Poisoning the Well

Other Terms and/or Related Concepts

Guilt by association; "they're all tarred with the same brush."

Description

The advocate attempts to undermine or throw doubt on the opponent's position by linking the opponent's argument to a group which is seen as suspect, a source which is denigrated by the advocate, or an idea that is unfavourably viewed. Thus the metaphor of poisoning the well. Any "water" (idea) taken from that "well" (source) is poisonous (tainted, of no value).

Example

Stan Webserver (the advocate) is engaged in a dispute with Sally Cubbyhouse during a seminar on unemployment. Sally cites some figures published by the Catholic Welfare Agency which suggest that 10% of families resident in urban areas are living below the poverty line.

Stan says: "I wouldn't even consider any figures put out by them, they all have an axe to grind and just want to undermine the policies of the government."

Comment

It may actually be true, or partially true that an advocacy group such as the Catholic Welfare Agency is prone to selective publication of results, using biased research methods, and concealing information that doesn't support their case. It may also be true that their research is impeccable, objective and extremely valuable.The seeker after truth is not naive, and therefore should be skeptical about research results. But seekers after truth are not cynical.

Stan's fallacy is in the act of dismissing the results out of hand (á priori). In doing so he refuses to give careful consideration to Sally's point. Stan's intransigence obstructs the discussion, and probably creates an implacable opponent out of Sally. Further discussion between them will be fruitless. Stan's response should have been to question Sally about the provenance of the article, and to seek further information. If the time was available to him, he could then read the article for himself and draw his own conclusions.

Advocates who habitually Poison the Well by denying á priori that information from particular sources can have any value, or by linking unrelated ideas or facts in order to disparage an opponent's position, may see themselves as skeptics. For example, a common bonding ritual in non-US Western culture, and within a particular social class, is "bagging the Americans". This is a social activity where like-minded people discussing geopolitics share variants of the sentiment "Americans can't be trusted", or "Americans are ignorant fools".

In sharing these sentiments they (by implication) congratulate each other and see themselves as skeptical, principled and capable of deep insights into global political issues. However, it could be argued that such sentiments are shallow rather than profound, and that persons expressing such sentiments are selectively cynical rather than skeptical. A seeker after truth can always come up with a skeptical response to a fatuous generalisation intended to Poison the Well.

For example, an analytical line of probing questions could be directed at the advocate who claims "Americans can't be trusted". Each question would move the advocate out of his or her comfort zone. "What do you mean by 'Americans'? All Americans? All of the time? Aren't Americans pretty diverse… like, say, Australians, Canadians, the English?"

When smug and ignorant advocates assert that they "always disbelieve" a particular source of information – e.g. the Americans, the police, a particular political party, the government, the unions, the environmental lobby, the mining companies, the military – more often than not, they fondly imagine that they are enlightened, principled and skeptical. When an advocate associates their opponent's position to a disliked group, idea, or source, they perhaps think they have made some clever insight that others are incapable of making. Perhaps they have. But when it is their modus operandi, when they routinely make such unsubstantiated links, they are declaring their knee-jerk cynicism and simple-minded world view.

Ignore the well-poisoners and seek out the company of open-minded persons. Persons more like your good self.

Other examples

A climate change contrarian makes the point that environmentalists have made many failed catastrophist predictions before, such as The Club of Rome on resources, Paul Erlich on population, and even the Y2K computer bug.

An anti-evolutionist states that Hitler was a Social Darwinist, and as such Darwin's book On the Origin of Species can't be believed.

Ad Hominem

Other Terms and/or Related Concepts

Personal Abuse; Playing the Man (or person) Not the Ball; Personal Attack; Reductio Ad Hitlerum.

Description

The advocate attacks his or her opponent rather than the argument put forward by the opponent. When an Ad Hominem attack is used, the content of the attack does not relate to objective facts about such things as the opponent's membership of a particular group, or the profession they practise (e.g. environmentalist, lawyer). Rather, the abuse is directed at the person's character or other personal attributes.

Example

Phil Schnotter and Nigel Pennyweight are having a heated conversation in the pub about banks when Phil (the advocate) says: "I know why you think bank profits are too high Nigel... you're just prejudiced against banks because you're a penniless loser. If I were such a loser I would be prejudiced against banks too… You just hate hardworking, successful people who happen to have enough money to invest."

Comment

At times this fallacy may be hard to distinguish from other common fallacies such as Impugning Motives and Poisoning the Well. In fact, all three fallacies may be closely associated with each other and may even occur in the one sentence. The key characteristic of an Ad Hominem attack is that an abusive label is directed at the individual and used as a gratuitous insult (that is, an insult which really has no bearing on the subject under discussion).

In the example given above, the use of the word "loser" is the key indicator that an Ad Hominem attack is taking place. The label is simply a term of abuse, and Phil clearly intends to hurt and belittle Nigel by calling him a "loser". Use of such terms is likely to raise the emotional temperature of the discussion and result in an unproductive trading of insults. (Note that immediately after the personal abuse in the example above, Phil then impugns Nigel's motives in the words that follow the personal abuse. He says: "… You just hate hardworking, successful people...")

Another point to consider is whether the personal abuse is, strictly speaking, a fallacy; is there a link between the personal attack and the claim? In the example above, Phil clearly links his abuse of Nigel, calling him a penniless loser, to his hatred of banks, by using the conjunction "because". As such, Phil is fallacious.

If Phil had stated: "You are wrong about bank profits. It's important for banks to maintain a healthy cash reserve to be protected against economic slow downs and recession. And, also, you are a penniless loser." he would still be engaging in personal abuse, but would not fallacious. In this version, the abuse is merely an entertaining adjunct to the argument.

A form of personal abuse which is particularly common today is the unjustified use of a negative label associated with the topic under consideration. For example, a witless advocate might label a proponent of zero population growth a "racist" without justification. In doing this, he or she is actually seeking to undermine the proponent's credibility in order to evade discussion of the issue, rather than engaging in considered debate. It is commonly the case that for each term of abuse that may be directed at a person advocating one side of an argument, there is a term of abuse which may be directed at the other side. For every "greenie", there is a "redneck", for every "misogynist" there is a "feminazi", for every "fascist" there is a "stalinist", for every "homophobe" there is a "queer".

Arguably the most vile form of Ad Hominem is Reductio Ad Hitlerum. This variant, given its name, should be fairly obvious to spot. Comparing the disliked leader of a political party to Hitler is a seemingly popular fallacy that people who hold extreme political views like to make on occasions. Comparing any modern western democratically elected leader to Hitler should be self evidently absurd to the impartial observer. Any advocate of a point of view should avoid labelling an opponent with emotionally laden, abusive and grossly simplistic terms. Labelling invites retaliation, and the intellectual level of the debate plummets beyond any hope of recovery.

The authors of this book are particularly averse to puerile name-calling and gratuitous slander directed at individuals during any disagreement. It is our considered view that anyone who deliberately uses personal abuse in an attempt to win an argument is engaging in unconscionable conduct. No matter what the circumstances, any person who resorts to Ad Hominem only does so because they are a stupid bastard of the first order.

The Perfect Solution

Other Terms and/or Related Concepts

Silver bullet; burden of solution

Description

The advocate claims that because a proposed solution, idea, or system is not perfect, it should be abandoned completely.

Examples

1. Radio "shock jock" Kyle Jones is angrily discussing the speeding fine he received on the way to work in the morning. "These hidden camera speed traps are complete rubbish. I got caught speeding. Big deal. Down the road, after getting the ticket, I was immediately speeding again. They don't work. People still speed. It's just government revenue raising."

2. Recent changes in the sport of tiddledywinks, allow a referee to use slow motion video, infrared "hot spot" cameras and trajectory tracking and prediction "laser eye" software, in any close decisions. This really upsets commentator Gumptal Flabernarky. Commentating on a review in which he believed the referee incorrectly referred, he states: "Is he kidding himself? Even with the slow-motion replay he got it wrong! I could've told him that without the replay. What a joke this use of technology is. If he can't get it right even with the slow-mo, then why have it at all?"

Comment

In the first example, Jones argues that because the enforcement of speeding laws will not be able to catch every person who speeds (the system is not perfect), we should abandon any enforcement completely. This fails to take into account that it is not intended to be perfect and that enforcement is, presumably, intended to be a deterrent. If such a deterrent leads to less speeding and as such, lowers the road toll, then on balance it's probably a good thing.

The Perfect Solution fallacy is closely related to, and often made up of, the fallacies False Dichotomy and Burden of Solution. Speeding and enforcement of speeding laws is not a black and white issue. We need to consider how we deal with different degrees of speeding and repeat offenders, and examine the effect of permanent speed cameras, mobile speed traps, highway patrols etc. If we agree that speeding is bad, but do not like the current laws and enforcement, then we should probably propose other mechanisms, or risk being guilty of the Burden of Solution. How else can we try to stop motorists from speeding other than fines and court appearances? One cannot denigrate the current system, fairly, without proposing some other solution (or at least acknowledging one's own failings).

It is also worth noting that Jones goes on to impugn the motives of the police and government, stating that speeding fines are really about revenue raising, rather than lowering the road death and injury toll. He also fails to acknowledge that most other people wouldn't keep speeding after getting a fine, because most other people aren't self centered wankers.

In the second example we, the audience, are able to see that a referee made the wrong decision because we can check using technology. Yet Flabernarky goes onto argue, because the technology is not perfect, the referees ought to not use it to help make decisions? A self-contradictory argument if there's ever been one.

By analogy we can see the absurdity of this position. "Even with the very latest high resolution medical imaging equipment doctors still make incorrect diagnoses! What a joke this use of technology is. If doctors can't get it right even with the the latest technology, then why have it at all?"

Observational Selection

Other Terms and/or Related Concepts

Selective observations; counting the hits and ignoring the misses; searching for confirming instances; observer bias; publication bias.

Description

This error occurs along a broad spectrum, from individuals forming their own views on a subject of very little importance, to research into sensitive and complex social issues, and even "hard sciences" such as physics. At either end of the spectrum, observations are made by people and people have unconscious (and sometimes conscious) biases. These biases influence the observations people make.

When research is carried out by advocates of a particular viewpoint, the researcher has definite convictions about the importance of particular variables and for this reason, they may consciously or unconsciously tend to seek confirmation of their views in the data and ignore contradictory evidence. The advocate "observes", but only pays attention to information which seems to support their existing convictions.

Example

Jenny Frame is being interviewed on the national radio program Social Issues. The subject of the interview is her PhD research on "recovered memories of childhood sexual abuse". In the course of the interview, she states: "My research is designed to demonstrate that child sexual abuse is very widespread and that most victims repress their memories of abuse throughout their adult lives."

Comment

Jenny's description of her research indicates that she is seeking to "prove" a hypothesis, rather than to test it. Her approach to research is clearly partisan and biased. Policy-makers, lawyers or practitioners in the field of child protection could not safely rely upon Jenny's conclusions. She would be far more credible if she described her research in the following terms: "I am seeking to establish the nature and extent of child sexual abuse, and whether and to what extent the victims repress their memories of abuse throughout their adult lives."

This improved description of Jenny's research intentions is certainly more even-handed than the original description, but of course there is still no guarantee that her research will prove to be unbiased. Ultimately the credibility of her research can only be assessed by closely examining her methodology.

Observational selection can often be found in research programs. PhD candidates, for example, naturally frame a topic which accords with their current interests and convictions. They try to find a supervisor whose mind-set is compatible with their own. The thesis is also probably examined by academics who are sympathetic to the topic, methodology and findings. This is not to say that these lines of research are therefore flawed. Each would need to be treated on its own merits. (For a notorious case history of observational selection of this kind, the reader is encouraged to retrieve and read articles and/or books by Derek Freeman and others on Margaret Mead's anthropological fantasies in Samoa.)

Public enquiries about social issues conducted by panels of self-selected advocates are usually profoundly biased and hopelessly compromised. Campaigners for human rights are arguably the least suitable panellists for a disinterested, truth-seeking enquiry on human rights; judges are arguably the least suitable panellists for a truth-seeking enquiry on judicial powers; parliamentarians are arguably the least suitable panellists for a truth-seeking enquiry on parliamentary superannuation; developers are arguably the least suitable panellists for a truth-seeking enquiry on local government rezoning powers.

Observational Selection is not confined to flawed methodologies in formal research programs or public enquiries. Few individuals can even read a newspaper article without selectively attending to information which confirms their own biases. Casual readers of magazine horoscopes often see accurate predictions where none exist. Two bystanders present at a brawl between police and protesters will sincerely ascribe blame for the incident to different protagonists.

In any contentious situation, the seeker after truth will at least recognise the potential for biased observation, and will be wary about possible distortions of the truth, overstatement, exaggeration or outright fabrication by partisan advocates.

Naturalistic Fallacy

Other Terms and/or Related Concepts

Is/ought fallacy; Argument to nature.

Description

The advocate claims that because something is natural or exists in nature, it is by definition good. And/or the advocate derives 'ought' from 'is' without any compelling (and reasonable) link.

Example

Talk show host Grant Haggard has invited guest Riley Hardge on his show to discuss proposed gay marriage legislation. Hardge, attempts to bring up Haggard's recent arrest for public obscenity: "So Grant, you admit you were in the park that afternoon, and given you had binoculars I would normally believe you when you say you were bird watching. But why did witnesses see you in your van with your pants off?"

Haggard ignores the questions, turns to the camera and states: "The issue at stake here is the nature of family and life itself. Enacting this legislation would be commiting a crime against nature. The natural state of affairs is for marriage to be one man and one woman, so we can maintain the family unit. Look no further than the humble beaver. Both mother and father beaver have essential roles in the family unit. They mate for life and raise their young together, as a team. Just like humans do!"

Comment

Haggard's argument is wrong in two significant ways. The first, and most obvious, is that he has cherry picked one example from nature, from millions, to make his point. He has Stacked the Deck. One can demonstrate this easily by picking a fun counter example. Bonobos, for example, exhibit almost the complete opposite behaviour to beavers. They are overly promiscuous, engaging in opposite sex, same sex, and multiple partner sexual behavour, as frequently as humans shake hands.

The other way in which he is wrong is the Naturalistic Fallacy. Giving his example the benefit of the doubt, let's say that in nature homosexuality does not occur besides in humans. So? There is no compelling logic or link from the way things are (a description) to the way things ought to be (an ethical position). Haggard is essentially Begging the Question. He has presupposed that the way beavers live is good.

Another example of the Naturalistic Fallacy is the most basic argument in favour of Social Darwinism - a theory of societal ethics which claims its basis is in nature (evolution by natural selection - though it has a closer resemblance to selective breeding). Social Darwinists argued that if nature is this way (only the ‘fittest’ survive), then it ought to be this way with various features of society. (It has been mostly used as a justification for laissez-faire economics and eugenics.) But as with the previous example, this is an unfounded leap.

An argument in support of an ethical theory needs a better claim than, because something is done this way, it ought to be. This has nothing to do with whether it is right or wrong, good or bad. It is simply a statement of (supposed) fact. To get from a fact to an ethical value, there needs to be some kind of compelling argument about the ‘goodness’ or ‘evilness’ of the fact. For this to happen we need an agreed upon ‘good,’ and an agreed upon ‘evil’. (Note, this is a very simplistic treatment of Social Darwinism - and arguments not based on ‘is-ought’ with respect to the ‘goodness’ of laissez-faire economics and eugenics have been made by many.)