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, participation in a mindless crowd of sloganeers is not an effective vehicle for productive engagement with a substantive and difficult issue. It can raise awareness or show there is popular support for the cause being protested. However, 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.

Argument to Consequences

Other Terms and/or Related Concepts

Argument to repercussions; appeal to fear; swinging the big stick; wishful thinking.

Description

The "classic" version of this fallacy is the common case where an advocate will not entertain the possibility that an opponent's argument is correct, because if it is correct there will be adverse consequences.

Example

Margaret Chemise says to Claude Nads: "I was reading about a sociologist who has found that there are differences in the average intelligence of different racial groups. She found this out by conducting what she claims was a culturally neutral IQ test." Claude responds: "Well she must have got it wrong. There isn't an average difference in IQ between different races of people because if there was, it would allow bigots to justify their racism."

Comment

When delusional advocates believe something to be true or false because they want it to be true or false, an argument to consequences is involved. When they are hopeful for a positive consequence, they are engaging in a particular version of argument to consequences called wishful thinking. In the example above however, Claude invokes an argument to adverse consequences.

He reasons that differences in IQ between racial groups must not exist, because if they did exist it would adversely affect race relations. In doing so he is making an unjustifiable assertion. He would be better off addressing his core concerns about race relations by engaging in subtle and complex arguments about: (a) whether or not culturally neutral IQ tests can ever be constructed; and (b) whether statistically significant differences between populations are relevant to public policy. In the end, there may be an argument for not conducting IQ tests across racial and cultural groups, but there cannot be a reasoned argument for simply declaring á priori that there are no differences in IQ.

The key factor here is not whether the proponent agrees or disagrees with a study, assertion, argument, proposition or conclusion (because of what it says). It is the quality of the reasoning behind the agreement or disagreement, (why it says it) that is important. If the reasoning boils down to a general case of the following form: "X cannot be true because it ought not to be true," (or "Y must be true because it ought to be true") then the wishful (non)thinker is wallowing in the fallacy and fantasy world of argument to consequences.

A pernicious form of the argument to adverse consequences fallacy occurs when researchers engaged in some form of advocacy research, assume that results which do not agree with their cherished hypothesis cannot be "true". The individual in such circumstances is forced to contemplate a very unpleasant proposition, which might be put as follows: "My career to date has been based on false assumptions, and I have therefore wasted years of diligent effort."

Under such circumstances, the temptation is for the disillusioned advocacy-researcher to assume some methodological fallacy, rather than to seriously question his or her hypothesis. Disillusioned and desperate researchers redesign and repeat their research until they obtain the desired result. "Failed" surveys or experiments are not of course published in "the literature". Rather, they are discarded and are not ultimately reported to the research community. This phenomenon is sometimes known as "publication bias". Publication bias means that from time to time the corpus of knowledge in a particular discipline is distorted. "If at first you don't succeed, try, try and try again," is probably not an advisable precept for a researcher who claims to be a disinterested seeker after truth.

Bad Faith

Other Terms and/or Related Concepts

Hypocrisy; Duplicity; Deception; Two faced.

Description

The advocate knowingly takes an unprincipled position or carries out an unprincipled action while disingenuously claiming to be motivated by principle.

Bad faith is similar in nature to many other types of humbug, but the key difference is that the advocate is knowingly acting in an unprincipled fashion - out of pure self-interest. Before accusing an advocate of bad faith, it is important to make a reasonable effort to ascertain that one is not merely impugning (their) motives.

Example

Daryl Mory is the spokesperson for an organisation that purports to provide education on the subject of vaccines. Mory's group is facing increased criticism and government scrutiny. He is giving an interview on a radio program in order to limit the negative press. The host, Nancy Mitchell, has just asserted that Mory's group is an anti-vaccination lobby and not interested in education. He responds by saying, "We are not, never have been, anti-vaccination. We are pro-information, pro-choice and a health safety watchdog."

Mitchell has prepared for a response like this. She responds, "I thought you might deny being a vaccine denier, so I did a bit of research. Here's what you've said in the past, and I quote:

• Better hygiene and better nutrition is the reason why we've seen this decline. It has nothing to do with vaccination.
• Vaccines don't work. Vaccines are dangerous.
• Vaccines are instruments of death. Doctors, pharma companies, government officials are murderers. Vaccines are poisons."

Mory responds, "Well, you need to see those quotes in context. And some of them are quite old. We don't advocate one way or the other. We just want more research."

Mitchell lifts up a t-shirt from under the table and says, "Well I just received this t-shirt from your online store. On it is a picture of a crying child and an exaggerated oversized needle, with the slogan, Love them. Protect them. Never inject them. You sir, are a lying hypocrite."

Discussion

Bad Faith involves the adoption of a moral posture which is false. Other more simple descriptors may be used to describe such a posture - "duplicitous scumbag" comes to mind - but bad faith is a term which is worthwhile advancing for its precision of meaning, and emotional coolness. (Calling someone a duplicitous scumbag can be provocative, whereas claiming that they are acting in bad faith may be, or ought to be more tolerable.)

In the example above, Mory initially seems to be a genuine and reasonable person, attempting to provide the public with balanced information. As Mitchell quickly demonstrates, nothing could be further from the truth. Mory is a deliberately deceiving sciolist who has already made up his mind. As the quotes and t-shirt demonstrate, he rationalises his view with straw man arguments, motive impugning, paranoid conspiracy thinking and simple-minded certitude.

When a person is engaged in a debate or argument purely to win, such as a lawyer or debater, then bad faith is not an issue, even when he or she uses a sophisticated knowledge of fallacies to wrong-foot an opponent. However, when the same person maintains that his or her motives are pure - in the service of truth alone, then bad faith is involved.

Some more examples:

• A journalist acts in bad faith when he or she claims to be reporting news - while in reality he or she creates news by provoking newsworthy incidents.
• A social researcher acts in bad faith when he or she claims to be researching a topic in order to discover underlying reality - while in reality he or she discards and doesn't report results which don't support his or her cherished hypothesis.
• A peace activist acts in bad faith when he or she expresses public anguish at the death of non-combatants while privately delighting in such casualties - as civilian deaths add weight to his or her position on armed conflict.
• A Prime Minister acts in bad faith when they appoint someone who doesn't believe on god as Archbishop of Canterbury. The atheist Archbishop preaching (with apparent sincerity) from a pulpit about the resurrection and the life everlasting would also be acting in bad faith. (Well duh!)
• An intergalactic space lord acts in bad faith when in order to catch some rebels he concocts a deal with one of their old acquaintances, who is now governor of a space colony they are due to arrive at; and then after capturing them he reneges and alters the terms of the deal. (One can only pray he doesn't alter it any further.)

Begging the Question

Other Terms and/or Related Concepts

Circular argument; assuming the premise; assuming the conclusion.

Description

The advocate uses the conclusion, or rather the point he or she is attempting to make, as the premise for his or her argument. The circularity of the claim is usually disguised, as the premise and the conclusion are stated in different ways (one is a paraphrase of the other). When advocates "beg the question", they fail to seek external support for their claims. The point under discussion is assumed, rather than demonstrated to be true.

Examples

1. Dotty Pymplebaume is President of the Major-Player Financial Syndicate. She is giving the keynote address to the Society for Currency Remuneration and Excessive Wealth Underwriting (SCREWU), at their semi-biennial conference. Her address is entitled Free-Trade: Why it's good for everyone. She closes her speech with the following summary of her position:
   

   People and organizations opposed to free trade clearly don't understand its logic. To me it's self-evident that free trade is good for everyone. The progress being made by politicians and economists towards the unrestricted flow of goods between countries will result in great benefits to this country and to the whole world.

2. Russell Farside is explaining gender issues to his friend Mitch Grinspoon: "Men need to get in touch with their feminine side."

"Why?" asks Mitch. "I'm perfectly happy being masculine. Shouldn't men and women just behave how they feel?"

"I don't think that is a healthy way of living," responds Russell. "It's good for men to gain a better balance of their masculine and feminine selves."

Comment

The fallacy of begging the question assumes as "evidence" for the argument the claim or point that is in question. Dotty's argument, when dissected, is a clear example of begging the question. She has assumed without any external evidence that her claim (free trade is good) – is correct. She attempts to justify this claim by restating this in a different form.

First she says: "...the unrestricted flow of goods between countries..." This is a long-winded reiteration of "free trade". Free trade is the unrestricted flow of goods between countries. She then follows up with the claim that this "...will result in great benefits to this country and to the whole world." This is merely a paraphrase of her original claim that "...free trade is good for everyone."

In the second example, the same kind of specious reasoning is used. Stripped of its rhetoric, Russell believes that "men need to get in touch with their feminine side" because it is good for them. He gives no actual evidence for this claim; he merely asserts an opinion.

Begging the question is an easily identified fallacy once an argument has been dissected. The conclusion and the premise are identical in all but their expression. Reasonably adroit proponents are able to disguise this reiteration well. But this deception is readily exposed when the skeptic points out that the advocate is simply restating the premise as the conclusion.

It should be noted that the expression "begging the question" is routinely misused by journalists. When a journalist, or interviewee or commentator says (for example) that: "This begs the question that..." they often actually mean "This raises the question...". This corrupted usage should be resisted - unless the original meaning of useful words and phrases is preserved, we lose precision in language. Lack of precision in language is often symptomatic of a parallel lack of precision in thinking. Without being too pedantic, when the phrase "begging the question" is used incorrectly in our presence, it is worthwhile pointing this out. At the same time, it might be useful to point out that careless word usage often signifies careless reasoning.

Browbeating

Other Terms and/or Related Concepts

Overtalking; vituperation; bullying; polemics.

Description

This fallacy usually occurs in face-to-face discussion. A discussion in which this fallacy occurs is likely to be heated and aggressive in tone. The advocate is loud, threatening and voluble. He or she does not allow the opponent an opportunity to make his or her case. When the opponent seeks to make a point, he or she is cut off abruptly and not allowed to finish. The speech rate of the browbeating advocate is rapid with minimal pauses. The fallacy of browbeating can also occur in print, but the histrionics characteristic of browbeating are limited by the mode of communication. Browbeating expressed in print or writing is better described as polemics.

Example

Gertrude Grimace is an ageing cultural icon and professional expatriate. She is also a needy exhibitionist who seeks every opportunity to hold forth on any subject. A compliant and fawning media can always be relied upon to afford her plenty of opportunities to pontificate during any of her fleeting visits to the country of her birth.

On this occasion she is taking part in a panel discussion on youth. She calls for the voting age to be lowered to twelve. Another member of the panel begins his response: "But don't you think voters need a certain level of maturity to exercise a responsible vote, after all..." This is as far as he gets. From this point on Gertrude overtalks him, all the other panellists and the moderator. She is loud, obnoxious, strident and rapid-fire in her delivery.

Comment

Most interactions would be improved if participants engaged in more attentive listening. After all, everyone is entitled to express his or her own point of view. But this minimal entitlement is not enough - when a point of view is expressed, the person expressing the idea is entitled to a genuine hearing. This is common courtesy. It is also an essential requirement for the amicable resolution of conflict.

When confronted with browbeating, the detached doubter will make a firm claim for the right to be heard. If this claim proves fruitless and the pontificating browbeater continues to be intransigent, the opponent should terminate the interaction and explain why this proved to be necessary. Attempting to match the browbeater is almost always the wrong approach, especially when a discussion or debate is happening in front of an audience. Even a hostile audience can be trusted to see what is going on.

In the example given, the moderator of the hijacked discussion could turn off Gertrude's microphone after a minute or two of her tirade and calmly point out that he will not accept such hostility in response to honest opinions freely expressed by other members of the panel. Gertrude's pattern of behaviour suggests that she is suffering from LAME disease (Look At Me Everybody). Like most browbeaters, she has an overwhelming need to "win" an argument through physical suppression of her opponents' arguments. To the superficial observer, she may come across as confident and self-assured, but her browbeating suggests that she has very little faith in the soundness of her position. The skeptical observer will draw the obvious conclusion - Gertrude is all hot air, and her browbeating is a substitute for intelligent analysis and truth seeking.

Browbeating is a common feature of political interviews on television news and current affairs programs, and talkback radio. Sometimes the interviewer is the aggressor, sometimes the politician is the aggressor, and sometimes both are aggressive.

Consider the more common case where the interviewer is aggressive. He or she will ask a loaded question and interrupt the answer with a supplementary question. The interruption will be cynical and aggressive in tone. More interruptions will follow and the interviewee will not be permitted to finish an answer. The interview will conclude without extracting substantive information. The interviewer will thank the interviewee for appearing. The thanks will be insincere.

Politicians are often characterized as evasive by the browbeating commentariat (political journalists and commentators). This is ironic. Politicians are circumspect and guarded in their speech because the commentariat is forever on the lookout for the unguarded moment. They seize upon and distort trivial lapses. They quote out of context, "beat up" and manufacture stories. The ego and career considerations of the commentariat often outweigh any commitment to conveying valid information to an informed electorate.

Burden of Proof

Other Terms and/or Related Concepts

Onus of proof; appeal to ignorance; (c.f. burden of solution).

Description

The burden of proof fallacy is a common rhetorical trick employed in debating and other public forums. It takes place when the advocate claims that the opponent needs to disprove the advocate's case and if he or she cannot, then (by default) the advocate's case is made. The situation is deliberately distorted to tip the balance in favour of the advocate. The key to identifying where the burden of proof actually lies is that it belongs to the person asserting a claim. An advocate making a claim who shirks the burden of proof is guilty of the burden of proof fallacy.

Example

Peter Fantickler is studying biology at university. His lecturer has just outlined the curriculum for the semester. It includes evolution. Peter raises his hand and asks:

Why isn't Intelligent Design on the curriculum? You are going to teach us that all life evolved from one thing to another. But there are forms of life and components of living things that are too complex to have evolved, which biologists can't explain. It must mean they were designed by an intelligence.

Comment

Intelligent Design (ID) claims that in the living world there are irreducibly complex objects that cannot be explained by evolution by natural (and sexual) selection. Given this, they argue, and given these structures are complex and clearly have a purpose, they must have been designed by an intelligence. The CliffsNotes version - you cannot explain this phenomena, therefore my explanation wins (even if mine doesn't actually explain it either).

This is certainly not how one argues for a scientific hypothesis. For a theory to be considered plausible there needs to be evidence for it. It doesn't simply "win" if another theory is missing the occasional explanation (though all the things ID proponents claim evolution can't explain have been explained by evolutionary biologists in an orthodox fashion).

If for the sake of argument we grant ID proponents their first premise, that there are "irreducibly complex" living systems, we do not need to grant them their second. If there is an irreducibly complex living system whose evolutionary history cannot be explained, it does not automatically follow that it was intelligently designed. All that can be said is: "We don't know." In the example above, Peter is being fallacious when he appeals to the (supposed) ignorance of biologists as positive evidence for Intelligent Design.

The burden of proof falls on proponents of ID to make their case. They, of course, do not propose how these structures were designed, put together and built. Their explanation is not an explanation. It explains precisely nothing.

Two more examples:

• "You can't prove god exists, therefore he doesn't."
• "You can't prove god doesn't exist, therefore he does."

The above invoke the appeal to ignorance. In both cases the lack of proof for the initial claim is taken as evidence for the contrary claim and as such are fallacious. When any proposition (e.g. aliens visit the Earth to observe us; indigenous people are more spiritual; problems in this life are due to events in past lives; dreams are a form of astral travel) can't be disproved, it doesn't mean that the proposition is therefore proved. A claim needs to provide positive evidence of its own. A lack of evidence for a contradictory claim helps, but it is not positive evidence.

It is perfectly appropriate for each of two parties to a dispute to ask for compelling evidence from the other person to support his or her case. This is skepticism in action. The problem only arises when the advocate takes the position that his or her own case is necessarily made if the opponent's case cannot be made.

Burden of Solution

Other Terms and/or Related Concepts

"That's your/their problem... not my problem" (c.f. burden of proof); perfect solution.

Description

The advocate denigrates a particular action an organisation, a government, or an opponent wishes to take to address an acknowledged problem. At the same time, the advocate doesn't attempt to provide any alternative solution. He or she tends to characterize any deficiencies or limitations in the opponent's proposed solution as morally reprehensible or fatally flawed.

Example

It is morning tea in the Faculty of Applied Sociology at the University of Wooloomooloo. Dr Roni Tunnell, a lecturer in holistic cultural autoeroticism is railing against a request from the Faculty Board. The board has asked him to "show cause" why his elective on Gendered Psychic Self-Pleasuring should not be cancelled. The board has pointed out that his average enrolment of three students over the last six semesters is not really viable in times of financial stringency. "It's not my job to justify my course, or to find ways of increasing enrolments, or to find external sources of funding, that's their job... that's what those stupid lazy bastards are paid for."

Comment

While we can understand the vehemence of Roni's response to a possible threat to his sinecure, he is not doing himself any favours with his intransigence. The board has put forward the obvious solution to this type of financial crisis – cancel non-viable electives to increase efficiencies in staffing. Roni is refusing even "part-ownership" of the problem. He is rejecting the board's solution. At the same time he is refusing to provide any viable suggestions of his own. He is avoiding the burden of solution by attempting to place the responsibility for finding a solution on the board. Further, any solution coming from the board must meet with his approval.

The burden of solution fallacy is commonly encountered in contributions to public debate on sensitive and difficult issues. Individuals who are fond of displaying ethical sensibilities in public forums are sometimes so self-indulgent that they condemn possible solutions of others and yet offer none of their own. They perceive mere opposition as a "principled stance". They presume to tell others what not to do; but offer no solutions of their own, or they offer "solutions" which are mere wishful thinking.

If (for example) an advocate doesn't agree with economic sanctions to enforce compliance with human rights in a dictatorship, then he or she should offer a better alternative and argue its merits. If he or she is unable or unwilling to do so, then the case must be made that "leaving things as they are" is better than attempting the economic sanctions solution.

If the advocate does attempt to make the claim that the status quo is better than the proposed intervention, the skeptical opponent should be alert to the possibility of wishful thinking (see argument to consequences). The advocate may claim for example that "left to themselves" dictatorships will evolve into pluralist democracies without the application of significant external pressures or interventions – that terror and oppression will eventually fade away in the police state if the leaders of liberal democratic nations engage with, and sweet-talk the dictator. This argument is easily countered by opponents. They can simply ask for examples of dictatorships which have become liberal democracies over a reasonable time-frame without the application of external pressures.

In burdening the opponent with the solution, self-indulgent advocates are mere naysayers, and their opinions have little merit. Further discussion is likely to be fruitless.

It is important to note that one can legitimately criticise a proposed solution without offering one in response. It is not unreasonable for a seeker after truth to admit that they do not themselves have a solution for the problem. In doing so one is avoids engaging in pretense or making light of the complexity of the issue. The burden of solution fallacy requires the sanctimonious criticism of the actions of others, along with an express statement (or an implication) that the critic knows what the solution is.

Cultural Origins

Other Terms and/or Related Concepts

Appeal to tradition; argument from tradition; argumentum ad antiquitatem; appeal to antiquity; appeal to customs; our way (or their way) is best.

Description

When an advocate either promotes a "way of doing things" by citing its use in a particular culture or group, or denigrates a "way of doing things" by citing its use in a particular culture or group, he or she is making an appeal to cultural origins. An appeal to cultural origins is not in itself a valid way to resolve a contentious issue. Such an appeal is a fallacy and should always be challenged by the critical thinker.

Example

Chuck A. Hissyfit is a member of the Land Use Planning Committee set up as an advisory group to the Jumtup Local Council. The committee is having its inaugural meeting. On the agenda is the election of office bearers. Chuck states his position:

I think that we should operate as a collective. We shouldn't have office bearers. This western way has failed. We should meet together as the so-called Plains Indians of North America did. They simply sat and talked. They talked until consensus was reached. Their cultural values were more humane than ours and we should follow their example.

Comment

Somewhere in Chuck's rhetoric there may be a point. But he is not making it. He is appealing to cultural origins to both denigrate one way of doing things and to promote an alternative way of doing things. Such an appeal has no merit.

There may be some value in simply "sitting and talking" with a view to reaching a consensus. But that procedure needs to be argued on its merits, rather than accepted because some group or other at some time in the past under certain circumstances are said to have used the method. (Claims such as Chuck's often prove to be false anyway under close examination.)

In the present example, and if the other members of the Land Use Planning Committee were both fair-minded and skeptical, they might ask Chuck to explain in more detail just how his proposed meeting style would work in practice. They would also subject his explanation to critical inquiry and would not let him "get away with" rhetorical assertions. They would examine his proposal in the light of the terms of reference of the committee and practical issues such as the time available to members to meet. They might even agree with a trial of his approach on selected occasions. However such trials would involve a proper evaluation and comparison with other modes of decision-making. This methodology is bound to yield the right result. It is an approach to an inquiry that can trace its roots back as far as the ancient Greeks.

The cultural origins fallacy tends to be subject to whims and fashions. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, the transatlantic, industrial cultures were usually held up as positive examples for all of humanity. In the late 20th century, indigenous cultures were seen by many as worthy of emulation in all things. Critical thinkers, when confronted with a fashionable cultural origins fallacy can always "stir the pot" with counter-examples. Counter-examples are useful devices for challenging facile assumptions. For the sake of argument, consider the following rather simplistic example. An advocate suggests that people living in industrial societies should all adopt a personal totemic animal. Why? Because this was a common spiritual practice of many indigenous peoples. Skeptical participants in the discussion could then make a counter-suggestion to highlight the weakness in the advocate's proposition. They might suggest that within our cultural group, we should draw lots to determine who among us should be ritually murdered to propitiate the gods. Why? Because this was a common spiritual practice of many indigenous peoples.

In the context of the example given above, another member of the Land Use Planning Committee could suggest to Chuck that after they try the Plains Indians methods of consultation, they should give some other cultural methods a tryout during the life of the project. Perhaps Genghis Khan's approach to project management? Or a Viking approach to land acquisition? Or the Spanish Inquisition's approach to group cohesion and motivation?

Exaggerated Conflict

Other Terms and/or Related Concepts

Inflated conflict; exaggerated dispute; false dichotomy.

Description

The advocate expresses the view that because there is a dispute between experts in a domain of knowledge, the entire field of scholarship (or at least the specific issue in dispute) should be rejected.

Example

Graham Flatliner is eating with gusto his second bacon and egg burger of the day. His concerned workmate Ed Fuddy is witnessing his consumption. Ed is finally moved to remark: "I don't understand how you can eat so much of that... I feel ill just imagining the way the cholesterol is coating your arteries. If you keep eating like that, your high level of cholesterol means you will get heart disease and keel over before you reach fifty."

Graham responds: "That's not true. I was reading about a doctor in Sweden who is an expert in heart disease. He recently completed a study in which he found no link between dietary cholesterol and heart disease, so high cholesterol won't give me heart problems. The so-called experts are always changing their minds and they can't even agree amongst themselves. Next year the Heart Foundation will probably recommend deep-fried pork crackling."

Comment

Outright rejection of a field of knowledge just because there is some level of dispute in the field is fallacious. After all, any field of inquiry advances through a degree of dispute and debate. At times, professional disagreement even at the margins can lead to rivalry and hostility. When such disagreements become public, non-specialists may be dismissive of the whole field. This is not an appropriate position for the seeker after truth. The critical thinker does not dismiss anything out of hand. He or she examines an issue and makes judgments consistent with the revealed facts.

In the present example, and if Ed were a seeker after truth, he might ask Graham for the details of the Swedish research paper. In the meantime, he could point out to Graham that it is the weight of evidence that matters when individuals are trying to make healthy lifestyle choices. He could explicitly reject Graham's position by pointing out that Graham is exaggerating the degree of uncertainty in research on the role of dietary cholesterol in heart disease. The reasonable person will not regard uncertainty in any field of inquiry as a problem. Uncertainty is far better than dogmatism or unjustified certainty. However, lack of absolute consensus does not mean that "anything goes".

Another fallacy examined in this book, false dichotomy, may at times be difficult to distinguish from exaggerated conflict. The key feature of exaggerated conflict is the tendency of an advocate to dismiss a field of inquiry because of a false claim that "the experts" are in complete disagreement.

If the experts are in complete disagreement, then it is appropriate to reserve judgment about the issue, or to make a provisional decision one way or the other, while remaining open-minded and ready to change a decision as more information emerges. Note that "sitting on the fence" on an issue pending more information is a perfectly respectable position for a seeker after truth to take.

Immunised Hypothesis

Other Terms and/or Related Concepts

Special Pleading; double standard; Moving the Goalposts.

Description

The advocate forwards a claim that in practice (or even in theory) cannot be falsified. That is, the proponent might forward a testable hypothesis initially, but then, when evidence is brought to their attention which contradicts their claim, they continue to add on ad hoc explanations; generally refusing to even entertain the idea that their original claim may actually be false (thus exhibiting Simple-Minded Certitude).

Example

Reilly Liebe-Mann is a "emotional healing dream counsellor". He believes that he can interpret dreams to find hidden meanings in a patient's subconscious. He is in the middle of a session with one if his "patients", Turner Knott, who only sees Reilly to humour his parents. They are discussing one of Turner's recent dreams.

Turner continues: “…and the snake was slithering around the floor of my car.”

Reilly offers his interpretation: “Snakes represent transformation, knowledge and wisdom. A snake in a dream is indicative of self-renewal and positive changes.”

Turner points out: “Well things are really stable at the moment. And me? Knowledge? Wisdom? I’m hardly the sharpest knife in the cutlery draw. I don't buy this interpretation.”

Reilly: “Well you didn’t let me finish. The snake also represents hidden fears and worries that are threatening you. Your dream may be alerting you to something in your waking life that you are not aware of or that has not yet surfaced.”

Turner replies: “That really doesn’t sound right at all. Things couldn’t be any better at work, I'm super relaxed…”

Reilly: “Your not thinking along the same lines that I am…, It’s so obvious to me know. Snakes are phallic and symbolise dangerous and forbidden sexuality...”

Turner interrupts: "Can you please get your hand off my thigh?"

Reilly: “Uh, sorry. I was lost for a moment thinking about your dream."

Turner: "Well I actually own a python as a pet. Maybe I was just dreaming about Monty?"

Reilly: "No, I’m sure I’m right about your dream. It’s just that I haven’t yet taken into account the car…”

At this point Reilly continues with ad hoc interpretations. He says excitedly: “Don’t you see! The snake and the car are actually in the dream as red herrings, to throw us off the real message. Herrings are a type of fish, and I had a dream about ice fishing the day before last. But ice fishing represents breaking through a hardened emotional barrier, which is definitely not you. However, fish swim in water, and water is the first part of ‘watermelon’. Pregnant women or women on the verge of their menstrual cycle often dream of such fruits. It all makes sense; your dream is a subconscious cry for help; that you really want to be a young and fertile woman and bare children!”

Turner: "Seriously, how many times do I have to ask you to keep your hands to yourself? And can you please put your shirt back on?”

Discussion

Reilly has continued to interpret the dream in a way that favours his initial hypothesis; Turner is in denial about his true self. No matter what evidence Turner produces to counter this claim, Reilly spins explanation after explanation until his hypothesis is so convoluted that it should be treated with utter disdain. He is in a win-win situation. If Turner never agrees or is never "healed", Reilly can claim Turner is living in denial. His dream interpretations are always correct. It's just that not all patients are open to accepting who they "really are".

However, if it does turn out that Turner is in denial, and he eventually does change we have no reason to assume that the dream he had, and Reilly’s interpretation, was actually correct. It could just be a coincidence, or more upsettingly, with enough "therapy" Turner might be convinced to change, a victim of folie à deux.

It could be argued that the above rejection of dream interpretation - that it is nothing but a waste of time and doesn’t reveal underlying psychological issues - is itself an example of an immunised hypothesis. That no matter what the evidence for dream analysis, we would rejected it as pseudoscientific bunk. But any resemblance between this rejection of dream interpretation, even when it seems to work, and the fallacy Immunised Hypothesis, is a coincidence.

Impugning Motives

Other Terms and/or Related Concepts

Accusation that the opponent is: insincere; running a hidden agenda; "in denial".

Description

The advocate claims that the opponent has devious motives for making his or her case, or has unconscious motives which have led to a biased position on the issue under discussion. If the advocate claims that the opponent has devious motives, then the opponent stands accused of concealing the truth in order to win an argument. If the advocate claims unconscious motives on the part of the opponent, then the opponent is characterized as prey to his or her own emotions and unworthy of engaging in discussion.

Example

There is a staff meeting being held in a high school maths department. Jill Flypaper (the advocate) says: "I know the real reason why you are arguing the merits of voice recognition computer software Barry, you just want everyone to know that you are the expert and that you have more technical knowledge than the rest of us."

Comment

In this example, Jill is attempting to cast doubt on Barry's argument in favour of voice recognition software by claiming that Barry is just "showing off" his computer knowledge and doesn't really have good reasons for advocating voice recognition software per se. It is likely that Jill's deliberate intention is to convey the impression that Barry is insincere.

But it's also possible to interpret the comment as implying that Barry is sincere, but simply unaware of his "real" motives. While the accusation of insincerity or delusion may in fact be true, there is no way of knowing whether it is or isn't. Even if true, it is not a compelling reason for rejecting the purchase of voice-recognition software. At the most, it is a reason to be cautious about Barry's argument and for examining it carefully. In the final analysis, the case for purchasing the software needs to be decided on its merits, rather than dismissed out of hand because of supposed suspect motives.

The problem with the tactic of casting doubt on motives is that discussion between antagonists can degenerate into a spiral of accusation and counter-accusation. While witnesses to such arguments may form conclusions about the motives of the protagonists, and weigh one against another, they could be totally wrong. The most credible and apparently forthright people might be devious in the extreme. While a "shifty-looking" person might in fact be very honest.

The seeker after truth will be alert to, and recognise the use of, the fallacy of impugning motives and will draw attention to any attempt by an advocate to use it. They will point out that all behaviour and opinions are by definition motivated. Motives for any point of view can be assumed, but not the nature of those motives. Further, idle speculation about motives may be completely incorrect, and even if such speculation is correct, it does not usually clarify a debate or help determine the actual merits of a point of view.

In our view, anyone who engages in gratuitous speculation about motives is motivated by malice. Except the authors of this book. When we speculate about motives, we do so in a spirit of disinterested enquiry, and our speculations have proven in the past to be almost invariably correct.

LAME (Look At Me Everybody)

Other Terms and/or Related Concepts

Self aggrandisement; Disingenuous posturing

Description

The advocate makes a disingenuous claim or statement that is clearly intended to focus attention on the advocate rather than the issue under discussion. LAMEness is a state of mind that can be identified by the pointlessness of an advocate's statements, and more often than not, the pointlessness of the advocate. A LAME claim is a suspect assertion which seems on closer examination to be made not to solve a problem, or to get closer to the truth, but as an exercise in self-promotion.

Example

david doyle is a well respected researcher in the Strategic Heuristics and Insight Technologies unit at large social media company. The lower case spelling of his name is not a typographical error. david had his name legally changed to remove the capitalisation. He also writes "i" (lower case) to refer to himself. In his own words:

i have always been annoyed that the english language insists we capitalise the first person singular pronoun. This is so egocentric. i thought the world wasn't meant to revolve around US! But written language puts me at the center??? And following in from this, why should we capitalise names? my name is simply one way of labelling me; i'm not it. Why does this label warrant more significance than all others? i say no, which is why i write 'i' in lower case and have legally changed my name to all lower case - david doyle.

Discussion

While doyle has made many excellent contributions to the world of social media with his research and thought provoking writing, this disingenuous attempt to justify his name change is LAME. doyle claims that capitalisation gives a name too much value given the world doesn’t revolve around "US". Yet, he goes out of his way to draw attention to himself by being the only person in the English speaking world to not capitalise his name or the first person pronoun “i”. That is, he is making “US” revolve around him by having to remember to write his name using different convention. Whenever we read his writing, we are forced to think about him and his "political stance". LAME...

The issue here is not the name change itself. By all means, have whatever name you want for yourself. Go crazy. Have your name changed to a symbol even. The issue is the supposed reason for the name change. david makes a LAME claim by constructing an artifice of an argument in order to rationalise his attention seeking act to himself and others. Without wishing to impugn his motives, his attempted ratiocination is contrived and hypocritical. It demonstrates his real motivation - deep down inside he wants to be special. David should be honest with us. He just wants everybody to look at him.

I am going to have my name legally changed to “THEO CLARK?”. Note that the all caps, question mark and quotations marks are also a part of my new name. Everyone will be required to shout my name (the all caps) and end it at a higher pitch than when they started saying it (the question mark). They will also be required to do the “air quote” gesture with their hands whenever they say my name.

GIGO (Garbage In Gospel Out)

Other terms and/or related concepts

False premise; hidden premise; circular reasoning; begging the question; simple-minded certitude

Description

The advocate is certain their belief is true, even though the data, evidence or underlying theory or assumption on which the belief is based is demonstrably flawed or unsubstantiated. Or rather, the advocate treats conclusions leading from some flawed data, unsubstantiated evidence, unfounded assumption or baseless theory, as gospel.

Example

Roz Well is having an online discussion at www.locoinel_coco.com, explaining to her friend Joan Mack why she knows there is “life out there”.

She says:

The Drake equation proves it. It states that: N = R* fp ne fl fi fc L, where N is the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which we might hope to be able to communicate; and R* is the average rate of star formation in our galaxy, fp is the fraction of those stars that have planets, ne is the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets, fl is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point, fi is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life, fc is the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space, L is the length of time such civilizations release detectable signals into space.

When you substitute all the right values into it, you get an answer of 5000! That means there are at least 5000 civilisations in our galaxy that we can communicate with. Imagine how many more there are in the entire universe!

Joan Mack is a well respected psychologist and as such has an understanding of fallacies. She types back:

Look, you can get whatever answer you want with the Drake equation – so long as you pick the input values that give you the answer you want. GIGO! I am happy to accept the equation itself as valid. But this doesn't mean we can get any useful information from it.

Roz replies: "So, are you saying you don’t believe?"

“Of course not", replies Joan. "Just that the Drake equation is not a good argument." She goes on to explain:

In my practice as a psychologist I have specialised in treating patients who have been abducted and fiddled with by aliens. Now that's conclusive proof. Unfortunately the rules of doctor-patient confidentially prohibit me from backing up this claim with any specific evidence – other than the cash-money I'll no doubt make when my book comes out. I’ve also been very successful in treating my patients with my anti-alien mind control helmet. It’s made from til foil!

"Cool.” Types Roz. “Where can I order mine?"

Comment

GIGO is a reasonably well known principle: Garbage In, Garbage Out. It was originally coined in a computer science environment to point out that an algorithm will process all data, no matter the quality, and give an answer. Thus, if junk data is fed into an algorithm, a junk answer will be the result. (The quality of one’s evidence is only as good as the weakest bit).

From this principle we can derive the “GIGO fallacy”. In this case GIGO stands for: Garbage In = Gospel Out. Again, in the computer science context, it refers to the blind belief in the answer obtained from computers. The use here is intended to be broader, and refers to the blind acceptance of a result of a process being a fact because of a simple-minded belief in the process. This can be for obvious examples such as the Drake equation above (which should be viewed as a fun thought experiment) to more important processes.

In the example above, Joan is correct in her overall dismissal of any value that is determined by the Drake equation. The logic of the equation is sound enough. But if the input values are essentially guesses, the multiplication of uncertainties becomes so large that it makes any calculation worthless.

Let's consider another example. We can calculate the strength of the Earth’s gravitational field (g) at the surface, using the equation: g = GM/r2. Where G = the universal gravitational constant, M = the mass of the Earth, and r = the radius of the Earth.

If we didn’t know the actual values for G, M and r, we could just choose numbers that "feel" right (i.e., based on our best guess). If enough people have enough guesses, we might even chance upon the right answer (9.8 N/kg), because the equation works (though this would be extremely unlikely in itself). However, we’d never know, because we were just guessing at the values we assigned to the input variables. Even if the equation is right, it is useless without the correct input data.

The problem with the Drake equation, why it falls into the GIGO category, lies with the parameters. There is no way to tell if the values we assign to the input parameters are garbage or not. Given the impossibility of assigning justifiable values to them, we can treat them all as garbage (though we can argue about which values stink more). All probabilities found using the Drake equation are therefore, to some extent, invalid (even if you accidentally guessed the right values). Some are more reasonable than others, but all the answers the Drake equation spits out still suffer from GIGO.

More generally, if the data, evidence or underlying theory used as the basis of a claim is flawed, then the claim and all conclusions based on it should be treated with great skepticism. (The claim and any conclusions may or may not be true; however there is simply no reasonable evidence either way.)

Statements such as "Tried and convicted by a jury of peers", or “It’s been peer reviewed”, could potentially be GIGO. If the legal process in a court case allows for flawed evidence or biased jury selection then we might not have confidence in the jury's verdict. If the peer review was by "peers" in a journal whose editorial standards poor, we might not have confidence in the conclusions of the papers in the journal (c.f. the Sokal affair and the journal Social Text).

Whilst we should be alert for GIGO, we need to also note the potential for a Red Flag Faux Pas. Using the examples in the preceding paragraph again, as a rule of thumb the criminal justice system and peer review can be trusted. Therefore if one wants to claim GIGO legitimately, one needs to provide evidence for it. Otherwise a claim of GIGO might simply be a "conversation ender".