Germaine Greer, Original Inspiration for the LAME Claim Fallacy

In an article Theo and I published in the Skeptic (Spring 2004 - The Burden of Proof and the Burden of Solution), I coined a term for needy exhibitionists like Greer (LAME commentator - LAME is an acronym for "Look at Me Everybody").

The egregious Greer was, and is an inspiration (see cartoon, further developed from my original in the Skeptic). She has inspired us to officially coin a new fallacy in her honour - the LAME claim.

Shameless self-promotion

Why buy Humbug!? To give readers a good idea of the style of Humbug! - particularly our uncompromising, uncomplicated and iconoclastic take on fallacies (and Jef's cartoons) - here's a complete and unedited treatment of the fallacy Argument by Slogan straight from the book.

Argument by Slogan

Other Terms and/or Related Concepts

Mantra argument; using emotive language; appealing to sentiment; cliché thinking; reflex thinking; mindless repetition.

Description

Argument by slogan and the family of fallacies associated with argument by slogan (see other terms above) all have in common an intent on the part of the advocate to sidestep the issue under discussion and to "wrong-foot" the opponent. Instead of logically advancing a viewpoint and dealing with any challenges to that viewpoint, the advocate seeks to wear opposition down by repeatedly asserting a simplistic view of the issue.

Example

At a rally to protest a meeting of the World Economic Forum, Brenda Dudgeon is challenged by a forum delegate from the Seychelles, who asserts that his country needs foreign investment to progress. She picks up her megaphone and begins to chant: "Global capital oppresses the poor! Global capital..." In due course, other protesters take up the chant and the delegate from the Seychelles is drowned out.

Comment

There may or may not be some validity in the assertion that "global capital oppresses the poor". Whatever the truth of the matter, the issue is far more complex than the slogan; and use of the slogan will not advance understanding. If Brenda's behaviour is extremely confrontational, she may even appear on television coverage of the event. If this is her sole aim, she has been successful. But her behaviour is most unlikely to persuade the uncommitted to her view and it is very likely to entrench opposition to her view. Arguably (and ironically), the group least likely to benefit from her sloganeering is "the poor".

If Brenda's beliefs are sincere, and if she wishes to address the causes of poverty in the third world, she needs to engage in productive debate after some thorough self-education on the issues. She needs to break out of her coterie of like-minded activists and to substitute sober reflection and hard work for the "warm inner glow" of sloganeering. If after sober reflection, Brenda has concluded that the unfettered flow of capital around the world is a primary cause of poverty, she will be able to mount a convincing argument. In advancing the argument, she will have supporting evidence for her views and practical suggestions for capital regulation. The uncommitted will seriously consider her perspective. In due course, and in her own small way, she might even advance the plight of the world's poor. It won't be as much fun as public posturing, chanting and sloganeering, but she might actually get results.

The sight of a large group of self-satisfied demonstrators marching under a banner and chanting: "What do we want?" is now a commonplace. This ritual public performance may be boring, alarming, amusing or inspirational to the onlooker – depending on his or her political beliefs, and on what answer the demonstrators give to their rhetorical question ("what do we want?"). To the critical thinker however, participation in a mindless crowd of sloganeers is not an effective vehicle for productive engagement with a substantive and difficult issue. Often a march under banners, accompanied by an orchestrated chant is more about socialising and group cohesion – rather than a serious attempt to right a wrong, or to initiate political or social change. In most such "demos", visceral posturing has triumphed over intellectual engagement.

It is possible for argument by slogan to manifest itself in even more mindless ways. One of the most outstandingly mindless is the mass-produced "bumper sticker". Sloganeering marches may be futile, but at least walking and chanting is a mild form of healthy exercise. Political bumper stickers really only have one message, whatever the actual words on the sticker itself. The message? "I am a clueless poseur and I apparently believe, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that an infantile declarative statement stuck on the outside of my car amounts to a persuasive argument. Further, I am so bereft of wit, imagination, initiative and literary skills that I have to purchase the sticker off the shelf, rather than creating one of my own."

We know that this might seem to some to be a harsh judgment. But truth must prevail, even if the truth offends those asinine advocates who are also sticklers for stickers.

Pig-headed Professor argues fake evidence is still evidence…?

Professor Juan Cole at the University of Michigan argues this:

The story of the interlibrary loan request for Mao's Little Red Book that produced an interview by the Department of Homeland Security turns out to be a hoax.

However, it is one of those hoaxes that bespeaks a reality, which is that the level of unwarranted (a pun!) surveillance of Americans and violation of their fourth amendment rights under the Bush administration has skyrocketed to new levels of criminality. And, as I said, I do know of people who have been interviewed when they tried to import Arabic books.

The credulous acceptance of this hoax in the first place by the MSM and others is a clear example of False Attribution. Cole's use of it to 'prove' his point is quite absurd. Not only this, he then continues with False Attribution by asking us to 'take his word for it', that he knows people to whom the same thing has happened. Yeah, sure you do!

Season's Greetings from Bah Humbugonline

Quick Thinker

It's the festive season. I can't get my head around a serious topic today. So I will tell a story.

A man walked into the produce section of his local supermarket, and asked to buy half a head of lettuce. The boy working in that department told him that they only sold whole heads of lettuce. The man was insistent that the boy ask his manager about the matter. Walking into the back room, the boy said to the manager, "Some old b****rd wants to buy half a head of lettuce." As he finished his sentence, he turned to find the man standing right behind him, so he quickly added, "and this gentleman kindly offered to buy the other half." The manager approved the deal, and the man went on his way.

Later the manager said to the boy, "I was impressed with the way you got yourself out of that situation earlier. We like people who think on their feet here. Where are you from son?" "New Zealand, sir," the boy replied. "Well, why did you leave New Zealand?" the manager asked. The boy said, "Sir, there's nothing but whores and rugby players there." "Really?" replied the manager. "My wife is from New Zealand!" "Really?" replied the boy. "Who'd she play for?"

"Ashamed to be Australian" - Deconstructed

I have been intrigued recently by the use of the phrase “ashamed to be Australian”. It seems to be popping up in newspaper columns, newspaper articles and letters to the editor with increasing frequency. I just googled the phrase and achieved 827 hits. Scanning through the texts in which the phrase occurs indicates that there is no political or social issue, and no cultural feature of Australian life which does not make some Australians ashamed to be Australian. For every Australian ashamed to be Australian on one side of an issue, there seems to be another Australian who is ashamed to be Australian on the opposite side of the issue. I think this over-used and essentially meaningless phrase is ripe for deconstruction.

The first point to make is that it is a lame statement. It is a lame statement because it is “unconvincingly feeble”, and “uninspiring and dull” (OED). The advocate who makes such claim is usually referring to a single act of some Australians at some time which he or she finds unpalatable. His or her response to this single reprehensible act is to condemn all Australians for all time – to the point where he or she repudiates his or her nationality. Yeah right!

The second point to make is that it is a LAME statement. LAME is my acronym for “Look At Me Everybody”. I believe that this is the real intent behind an “ashamed to be Australian” claim. The advocate is not ashamed at all. Far from it. The statement is disingenuous. It is a calculated attempt to position the advocate on the moral high ground. The relevant emotion is not shame, but sanctimonious pride.

Phillip Adams' Opinion Columns, Deconstructed

I set myself the daunting task of capturing the life's work of the supreme Fallacy-Meister in a single cartoon. It is for others to judge whether I have succeeded.


Update - More Phil:

All Hail the Fallacy Meister

Asinine Adams At It Again

Haiku - an Ode to Phillip Adams

All Hail the Fallacy Meister

In today's Australian Phillip Adams manages to pack seven fallacies into a single short sentence. The sentence: My generation grew up believing we wouldn't grow up (see link above for full article).

If we play "spot the fallacy" with this sentence, we can make the case that is contains (in context) Factoid Propagation, Observational Selection, Popular Opinion, Simple-Minded Certitude, Special Pleading, Stacking the Deck and Unfounded Generalization.

Phillip seems to be getting more adept and skilled at generating fallacies as he ages. In decades past, a tally of seven fallacies on a "spot the fallacies" bingo card would not be reached until towards the end of one of his columns, and even a few years ago, at least a paragraph of the Master's text would be required. The question arises: "How is it possible for a single person to be so prolific in generating fallacies, and further, how can he become even better with advancing age?"

The answer I think lies in Phillip's increasing self-obsession and ego centrism. To Phillip, his own experience is the experience of all others, and his own views about anything and everything are the only views which could possibly be held by any right-thinking person. So he feels that he merely has to assert a belief, and that is the end of argument. By definition he is right. His beliefs are truths. So if he says that his generation grew up believing that they wouldn't grow up, then it is so. Others of his generation who don't have such a recollection are deluded, or they are liars. Phillip has written, and it is so.

Learn what words mean Antony

This bit of inept thinking from the smug and sneering blogger Antony Loewenstein (see distortature) under the heading "Definitions":

"'Terrorism' is what we call violence of the weak, and we condemn it; 'war' is what we call violence of the strong, and we glorify it."

Attempting to equate terrorism - the intentional killing of unarmed civilians (Eg, New York, Bali, Madrid, London and every second day in Baghdad) with war - conflict between two armed groups is pathetic. Another example of the fallacy of moral equivalence.

Some of Antony's commentators agree with his bizarre line of thought, arguing that "insurgents" only blow up military targets (in Iraq). Hmmm… What about the Iraqis killed in the line-up on polling day during the 1st election? Possibly one of the most cowardly acts ever committed. Actually, the majority of terrorism in Iraq is aimed at (soft) non-military targets.

No, he wasn't joking (just stupid).

WRT the "race riots" - the PM wasn't really sure (initially) what to make of this line of inquiry - an obvious non-sequitur.

Q: "Do you think anything the Government said over the last few years has set the tone for the actions on the weekend?"
PM: "Which Government?"
Q: "Your Government."
PM: "My Government?"
Reporter: "Yes."
PM: "Certainly not. What do you have in mind?"
Q: "Your position on Iraq."
PM: "My position on Iraq?"
Q: "Do you think that's had any influence on people feeling alienated?"
PM: "My position on Iraq? You've got to be joking."

Many comments over at Tim Blair's.

All-Purpose News Item - Race Riots

Some members of the human race went on a rampage today in response to an earlier rampage by other members of the human race. It is believed that this earlier rampage was prompted by an even earlier rampage. This latter rampage was in turn prompted by an even earlier rampage, and so on. Commentators and journalists are in broad agreement that racism is at the heart of the human race, and the only members of the human race who are not in thrall to racism are journalists and commentators. Although most journalists and commentators seem to be thrilled at the outbreak of racist attacks by the human race on the human race, their apparent excitement and joy is tempered by sanctimonious expressions of concern about the reprehensible nature of such racist attacks. Asked by a journalist and a commentator why the only members of the human race who are not racist are journalists and commentators, a spokesperson for commentators and journalists said: “oh that’s easy, we’re not really members of the human race... we're a higher order of existence entirely".

Goofy the Altruist

Egotistical (oops, I'm mean altruistic) Brazilian footballer (and some might say Goofy doppelganger) Ronaldo wants to win the Nobel Peace Prize and will use all his skills to score that goal (hey, I made a pun):

I am going to work all of my life in this area and work to win the prize... It would give me a lot of satisfaction. It's a sacrifice worth making.

What a 'sacrifice', winning over a million dollars (to go with all his other millions). What a guy - Saint Ronaldo?

You are, indeed, quite LAME.

Pilger - Left or Right? Confused or Confusing?

This cartoon exemplifies my current skepticism about the venerable political labels of left and right. I think that such lables are now effectively meaningless.

I think to identify as wholly the one or wholly the other is to surrender to group-think, and to nullify the prospect of approaching issues with open-minded skepticism.

Junk History III Mythistorian Reviews Book Edited by Mythistorians

The passage below is typical of the pseudo-intellectual waffle-language of mythistorians. It is a paragraph from a book review in the Australian Journal of Anthropology of April 2004. The review was written by Michael Jacklin, and the book in question was edited by primo mythistorians Bain Attwood and Fiona Magowan. The title of the book is telling (pun intended): Telling Stories: Indigenous History and Memory in Australia and New Zealand.

This collection explores the constructed nature of history and its intersections with oral narrative, testimony and memory. The essays delve into the complexities of Indigenous/non-Indigenous relationships involved in the production and circulation of Indigenous histories. The discussions of collaboration and entanglement in the configuring of Indigenous histories make this collection of particular relevance for those concerned with the ways Indigenous narratives negotiate the cultural domains of non-Indigenous Australia and New Zealand.

This work, on the evidence of the review alone, would have a substantive quality akin to chinese whispers. You may know the timeless military anecdote. A message is passed back to a reserve company by word of mouth. The message begins at the front as follows: "send reinforcements, we're going to advance". By the time it gets to the reserves, it has morphed into "send two-and fourpence, we're going to a dance".

Real science is too hard for most people to understand (but it's easy to take the p***)

Global warming is blamed for a coming ice age. Maybe we could halt this by reducing the amount of greenhouse gases we produce, thus causing the earth to get ... colder. Which is what we’re trying to avoid. Okay, instead let’s increase greenhouse gas outputs so that we’ll all be safe and warm. Hang on; warming is wrong, too!

From Tim Blair's blog apropos a recent article in New Scientist on a possible (paradoxical) consequence of global warming. Click the link to see the actual story and as such, it should be so obvious that even the meanest of intellects will see Blair's post for the caricature it is. Here is a snippet:

The ocean current that gives western Europe its relatively balmy climate is stuttering, raising fears that it might fail entirely and plunge the continent into a mini ice age.

A mini ice age for one continent out of seven. And as you'll see when reading the whole article, this is thought to be a consequence of melting ice, which in turn affects ocean currents, which again has a localised affect (decrease of mean temperature) - all due to an overall increase in the Earth's mean temperature. Climatology is complicated - more so than any caricature.

False Positioning - attacking a weakened, exaggerated, over-simplified or otherwise false or distorted form of the opponent's argument rather than the real one. Also known as a "straw man" (because it's easy to knock down).

Mr. T 'aplasty'

The real reason for Osama bin Laden's drop in popularity was this botched attempt at changing his identity. "I pity the fool."

Sore Losers

Sanctimony - My position is morally superior to my opponent's, and as such (by implication) my argument is correct. This is a fallacy when the supposed moral high ground is merely asserted or appropriated by the either deluded or self-serving puffed-up advocate rather than legitimately acquired through reasoned argument. "I am morally superior because... um... I am morally superior."

This description fits many comments I read (continually) since the last federal election - specifically regarding how "sick" our democracy is. I.e., the team I was going for lost, I am (morally) superior, therefore, as it can't be that I'm wrong, there must be something wrong with the game.

Weaselly Bloggers

Reading through many a blog over the last year or two, I've noticed a common tactic of posters to resort to Weasel Words. The advocate uses emotionally loaded labels to boost his or her position or to denigrate the opponent's position.

An example of weasel word usage might be the description of a bombing campaign. Commenting on civilian casualties a peace activist might state that the bombing is "genocide" (a dysphemism), whereas a military spokesperson might use the term "collateral damage" (a euphemism). In both cases this obscures the reality of the issue by use of a weasel word.

Genocide is the deliberate mass killing of non-combatant ethnic groups because of their ethnicity, whereas in the situation described above we have war-zone civilian casualties. If this is now genocide, then what new word do we use to describe actual genocide?

Collateral implies buildings and real estate rather than individual human beings. The euphemistic use of "collateral damage" is intended to distance the viewer from the human tragedy which is the outcome of almost any bombing campaign.

We should all challenge the misappropriation of terminology. In this case we would be talking about "civilian casualties" rather than genocide or collateral damage.

Junk History II - The Mythistorian

Junk history is written by mythistorians rather than historians. "Mythistorian" is my coinage for new- age postmodern junk "historians" who gather data in service of a theory. Junk data in service of theory is seen by the mythistorian as invaluable and valid, whereas valid data which challenges a cherished theory is ignored, misrepresented or belittled.

The Mythistorian tends to write about "histories" rather than history. "Histories" is a weasel word used to prepare the groundwork for myth-making.

The Mythistorian is unrelentingly patronising – he or she will presume to write on behalf of the "powerless" so that their "stories can be told". Oral traditions and stories of the "powerless" are elevated to the status of documentary evidence, but only those oral traditions and stories which conform to the Mythistorian's agenda.

You Are Werfless Alec Baldwin

With apologies to Team America

Junk History

It has been said that "any theory is also the autobiography of the theorist" (Bruce Chatwin, What Am I Doing Here, 1989). Junk history is the species of history writing which tends to tell us much about the historian, but little about the past. Junk history is now the dominant form produced by academic historians, and for this reason, those of us who are genuinely interested in what happened in the past are turned off by most "history books" published today. Junk historians have an agenda. They speak of history writing as a form of redemption – for themselves and for a society or culture. They select out evidence which supports their pet theories and diminish or ignore evidence which runs counter to their pet theories. They have already decided what happened in the past before they seek out evidence to support their suppositions. (See our treatment of the fallacies of Observational Selection and Argument by Artifice in Humbug!)

All Morals Are Not Made Equal

The Australian Greens attempt to disparage the Prime Minister by employing the fallacy of Moral Equivalence

Over the last few years the Prime Minister has been equivocal, expressing occasional support for the death penalty. For example, on 23 February 2003, the Prime Minster stated, in relation to the death sentence handed out to the Bali bombers: "If that is what the law on Indonesia provides, well that is how things should proceed, and there won't be any protest from Australia."

"Australia's policy needs to be consistent and must be based on principle, not on pragmatism. Capital punishment has no place in a modern world," Senator Brown said.

Senator Nettle said the government had not set a good example in its tacit support for the death penalty for the Bali terrorist bombers. "The comments that the prime minister and others have made in relation to Bali bombers, in relation to Saddam Hussein, for example, are examples where people will go 'why are you telling us we can't impose the death penalty when you almost congratulate others for doing it in certain circumstances'," she said.
Surely the difference between Van Nguyen and Saddam Hussein is blindingly obvious. Even to someone of (say) similar blindness to Mole Man, a man who is virtually blinded by normal illumination!

For those such as Brown and Nettle, allow me to explain - I'll try not to use too many big words and I'll type slowly :).

Moral Equivalence: The advocate seeks to draw false comparisons between two phenomena which are not morally equivalent.

The Prime Minister does not advocate the death penalty (nor do I), but his obligation lies with Australians; hence he is not morally obliged to argue against Saddam et al. (non-Australians) being executed. Further to this, the execution of terrorists who killed over 200 innocents, and a mass murderer who held sway over an entire nation for over 20 years, ruling it with fear, is not morally equivalent to the execution of a drug dealer.

Very late update via Tim Blair:

TWO Australian men on death row in Vietnam for drug trafficking have escaped execution. The Vietnamese President said he had granted the pair clemency after lobbying from the Prime Minister, John Howard.

Update 2: Does anyone know what Bob Brown said to Kerry Nettle just before the above photo was taken?

Peter Garrett Distortature

From time to time I will post a grotesque distortion of a public figure on this blog. I do this so that readers of the blog will know that at least one of us (Jef) will descend to the lowest level of ad hominem for amusement (see our sanctimonious treatment of personal attack in our book Humbug!). Note that the term Distortature is Jef's coinage for a graphic image that involves mere distortion of a facial expression for cheap laughs. It it not to be confused with caricature, which involves graphic skills of a high order.

HUMBUG! by Jef - Academic Dogs

Appeal to Celebrity

The first common fallacy canvassed in our book Humbug! is Appeal to Authority. Our short definition of appeal to authority is as follows: "The advocate makes an unwarranted appeal to an authoritative person or organization in support of a proposition". Unwarranted in this context means that the appeal is without foundation, and that the supposed "authority" does not really lend any weight to the advocate's proposition (because the authority of the authority on this particular matter is not convincing, or because the advocate is falsely claiming that the authority would agree with the advocate's position).

There is a subspecies of appeal to authority which is much more bizarre than a commonplace appeal to authority. This subspecies of appeal to authority is worthy of comment here because it is increasingly common, and often passes unnoticed by those who should know better. It is Appeal to Celebrity.

Consider the commonplace case. The celebrity is appearing on a chat show, or a news and current affairs program. The celebrity is perhaps an actor, a model, a sportsperson, a "reality television" contestant, or a Greens senator. Whatever the claim to fame, the celebrity is not known for deep thinking. And yet... the interviewer inevitably asks the celebrity about his or her profound thoughts on some deep and complex issue – multilateral defence treaties, bilateral trade agreements, reform of the United Nations, health funding, dry land salinity etc etc etc. And the celebrity is eager to pontificate at length on any of these, and presumably the more impressionable viewers will be swayed by the celebrity's half-baked opinions, just because the celebrity is a celebrity.

Just once I'd like to see a journalist-interviewer practice real journalism and say: "sorry to interrupt you there Sean, but you're talking about politics now, and we're not interested; after all, you're only an actor".