Sanctimony

Other Terms and/or Related Concepts

Sententiousness; seizing the moral high ground; moral posturing; "holier-than thou"; self-righteousness; priggishness.

Description

The advocate represents his or her position as morally superior to the opponent's, and links this by implication to the "correctness" and validity of the advocate's position.

This is a fallacy when the supposed moral high ground is merely asserted or appropriated by the puffed-up advocate rather than legitimately acquired through reasoned argument. Most sanctimonious claims to the moral high ground are either deluded or self-serving. Deluded prigs are often unable to recognise the circularity of their claim to moral superiority – viz: "I am morally superior because... um... I am morally superior."

The preening and morally superior advocate may be attempting to avoid scrutiny of a weak argument by placing a taboo on the opponent's position, or by "ruling out" his or her line of argument beforehand. That is, the line of argument taken by the opponent is deemed to be "beyond the pale" and could not even be considered by any "right-thinking person". Note that some sanctimonious advocates may be well-meaning but unable to distinguish between what ought to be true and what is true. (See wishful thinking in argument to consequences.)

Example

Orson Pecksniff is the host of a syndicated radio talk program which goes to air live between 3am and 4am on Sundays. Orson's producer is Gerry O'Waldheim, a like-minded inhabitant of the same inner-city boutique suburb. On their promotional website, Orson and Gerry assert that they are both committed to a cutting-edge program which fearlessly engages with difficult social and political issues in order to secure social justice for the underprivileged. In fact, the featured guests are carefully selected to ensure that their views are in accord with those of Orson and Gerry. Orson's interviews usually amount to nothing more engaging than amiable conversations with a sympathetic guest.

Tonight Orson is interviewing Jeanne Streetwise who has written a book called The Perils of Colonialism. Orson has prepared for the interview by scan-reading a precis of the book prepared by his research assistant. He launches into the interview with his usual confidence. However it soon becomes apparent that Orson has misread the situation. The title is in part ironic, and Jeanne's wide-ranging treatment of the topic is critical of both colonists and the critics of colonists. Further, she makes the case that the wealthy middle class is currently colonising the inner city precincts of capital cities. In so doing, they are advantaging themselves at the expense of the urban poor. She finishes by declaring: "Inner-city suburbs are colonised by individuals rather than nation-states, but the process is still about the dominance of the powerful over the powerless."

Orson back-announces Jeanne and her book, waits for her to leave the studio, draws a breath, recovers his composure and then editorialises: "Well, Jeanne believes that something can be said in defence of the European colonial powers who engaged in a savage war of conquest against native peoples... Such a position is so self-evidently obnoxious and immoral that it doesn't deserve to be taken seriously."

Comment

Orson is entitled to disagree with Jeanne, but his position cannot be credible until he has carefully considered her arguments. His dismissive statement is without merit. It clearly positions him as an empty vessel, full of sound and fury, but signifying – nothing. His instinctive response to discomfiture is ego-protection. His sanctimony is shallow and visceral rather than well-founded.

The seeker after truth will recognise this type of blustering response as a feint designed to let the poseur off the hook. When sanctimony is encountered in a discussion, the debunker will call the bluff, label the tactic moral posturing, and press on regardless.

Other examples

"Democracy is a joke. How on Earth did Gertrude McTockinbride win the election? The system is broken if it allows someone with those views to win. I'm just embarrassed that the ignorant masses can't see her for what she is. Anyone with a reasonable level of intelligence would know that to vote for her is a vote for backwards views and will damage the progress we've made over the last decade. You should have to pass a test to be able to vote!"

 

Red Herring

Other Terms and/or Related Concepts

Moving the goalposts; the Chewbacca Defense.

Description

The advocate deliberately introduces an irrelevant topic into a discussion or debate in order to divert attention away from the topic under consideration. The Red Herring is similar to Moving the Goalposts, in that the advocate is attempting to change the focus of the conversation. What makes Red Herrings different is the employment of outright non-sequiturs.

Examples

1. Newton Mattburt was accused of assaulting his former girlfriend Sacha Wellbroke. His lawyer spoke on his behalf outside the court: "Mr. Mattburt pleaded not guilty to the charges and will defend himself vigorously. Let's get some perspective," Mattburt’s solicitor went on to say: "Ninety people died in Iraqastan today, most of them kids. This is a very minor matter."

2. In the South Park episode “Chef Aid”, Lawyer Johnnie Cochran is representing a record label who is suing the character Chef over the intellectual property of the song "Stinky Britches”. He starts talking about Chewbacca (from the Star Wars movies), referring to the fact that Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk who lives on the planet Endor (he actually doesn't). But as Cochran points out, this does not make sense:

Cochran: Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense!

And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, [approaches and softens] does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests."

(South Park 1998, Season 2, Episode 14)

Comment

The kind of Non Sequitur used by Mattburt’s lawyer in the first example is a Red Herring. It is a deliberate attempt to divert attention away from the real issue under consideration - that Mattburt (allegedly) beat his (now ex) girlfriend. Most of us would agree that 90 people dying in a war zone is, in the grand scheme of things, worse than one person being assaulted. However, this has nothing to do with the case.

In the second example we have an extreme version of the Red Herring Fallacy called the "Chewbacca Defense" - coined in the animated series South Park. South Park satirised the closing argument of the attorney (Johnnie Cochran) defending O.J. Simpson at his murder trial. The Chewbacca Defense is more extreme that a "standard" Red Herring. It is a series of bizarre non-sequiturs whose only purpose is to confuse an opponent.

 

Red Flag Faux Pas

Other Terms and/or Related Concepts

Specious allegations of fallacy; Fallacy Abuse.

Description

The advocate is overly quick to claim an opponent has made a fallacy when in fact the opponent has not.

Example

Religious apologist Bjorn Belleeber, writing in the peer reviewed journal Theological Ratiocinator, is critiquing an argument forwarded in a paper from the prior edition.

Begging the Question is a fallacy that occurs when a disputant uses his conclusion as one of the premises employed to establish his conclusion. In his paper, Dawkitch asserts that: "Over time, as we progress through history, our society gets older and wiser and our view of the world and everything in it becomes less and less superstitious and more realistic. We stop believing in spirits, demons and the undead. Our model becomes realistic; over time, we update it with correct information from the real world." How can Dawkitch know this is true before all the evidence is in? Dawkitch begs the question and assumes that his conclusion is true by restating the premise.

Comment

"Red flags" are the particular things one looks out for that could mean a fallacy is in play. For example, gratuitous insults and slurs on an opponent's character could mean an Ad Hominem attack. "Faux pas" comes from French, meaning “false step”. In English (and French) faux pas are embarrassing violations of social norms. So in this sense a Red Flag Faux Pas is the embarrassing mistake of accusing someone of making a fallacy, when in fact they have not.

Just because a red flag has caught one's attention, in order to avoid taking a "false step", one shouldn't be overly hasty in claiming a fallacy has been committed. Is the red flag the basis of an argument? If so, then it is likely a fallacy is being made. If the red flag is an addendum to an argument or point, or simply not part of an argument, then it may not be fallacious (it might simply be impolite and/or irrelevant).

The example above is not Begging the Question, as Belleeber claims. There is no premise in Dawkitch’s statement. There is also no conclusion. Ergo, it’s not Begging the Question. It is simply an assertion. One can choose to agree or disagree with it, but it’s not Begging the Question. Begging the Question would be more like:

Over time, as we progress through history, our society gets older and wiser and our view of the world and everything in it becomes less and less superstitious and more realistic. We stop believing in spirits, demons and the undead. This is because our model becomes realistic over time, we update it with correct information from the real world and stop relying on supernatural explanations for unexplained phenomena.

Note the introduction of the word "because". This clearly shows this is the sentence that attempts to justify the claim in the initial section. But of course, it’s simply the initial claim reworded to sound like a justification. Now it is a Question Begging argument. Dawkitch should only be accused of making an unsupported assertion. This in itself could be argued is error enough. Every sentence simply repeats this assertion in a different manner for more emphasis.

Making a Red Flag Faux Pas is understandable. In cases such as the example above, the continued repetition of the same point is easily mistaken for a Question Begging argument, just as insulting somebody is easily assumed to be an Ad Hominem attack. The key to identifying a fallacy is careful consideration of the structure of the argument or position. Is is formulated as an argument? If not, it is more than likely a naked assertion, which can be dismissed in any case.

 

Some of my astronomical photography

The recent partial lunar eclipse (4 June 2012) viewed from Brisbane Australia.

And the transit of Venus (6 June 2012).

 

Postdiction

Other Terms and/or Related Concepts

Hindsight Bias; 20/20 Hindsight

Description

The advocate claims that they accurately predicted an event after the fact, when in fact they did not, or can provide no evidence that they did.

Example

In her end of year wrap up column, financial astrologer May Kidup explains why the Leewoman Sisters Bank collapsed earlier in the year. She explains that it was written in the stars:

Sure, some like to blame the bank for overstretching itself, or the government for poor fiscal policy and a lack of regulation. But when you read the stars the true culprit becomes clear - a clash in the Pontiac, between Sami and Leroy. As we know, the sun is the father of the astrological Pontiac, and is represented by Leroy the Ladybug. Sami, the Queen Bee, is his son.

And as with all fathers and sons, when the son grows up he needs to show his father that he is a man. This happens when they are sitting in the same house. As such, they fight. This creates danger in the stock-market. That’s why the Leewomen Sisters Bank fell.

Comment

May Kidup claimed the cause of the collapse of the Leewoman Sisters bank was due to trouble caused by the astrological fighting of Sami and Leroy. The problem is, besides the astrological Gibberish, when an explanation comes after the fact, how can we verify or falsify it? In science, we would run the experiment again, or seek to make a prediction using the same model, that can be tested against a future event.

Astrology seems to go out of its way to avoid such empiricism. We would also ask for a much more explicit claim as a prediction. We would not be very impressed with a prediction that: “Sometime during the year, a bank will collapse”. We might think a claim such as: “When Sami and Leroy clash, the Leewoman Sisters bank will collapse”, is far more impressive. It provides us with enough precision as to be able to categorically say the event did or did not occur.

Such specificity in a prediction from an astrologer is unlikely. When going over an astrologer’s predictions for any given year – one finds they tend to be very general. There are occasions when they do get specific, often to do with deaths and divorces of celebrities. On reviewing such precise predictions, one finds a lack of hits (not that astrologers ever self-review...).

Other examples

Parents who claim, after their child was born, that they “just knew it was a boy (or girl)”. If they were to write down their guess before the child was born, at least we could confirm their claim of accurate prediction. Chances are many of these claims would turn out to are right (about 50%...) But if the claim of an accurate prediction is based on a memory, that is, they claim a successful prediction after the fact, then we cannot rule out postdiction. The greater number of times they claim this has occurred, without writing it down before the sex of the child is known, the more suspicious we should be. A charge of postdiction becomes more justifiable.

 

An amazing picture of Saturn

Via: Saturn, raw | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine

 

Popular Opinion

Other Terms and/or Related Concepts

Ad populum; majority rules.

Description

The advocate asserts that because the great majority of people in general agree with his or her position on an issue, he or she must be right. A variant is where the advocate asserts that he or she must be right because a particular group (rather than the population as a whole) agrees with the advocate.

Example

Alison Granules is a "concerned mother" taking part in a televised "Hypotheticals" debate on decriminalisation of Heroin use. She asserts: "People are not stupid. The great majority of voters will not stand for the provision of free heroin to users by government authorities. Everyone knows you can't cure addiction by supplying addicts with addictive drugs."

Dr Dennis Pontificatum (the spokesperson for the Society of Physicians on drug policy) interjects: "Yes, but the great majority of drug and alcohol experts would take the opposite view. Who are you going to believe?"

Comment

In the example above, both Alison and Dennis are attempting to validate their positions by claiming support from majority opinion. In Alison's case, she is asserting the value of general, non-specialist, "democratic" opinion in the general population. Perhaps underlying her case is the assumption that "commonsense" opinion is of more value than the views of "so called" experts.

Dennis is attempting to trump her appeal by citing the opinions of a group which he presumes has more credibility and insight than the general population. His underlying assumption is that the majority views of specialists are of more value than the "ignorant masses".

Either way, Appealing to Popular Opinion does not provide any evidence for that opinion other than, "Some other people believe what I'm saying is true". If that's the best evidence for a claim, then it's probably not much of a claim. When Appeals to Popular Opinion are made in arguing a point, the seeker after truth needs to be skeptical about majority views – whether those views are from the general population or a selected, expert group with "insider knowledge".

It is understandable to place greater weight on expert opinion on any topic. This heuristic will work more often than not, but if solely relied upon, may lead the seeker after truth very badly astray. In many fields of enquiry or policy-making for example, the experts are almost always entirely self-selected. That is, they choose to seek a career in (say) child protection, drug policy, defence studies or social welfare because of a pre-existing set of strongly held values. They may use their position of influence to ensure that their views prevail in the relevant areas of social policy.

We should have a systematic bias to favour the opinion of experts over non-experts. We should also take this into account and attempt to independently verify the expert opinion where possible. At the very least we should expect experts to explain why they hold their position, rather than allowing them to assert it, relying on our deference to yield them their point. Seekers after truth will not meekly accept the validity of an expert opinion. They will demand evidence and a rational justification.

Other examples

Did you know that the supplement industry is now worth over $50 bn world wide annually? This just goes to show the importance of having a daily multivitamin.