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.)

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.

Big Tobacco's Self-Defeating Position

The Australian Federal government is well on the way to introducing legislation requiring plain packaging for cigarettes. Not surprisingly, tobacco companies are not happy. From the Sydney Morning Herald:  

British American Tobacco Australia (BATA) has attacked the federal government's cigarette plain packaging plans, saying there's no proof it will reduce smoking rates.

I know their arguments are more nuanced than simply "it won't work", and they claim it will effect their ability to market their brand against competing companies in the marketplace, etc. But fundamentally, the fact they are campaigning so feverishly against plain packaging contradicts their claim it won't work. If they really believe it won't work, then why bother campaigning? A position that is fairly Self-Defeating. 
BATA chief executive David Crow went on to say:

We don't want to see a situation where taxpayer dollars are being wasted.

Wow. Thanks for you concern for the waste of government funds David... How much money, time, energy is being spent on combating smoking related illness? The hypocrisy of statements like this is almost admirable; the Bad Faith breathtaking.

WHY I DISTRUST ACADEMICS

You only have to work among academics for a short time before you become aware of how biased they can be. Treasured theories will not be discarded lightly in the face of data which challenges those treasured theories.

Occasionally however, this issue can be thrown into stark relief. I was once in the privileged position of being able to talk to the "subject" of a colleague's study after the study had been published.

There was an astonishing mismatch between the study as reported and the subject's recollection of what happened during the study. I have no doubt the subject's version was the correct one.

I still can't decide whether the researcher's distortions were the result of stupidity or academic fraud. Either is a plausible hypothesis.

There is however no doubt that the research published by the academic concerned is worthless. Insiders know this, but the public and policy makers could be seriously misled by this wacky fantasist.

The picture is for visual interest only - it is NOT a distortature of the idiot concerned.

PROFESSOR OLDMAN, DINOSAUR

The gradual evolution of management practices at my university - from collegiate to Stalinist meant that I was recently subjected to apparatchik scrutiny (rather than mentoring) by someone unknown to me (pictured). I had previously seen this man shuffling about the campus, but I had assumed that he was homeless or attached to some sort of supervised group home facility.

Imagine my surprise then when I turned up to his office and found that my new supervisor, Professor Oldman, and the shuffling derelict were one and the same.

The interview was a shambles. Oldman knew nothing about my work, but simply reiterated phrases from the new "Supervisor's Handbook". These included (in no particular order): obedience; greater glory; five year plan; redouble our efforts; The Dear Leader; you must kneel before me, for I am a member of the nomenklatura (I think this last one was Oldman's own invention).

In amongst the inane prattle it was made clear to me that I was expected to abandon my investigation into the literacy standards of our own graduates. This I will not do, so I have no choice but to pursue this issue in retirement. It is easier to be a true academic in retirement than it is with institutional affiliations.

Note: Professor Oldman is a composite character and any resemblance to any person, living or decomposing is purely coincidental.

BARRY IN ACTION (i.e. INACTION)

Chairman Barry takes a moment to reflect on the plight of murdered and jailed Iranian protestors.

Can the most powerful and protected man in history stand by and let innocents be killed by a murderous regime?

Yes we can.

Simon Singh and libel

I'd love to know if these Chiropractors are acting in Bad Faith or not, by bringing this bogus libel case to court. Unfortunately it's not possible to read minds...

Hit the "Sense About Science" link up the top left to show your support for Simon Singh - go teh interwebs!

Podcast - Hunting Humbug 101: Tutorial 27 - Argument by Artifice and Bad Faith

In our most self-indulgent podcast since Special Pleading we discuss Argument by Artifice and Bad Faith. Examples from Liar Liar, and posts linked to from the links above. Oh, and here's Jef's article on Bad Faith.

Download:

Or streaming:

Powered by Podbean.com

Michael Crichton article on the perils of consensus science

For the record: I am a global warming skeptic, not a global warming denier. I subscribe to the precautionary principle, and I produce a tiny fraction of one percent of the Carbon Dioxide produced by the bad faith maestro, Al Gore. (Not a proud boast - after all, who doesn't?)

An extract from the Chrichton article appears below. The complete article may be found here, and is worth reading. Particularly for those interested in unusual examples of the Popular Opinion Fallacy.

In recent years, much has been said about the post modernist claims about science to the effect that science is just another form of raw power, tricked out in special claims for truth-seeking and objectivity that really have no basis in fact. Science, we are told, is no better than any other undertaking. These ideas anger many scientists, and they anger me. But recent events have made me wonder if they are correct. We can take as an example the scientific reception accorded a Danish statistician, Bjorn Lomborg, who wrote a book called The Skeptical Environmentalist.

The scientific community responded in a way that can only be described as disgraceful. In professional literature, it was complained he had no standing because he was not an earth scientist. His publisher, Cambridge University Press, was attacked with cries that the editor should be fired, and that all right-thinking scientists should shun the press. The past president of the AAAS wondered aloud how Cambridge could have ever "published a book that so clearly could never have passed peer review." )But of course the manuscript did pass peer review by three earth scientists on both sides of the Atlantic, and all recommended publication.) But what are scientists doing attacking a press? Is this the new McCarthyism-coming from scientists?

Worst of all was the behavior of the Scientific American, which seemed intent on proving the post-modernist point that it was all about power, not facts. The Scientific American attacked Lomborg for eleven pages, yet only came up with nine factual errors despite their assertion that the book was "rife with careless mistakes." It was a poor display featuring vicious ad hominem attacks, including comparing him to a Holocaust denier. The issue was captioned: "Science defends itself against the Skeptical Environmentalist." Really. Science has to defend itself? Is this what we have come to?

When Lomborg asked for space to rebut his critics, he was given only a page and a half. When he said it wasn't enough, he put the critics' essays on his web page and answered them in detail. Scientific American threatened copyright infringement and made him take the pages down.

Further attacks since have made it clear what is going on. Lomborg is charged with heresy. That's why none of his critics needs to substantiate their attacks in any detail. That's why the facts don't matter. That's why they can attack him in the most vicious personal terms. He's a heretic.

Of course, any scientist can be charged as Galileo was charged. I just never thought I'd see the Scientific American in the role of mother church.

Is this what science has become? I hope not. But it is what it will become, unless there is a concerted effort by leading scientists to aggressively separate science from policy. The late Philip Handler, former president of the National Academy of Sciences, said that "Scientists best serve public policy by living within the ethics of science, not those of politics. If the scientific community will not unfrock the charlatans, the public will not discern the difference-science and the nation will suffer." Personally, I don't worry about the nation. But I do worry about science.

Best wikipedia trick

When arguing with someone, say to them: "Listen you ignorant fool, you couldn't be more wrong. Go and look it up on wikipedia if you don't believe me". Then, without their knowledge, race off to a computer and quickly find the appropriate entry. Insert the "fact" you need to prove your point and you will win.

For example, I was arguing with a friend about which sport was more girly, soccer or touch football. To prove my point, I said that touch was invented specifically for girls to play. I then went onto wikipedia and altered this:

Touch started in Australia as a social "park game" as a training technique for rugby league teams during the 1950s and 60s.

To this:

Touch started in Australia as a social "park game", specifically to enable female participation, and as a training technique for rugby league teams during the 1950s and 60s.

I won.

(Ps, I've since admitted my scam. Besides being a fundamentally dishonest False Attribution, it was way too good a trick to not tell him about.)

Update (18th March): It's since been reverted back to the non-feminised history. It survived a bit over two weeks... not bad.

Examples of Bad Faith

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

• Best wikipedia trick
  
• How to win arguments with Hell's Kitchen
  
• Humbug hunting in bad faith
  
• The quintessence of humbuggery - acting in bad faith
• Bad faith - the fun way to haggle
• News Flash: Bad Faith Journalists Not the Only Lying Hypocrites

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 ensure one is not merely Impugning (their) Motives (as much fun as that is).

Podcast on Bad Faith
Download:

Or streaming:

Powered by Podbean.com