Loaded Language – p. 458 of your text; see also p. 309 of your text
“Loaded language is language that is value laden, heavy with connotation (positive or negative). It can create bias, just as neutralized terms can defuse a controversy by making things appear innocuous or acceptable.” [458]
Such language can be used in propaganda tricks, such as name-calling [negative connotations], glittering generalities [positive connotations], and card stacking. [see later slides, and pp.460 – 462 of your text] Such language heavily appeals to the emotions, and may obscure the other evidence.
Examples: Jews were called “vermin” by the Nazis to encourage anti-semitism. Tutsis in Rwanda were called “cockroaches” during the genocide of the Tutsis by the Hutus.
Some language, as suggested above, is used to falsely neutralize a situation. This language is often called “euphemisms.” Examples: Putting Japanese Americans into “relocation camps”, as they simply were moving. Calling the slaughter of 6 million Jews during World War II “the final solution”, without indicating what “final” means and what is being solved.
“Question-begging epithets” [p. 309] is a related fallacy which “occurs when language is biased so that it stacks the deck in either a positive or negative direction.”[459] Eulogisms include bloated claims of praise, while dyslogisms are a type of name-calling.
Other considerations in propaganda and persuasion: Do arguments work?
Confirmation Bias is the tendency to favor evidence, or interpret evidence in light of, the beliefs that you already hold, and to overlook evidence that would contradict or not support the beliefs that you already hold.
Cognitive dissonance: the experience of discomfort when a person has inconsistent or contradictory beliefs or values, or is presented with information that conflicts with their beliefs or values. People tend to try to reduce this discomfort by any number of psychological defense mechanisms, such as avoiding situations in which their beliefs and values are challenged, or denying their own inconsistencies or ignoring new information, rather than examining the logic and support for their beliefs or new information.
Preaching to the choir: to argue or to present a position to those who already accept it.
The “filter bubble” occurs when search engines, such as Google, use algorithms to “give us what we want”, according to our own search histories. This means that two different people who search for the same term or phrase might have different results for their searches, depending upon their own past search histories. The result is that we are protected from receiving new information that might contradict our previous interests, beliefs, etc.
All of the above draw into question whether or not argument, as we define it in critical reasoning, actually can effectively change people’s views. Lakoff would argue that only introducing new metaphors can change people’s views and actions.
What is a fallacy?
Fallacies are flaws in reasoning:
“Logicians disagree on the exact definition of a `fallacy’ of reasoning and whether to call fallacies `invalid’ or `unsound’. Some fallacious arguments do appear to be failed deductive reasoning, because the premises are irrelevant to the conclusion. They are, thus, invalid and unsound by definition. Others, such as those involving statistical studies, appear to be failed inductive reasoning and better considered `poor’ or `faulty’ than invalid. What logicians do agree upon is that all fallacies are forms of incorrect reasoning that can be highly persuasive. Nevertheless, any argument containing a fallacy is fatally flawed in its reasoning and must be rejected.” [p. 283 text]
In the following fallacies, and the previous propaganda tricks, notice how what may be persuasive – authorities, force, emotion, attacks on the person, etc. – are not considered convincing good reasons in critical reasoning. Thus, look back at the first power point presentations for Week 1 in order to see how we defined critical reasoning, as well as the earlier slides in this presentation.
Some fallacies from chapter 7 of text & from the link in Weeks 9 - 10
You are expected to read chapter 7 & the link in Weeks 9 – 10 to another list of fallacies from a text by Hurley. These two lists overlap with each other, but are not identical. The most important difference lies in the inclusion of the fallacy of “suppressed evidence” in Hurley’s list, and the inclusion of more detailed ways of “begging the question” in Hurley’s list.
The following slides will give some examples of some of the most important fallacies. These examples are drawn from Hurley’s text, our text for this course, or they are my own examples.
Examples of suppressed evidence
If an inductive argument ignores relevant evidence that would entail a very different conclusion then the fallacy of suppressed evidence has been committed.
P1. The sand on the beaches in Cape Cod is clean
P2. The surf on the beaches in Cape Cod is great.
C: You should go to the beaches on Cape Cod.
What premise has been omitted: P3: There are sharks at the beaches on Cape Cod. There is the possibility that this third premise might change the conclusion of the argument.
Examples of Appeal to Pity
“The appeal to pity fallacy occurs when an arguer attempts to support a conclusion by merely evoking pity from the reader or listener.” [p. 122 in Hurley, “Logic”, 7th edition]
See examples on p. 293 of your text.
“…some arguments that attempt to evoke sympathetic feelings from the reader or listener are not fallacious. We might call them arguments from compassion. Such arguments differ from the fallacious appeal to pity in that, in addition to evoking compassion on behalf of some person, they supply information about why that person is genuinely deserving of help or special consideration.” [Hurley, 123]. Does this mean that there is a legitimate role for appeal to emotions in argument, as long as it accompanies evidence of another sort?
There are certain arenas in which there is a controversy as to whether there is a fallacious appeal to pity or a legitimate appeal to compassion. Examples: Is it fallacious or legitimate to consider the pain and suffering of animals in order to prevent factory farming or their use in circuses? Is it fallacious or legitimate to consider the suffering of those who resorted to illegal abortions in arguing for the legalization of, or right to, abortion? Is it fallacious or legitimate to consider the pain that a “fetus” or “unborn baby” might feel in arguing against abortion? If you think there is a legitimate appeal to compassion, then what other information would you provide to support your argument?
Examples of Appeal to Force
“The fallacy of appeal to force occurs whenever an arguer poses a conclusion to another person and tells that person either implicitly or explicitly that some harm will come to him or her if he or she does not accept the conclusion.” [Hurley, p. 121].
Notice that this appeals to the emotion of fear
See the examples on p. 202 of your text.
Do nations resort to this fallacy when they threaten other nations with boycotts, or sanctions, or war, if those other nations do not agree to certain diplomatic treaties, such as has been the case with Iran over whether it should be able to develop nuclear power capacity that could be used to produce nuclear weapons?
Examples of Ad Populum (Appeal to the People or to patriotism)
Direct appeal to a crowd through a “demagogue” (political figure making a speech of this sort): Example: Hitler’s speeches to the German people through use of glittering generalities about the German fatherland, and the greatness of the German people (“Volk”), as well as name-calling of the Jews as “vermin”, etc. Find you tubes of “Triumph of the Will.”
Indirect appeal to people, often as consumers through marketing techniques, by appealing to emotions, such as the need for security, love, or respect; these include bandwagon, appeal to vanity and appeal to snobbery, among others.
Example of bandwagon: “Be cool! Smoke cigars! All the cool people do!” [290, text]
Example of appeal to vanity [that is, one’s self-image]: “The Few, the Proud, the Marines”. [124. Hurley];
Appeal to snobbery [also related to one’s self-image]
Examples of Ad Hominem
Ad Hominem or “argument against the person” “always involves two arguers. One of them advances (either directly or implicitly) a certain argument, and the other then responds by directing his or her attention [or criticism] not to the first person’s argument but to the first person himself.” [Hurley, p. 125]
Ad hominem Abusive: this is similar to name-calling in that “the second person responds to the first person’s argument by verbally abusing the first person.” [125]
Example: “Before he died, poet Allen Ginsberg argued in favor of legalizing pornography. But Ginsberg’s arguments are nothing but trash. Ginsberg was a marijuana-smoking homosexual and a thoroughgoing advocate of the drug culture.” [Hurley, 126]: That Ginsberg was a “marijuana-smoking homosexual and….” is irrelevant to his argument on legalizing pornography.
Ad hominem Circumstantial: guilt by association; “the respondent attempts to discredit the opponent’s argument by alluding to certain circumstances that affect the opponent.” [Hurley, 126]
My Example: A person on death row writes an argument against the death penalty. The reader dismisses the argument because “what do you expect, the person is on death row [his circumstances]? This is a fallacy, because you are supposed to evaluate the argument on its merits – its strengths and weaknesses, and not simply dismiss due to the circumstances of the arguer.
Tu Quoque (“you too”): The respondent tries to “make the first arguer appear to be hypocritical”.
My Example: A person who chain smokes cigarettes gives a lecture to students about how they should stop smoking. The listeners dismiss the arguer as a hypocrite because she smokes. However, could a smoker still make a good or strong argument that others should stop smoking because smoking is bad for your health?
Reminders of fallacies based on previous units
Fallacies of Weak Induction:
Hasty Generalization: the sample is too small
Biased Statistics: the sample is not representative
False Cause: cause is falsely attributed to a correlation; one version is post hoc: See the text on pp. 301 - 302
Slippery slope: a version of false cause, which occurs when there is a chain of cause-and-effect relations in which at least one link is weak; often a form of catastrophic thinking: See the text on pp. 305 - 306
Weak Analogy: where the differences between the items compared outweigh the similarities, or the similarities are not relevant. See the text p. 310/
Appeal to ignorance: “If you can’t prove me wrong, then I must be right!” [293 in text]
Appeal to unqualified authority: See also testimonials among propaganda tricks; sometimes celebrities are used as authorities, when they have no expertise in the subject. (What would this say about the celebrities who are used in “Half the Sky”?) Moreover, even a qualified authority in a subject area might be wrong. (See p. 5 of electronic reserves article, “Materials and Exercises on Fallacies”.)
Examples of “begging the question”
“The first, and most common, way of committing this fallacy is by leaving a key premise out of the argument while creating the illusion that nothing more is needed to establish the conclusion. Examples:
Murder is morally wrong. This being the case, it follows that abortion is morally wrong.
It’s obvious that the poor in this country should be given handouts from the government. After all, these people earn less than the average citizen.
Clearly, terminally ill patients have a right to doctor assisted suicide. After all, many of these people are unable to commit suicide by themselves.
The first of these arguments begs the question ‘How do you know that abortion is a form of murder?’….and the third [I omitted the second argument] and fourth beg the questions `Just because the poor earn less than the average citizen, does this imply that the government should give them handouts?’ and `Just because terminally ill patients cannot commit suicide by themselves, why does it follow that they have a right to a doctor’s assistance?’” [Hurley, “Logic”, 7th edition, p. 157]
Notice that the problem is in how the arguer can build their own argument, and not simply that an opponent would disagree with the conclusion. Thus, the first arguer could improve his/her argument by adding a premise that “abortion is murder”, and showing how abortion is murder. The next arguer might need to show why the poor or some of the poor deserve help from the government, (and perhaps why others couldn’t provide help instead), while the last arguer has to first show why anybody should be committing suicide in the first place, as well as why they should have assistance in doing so.
Arguers often leave out premises when they are “preaching to the choir”, that is, to those who already share their beliefs or assumptions.
Examples of “begging the question” continued
Begging the question can also occur when “an argument merely restates the conclusion in slightly different language. Examples:
“Capital punishment is justified for the crimes of murder and kidnapping because it is quite legitimate and appropriate that someone be put to death for having committed such hateful and inhuman acts.” [Hurley, p. 158]
Your text emphasizes this form of begging the question on pp.
Examples of “Begging the question” continued
Begging the question can be found in longer arguments in which “circular reasoning” occurs in a “chain of inferences”.
“Ford Motor Company clearly produces the finest cars in the United States. We know they produce the finest cars because they have the best design engineers. This is true because they can afford to pay them more than other manufacturers. Obviously they can afford to pay them more because they produce the finest cars in the United States.” [Hurley, p. 158]
Examples of Red Herring
This fallacy is “committed when the arguer diverts the attention of the reader or listener by changing the subject to a different but sometimes subtly related one. He or she then finishes by either drawing a conclusion about this different issue or by merely presuming that some conclusion has been established. By doing so, the arguer purports to have won the argument. The fallacy gets its name from a procedure used to train hunting dogs to follow a scent. A red herring…is dragged across the trail with the aim of leading the dogs astray. Since red herrings have an especially potent scent…only the best dogs will follow the original scent.” [Hurley, p. 131]: Here is an example:
“Environmentalists are continually harping about the dangers of nuclear power. Unfortunately, electricity is dangerous no matter where it comes from. Every year hundreds of people are electrocuted by accident. Since most of these accidents are caused by carelessness they could be avoided if people would just exercise greater caution.” [Hurly, p. 132]
Examples of Straw Man
This fallacy “is committed when an arguer distorts an opponent’s argument for the purpose of more easily attacking it [that is, the straw in the straw man], demolishes the distorted argument, and then concludes that the opponent’s real argument has been demolished.” [Hurley, p. 129] An example:
“Mr. Goldberg has argued against prayer in the public schools. Obviously Mr. Goldberg advocates atheism. But atheism is what they used to have in Russia. Atheism leads to the suppression of all religions and the replacement of God by an omnipotent state. Is that what we want for this country? I hardly think so. Clearly Mr. Goldberg’s argument is nonsense.” [129]
Does Mr. Goldberg’s argument have anything to do with atheism? How else might he argue against prayer in public schools?
This fallacy involves two arguers.
Fallacies: Linguistic fallacies of ambiguity
Equivocation “occurs when the conclusion of an argument depends on the fact that a word or phrase is used, either explicitly or implicitly, in two different senses in the argument.” [164 in Hurley]
Examples: “Any law can be repealed by the legislative authority. But the law of gravity is a law. Therefore, the law of gravity can be repealed by the legislative authority.” What word is equivocated on? [164, Hurley]
Examples: “Sailors don’t have to do any laundry. If they just throw their clothes overboard they’ll be washed ashore.” [What word is equivocated on here? This example might also include an amphiboly – see below – who is “they” in “they’ll be washed ashore”?][p. 322 in your text, #5 in exercises]
Amphiboly occurs when there is an ambiguity or unclarity in the syntax or grammar of the argument, so that an incorrect conclusion is drawn.
Examples: “John told Henry that he had made a mistake. It follows that John has at least the courage to admit his own mistakes.” [Is it John who has made the mistake?] [p. 165 in Hurley]
Examples: “Sign in a bar: `SPECIAL COCKTAILS FOR THE LADIES WITH NUTS’”. What is this supposed to mean? What does it sound like it means? [322 in your text, # 7 in the exercises.]
