Dumbing it down with Donnelly

Kevin Donnelly is the "go to" pundit for newspapers and television commentary about the supposed dumbed down and politically correct school curriculum in Australia (curricula really; doesn't matter which, it's all dumbed down and politically correct). He even wrote a book about it. But, in fact, it is Donnelly who deliberately dumbs things down with his straw man mischaracterisations.

Donnelly simply trots out the same few facile points over and over and seemingly has fooled the media, and now apparently the federal government, into thinking he is an expert in educational standards. (To be fair to the media, he is the "Director" of Education Standards Institute. On a completely unrelated note, I'd like to take this opportunity to announce that I am now the CEO and Lord Commander of the Institute of Standards for Sciolism. The standards are pretty high in News Corp publications...)

The latest example is his attack on the Australian Curriculum which, along with the journalist who wrote this article, either shows a complete lack of understanding or is a deliberate misrepresentation.

Donnelly, who typifies a LAME self promoter, was quoted as saying:

...the existing curriculum was "a mile wide and an inch deep" and demanded more "academic rigour".

I don't take issue with Donnelly stating that the curriculum should focus on rigour and depth. But this is a non-statement when it comes to education. Who doesn't say or believe this? Who doesn't want to "raise the standards", have "rigour" in maths and science, and have "high quality teachers", for example?

Where is the evidence for the lack of rigour? The article seems to go on to provide it:

In every subject - from science to physical education - children must study Aboriginal culture, environmental sustainability and Australia's engagement with Asia, under the national curriculum forged by the former Labor government.

Politically correct red alert! The article gives some examples from maths:

And Year 4 kids learning about fractions will "investigate the use of fractions and sharing as a way of managing Country: for example taking no more than half the eggs from a nest to protect future bird populations.'

Year 10 statistics involves "investigating biodiversity changes in Australia since European occupation."

Shock and horror. I can't believe the curriculum would force teachers to focus on such non-core mathematics!

But of course, the writer, News.com's "Social Editor"... has stacked the deck and cherry picked examples. She fails to disclose these statements are from the content elaborations, which are not mandatory. These are just some examples of how content descriptions, that are mandatory, could be taught.

Could... not must.

The actual content descriptions that are to be taught, related to these examples, are, in Year 4:

Count by quarters halves and thirds, including with mixed numerals. Locate and represent these fractions on a number line (ACMNA078)

And in Year 10:

Investigate and describe bivariate numerical data where the independent variable is time (ACMSP252)

This sounds like maths to me... The other non-mandatory elaborations associated with these, in respective order, are:

Year 4: converting mixed numbers to improper fractions and vice versa
Year 10: constructing and interpreting data displays representing bivariate data over time

Yet more maths.

As far as rigour goes, I'll give a couple more examples from the curriculum:

Foundation: Subitise small collections of objects (ACMNA003) 

Year 3: Recall multiplication facts of two, three, five and ten and related division facts (ACMNA056) 

Year 6: Multiply decimals by whole numbers and perform divisions by non-zero whole numbers where the results are terminating decimals, with and without digital technologies (ACMNA129) 

Year 8: Extend and apply the distributive law to the expansion of algebraic expressions (ACMNA190) 

Year 10: Expand binomial products and factorise monic quadratic expressions using a variety of strategies (ACMNA233)

The curriculum is published online here: http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/Mathematics/Curriculum/F-10. The curriculum includes achievement standards which have samples of student work associated with them. Judge the depth and rigour of mathematics for yourself.

There are about 280 content descriptions (i.e. must be taught) in the curriculum in total. The article does not cite a single one of these as an issue.

The article cites a total of five non-compulsory (that is, they can be completely ignored) elaborations as examples of what they see as politically correct or woolly statements. There are about 420 elaborations in total, which are just examples!

This in not to say the curriculum is perfect or that there aren't issues with education in Australia. There clearly are. The devil is in the detail and as per usual, Donnelly (and the journalist) are clearly short on such detail. Worse than that, either through intellectual ineptitude or bankruptcy they incompetently or deliberately paint a false picture; straight forward examples of a straw man and observational selection with some stacking the deck.

The article calls for more rigour and depth in the school curriculum... The irony. How about some more rigour and depth in discussions about education, instead of the usual superficial generalities and "go to" punditry? We won't make any progress in "raising educational standards" if the basis of our decision making is false and self-serving.
_____________________
Source: Education Minister Christopher Pyne questions teaching Aboriginal and Asian culture in maths classes - Herald Sun. 

Straw man

Other Terms and/or Related Concepts

False positioning; false target; aiming off; caricaturing a position; misrepresenting a position.

Description

The advocate attacks a weakened, exaggerated, over-simplified or otherwise false or distorted form of the opponent's argument rather than the real one. Commonly, the devious advocate presents a simplified caricature of his or her opponent's argument, then demolishes this "straw man", which is nothing more than an invention of the advocate.

Example

Harry Cackleberry has just taken the floor during a public debate on the teaching of evolution in schools. "These evolutionists would have us believe that our great-great-great grandparents were nothing more than monkeys. They say that one day, hundreds of thousands of years ago, a monkey gave birth to a human. Now I ask you ladies and gentlemen, how can a monkey give birth to a human?"

Jim Flakehammer, an evolutionary biologist from a research institute challenges Harry from the floor and says: "You are giving a false account of the evolutionary explanation of human origins. The way you put it, evolution is an easy target to be knocked down – the idea of a monkey giving birth to a human is quite ludicrous. However the real account given by evolutionary theorists is far harder to dismiss. What science actually says is that humans, monkeys and apes are related through a common ancestor from which all have evolved gradually by a process of natural selection."

Comment

Harry may genuinely believe that his simplistic version of evolution is the one held by evolutionary scientists. In which case he is committing the straw man error in ignorance. However it is often the case that the straw man error is a deliberate rhetorical device used by a dishonest advocate to "wrong-foot" an opponent.

For the purposes of analysis, we will assume that in the present case, Harry is being deliberately disingenuous. He is fully aware of the actual claims of evolutionary scientists. However he is uncertain of the strengths of his argument against the real theory of evolution. He therefore conceals his knowledge and advances a hackneyed caricature of the theory of evolution in order to create an easy target for scornful comments. His motives are to win the argument on the day, rather than to genuinely explore the issue.

A genuine seeker after truth does not resort to the construction of a straw man. If an opponent's argument is actually weak or incorrect, then there is no need for the advocate to misrepresent it in order to win. In the present example, Jim (the opponent) responds to Harry's subterfuge by pointing it out. Even if others in the room are unable to fully understand the actual account of human evolution given by science, they should at least be alerted to the fact that Harry (the advocate) is painting a false picture.

Note that the term "straw man" is at times used to mean something quite different to false positioning. This can sometimes lead to confusion. The alternate meaning is roughly equivalent to "bogeyman". That is, a scary apparition which is apparent rather than real – some imagined problem or consequence of an action which is conjured up by a party in a dispute to stop a proposed action. This usage is similar to the expression "paper tiger". The implication is that although a consequence of an action looks fierce (or difficult), in reality it is nothing to be concerned about.

Podcast: Hunting Humbug 101 - Tutorial 10: False Cause; Correlation Error (feat. Jenny McCarthy)

In this podcast we discuss the False Cause; Correlation Error. It’s the 1st pod in a series we are doing on the air head actress Jenny McCarthy and her fallacious views on autism.



Here's the link to direct download: (35 mins & 16 mb) and you subscribe here: http://huntinghumbug101.podbean.com/feed/or by clicking one of the buttons below.

The "cut down" video podcast version:

• Here's the youtube link from where I obtained the interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36PLQIMW69c
• Stop Jenny McCarthy
  
• Our number of subscribers are rising steadily. However, be sure to give us a hand by spamming everyone you know, or at the very least, digging/stumbling us (using some kind of social networking) and writing a review for itunes: http://www.askdavetaylor.com/how_to_vote_favorite_podcast_apple_itunes.html
  

Poisoning Obama's Well with Straw Men and Weasel Words

Elections, unsurprisingly, are fallacy filled. The US election is no exception (and arguably as bad as it gets).

Some Republicans have given me three fallacies with one word - “socialism”:

In the radio address, McCain didn't directly call Obama a socialist, but he let the now-famous Joe "the Plumber" Wurzelbacher nearly do it for him.

"You see, [Obama] believes in redistributing wealth, not in policies that help us all make more of it. Joe, in his plainspoken way, said this sounded a lot like socialism," McCain said Saturday.

Socialism is the state controlled production and supply of goods and services. It's not taxing people in a free market democracy.

To link Obama to socialism is Poisoning the Well; that is - to link someone (or an argument) to something that is held in disdain. Socialism, especially in the US, is such a something.

In a similar vein, using the word "socialism", is a Weasel Word. Weasel Words are loaded labels that one uses to create the emotional impact one wants. Euphemisms are used to create a positive effect, and dysphemisms (as in this case) a negative effect.

Saying Obama's tax policies are socialist is a Straw Man. That is, people taking this line are creating an easy target to knock down. It's easy to argue against socialists in a country like the US. Easier than getting down into the nitty-gritty of Obama's actual policies*.

The above serves as an example of understanding that fallacies often overlap. You don't necessarily have to pigeonhole yourself into stating something is definitely one type of fallacy, as opposed to another. This is especially the case in real life, as opposed to the artificially constructed examples found in texts on logic and fallacies, as well as the majority of fallacy websites. (A good reason to bookmark/link to/rss us!)

Ironically, I'd say the billion dollar bailout of Wall Street, endorsed by both candidates, is more lile socialism than either of their tax policies (but not much like socialism at all either...).

Website:
Share on Facebook
Podcast:

Source: McCain, Palin, hint that Obama's policies are 'socialist' - CNN (Oct 18)

*To be fair to McCain, he does get into some of the nitty-gritty, but I needed to construct this straw man to make my point...

Name that Fallacy – Occam’s razor “debunked”

I thought I’d probably start a semi-regular post, ripped off from the The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe podcast, which I’ll name, Name that Fallacy. I say “probably”, and “semi”, as I’ve made such claims before and they’ve fizzed out. (See LAMEASS of the Month for example.) This has more potential than others as it’s lazier. I’ll provide a passage of text and invite readers to identify the fallacy. Preferably you’ll explain why it’s a fallacy and the particular fallacy you think it is.

This first one is from the aptly named Winston Wu (I’m not the first to make that connection I’d wager) , who frames himself as the “skeptic debunker” There is much fallacious material on his website for me to choose from. I thought I’d start with this egregious example on his “debunking” of Occam’s Razor. He makes a few points about the razor, but the particular fallacy I want to concentrate on is in point 1. Bare in mind there is more than likely to be more than one spin on this (bets firmly hedged):

Argument # 3: The Occam’s Razor rule

Stated as: “When there are two competing explanations for an event, the simpler one is more likely.”

This argument is a principle that skeptics often misuse to try to force alternate explanations to paranormal ones, even if those explanations involve false accusations or do not fit the facts. Originally, it began as a principle in physics having to do with parsimony, but somehow got twisted into a mantra for invalidating paranormal claims...

1) First of all, Occam’s Razor, termed by 14th Century logician and friar William of Occam, refers to a concept that states that "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily." It was not intended to be used to evaluate claims of the paranormal as skeptics today use it for. As Phil Gibbs points out in “Physics FAQ”: (http://www.weburbia.com/physics/)

“To begin with we used Occam's razor to separate theories which would predict the same result for all experiments. Now we are trying to choose between theories which make different predictions. This is not what Occam intended…

The principle of simplicity works as a heuristic rule-of-thumb but some people quote it as if it is an axiom of physics. It is not. It can work well in philosophy or particle physics, but less often so in cosmology or psychology, where things usually turn out to be more complicated than you ever expected...

The law of parsimony is no substitute for insight, logic and the scientific method. It should never be relied upon to make or defend a conclusion. As arbiters of correctness only logical consistency and empirical evidence are absolute.”

Even Isaac Newton didn’t use Occam’s Razor like the skeptics of today do. His version of it was “We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.” (see same Physics FAQ)

Can I suggest, before you have a crack – read my “skeptic” definition of Occam's Razor. You can then browse about the Fallacy List to give you an idea.

If you’re too lazy to click a link, here’s Carl Sagan’s definition from the Demon Haunted World (original emphasis):

Occam's Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler.

If you’re already a top gun skeptic, then reading that probably wasted your time, so sorry…

I’ll put up my answer in a week or so.

Ps. Don’t look any comments (assuming I get any…) until you’ve thought about it a bit.

Pps. A fallacy he isn't making is Appeal to Authority (even if he is citing Isaac Newton).

Jono's views on Climate Change

Climate change seems to be all the rage these days, and this blog is no exception. I thought I'd share the views of "Jono" as stated in a comment thread on Andrew Bartlett's blog:

The best way to become carbon neutral is to stop breathing.

As much as the Greens and environmentalists would love us to all just shut up and die, they aren’t even going to hint at it when they discuss their hairbrained policies and regulations.

Instead they will talk about abstract nonsense like “the environment” and “climate change”.

So what? The climate changes, it always has for centuries, why does it become a political issue to justify yet another massive tax and invasion of property rights ?

The Greens are the biggest threat to liberty since communism.

With a very quick review of these insightful few words I found examples of:

False Positioning and an Unfounded Generalisation: … as the Greens and environmentalists would love us to all just shut up and die…

Weasel Words: …they will talk about abstract nonsense like “the environment” and “climate change”.

Misuse of Information followed by Motive Impugning: The climate changes, it always has for centuries, why does it become a political issue to justify yet another massive tax and invasion of property rights ?

And lastly, an Argument to Consequences combined with Poisoning the Well: The Greens are the biggest threat to liberty since communism.

Please note, lest people misread the above, I am not making a case for or against the reality of climate change. I'm just pointing out some dodgy arguments. I've made my position apropos to climate change clear before and can't be bothered to rehash the same old points in the comments section.

Greg Sheridan Shadow-Boxes a Straw Man

Phil, a visitor to this blog with an interest in fallacy-hunting emailed me to alert us to an article by Greg Sheridan in the Australian newspaper. The article, is an opinion-piece on the Australian Wheat Board controversy, and it includes the following paragraph:

The basic argument seems to be a non-sequitur. The oil-for-food program was corrupt. Australian companies were involved in the oil-for-food program. Therefore the Government must have known that Australian companies were behaving corruptly. It would be a very bad day if the Government operated on the basis that our companies were assumed to be corrupt. The Government is entitled to assume that companies are behaving OK and it should help them.
Sheridan is putting up a Straw Man argument in order to knock it down. The proper role of the media and opposition politicians is to question government in order to find out whether or not "the Government must have known that Australian companies were behaving corruptly". There is also no suggestion from critics of the Government that the Government should have "operated on the basis that our companies were assumed to be corrupt". (my emphasis)

The actual argument is to what degree the Government should have scrutinized the operations of such companies - not that the Government should or should not have assumed the companies were corrupt.

Gold stars are okay after all

At some stage in writing this article on the use of token reward systems as a behaviour management technique (Gold Star Junkies, which I've previously posted on) the author, David Ruenzul, realised he was wrong. Rather than admitting the error of his ways, which would involve a painstaking rewrite, he decides to plough on, changing his position, hoping no one would notice:

And so I came to believe that rewards and punishments devised by parents and school officials had more to do with adult chest-beating than true efficacy. My insights, I later discovered, were hardly original. A near consensus on the limits of extrinsic motivation had emerged from scholarly research done in the 1970s and '80s: Rewards and punishments are not only ineffective at motivating students-and adults, for that matter-but are in fact counterproductive…

This comes at the beginning of his article. A clear indication he places no value in rewards and punishments as motivators (in fact, only an idiot would keep using rewards as they are de-motivators). Note that he also employs the fallacy of Impugning Motives: "…rewards and punishments devised by parents and school officials had more to do with adult chest-beating than true efficacy." Ruenzel's impugning of motives is just downright insulting. I can only suggest that his motivation in suggesting that the adults in charge of these children were motivated by their own need for power, is due to a projection of his own inferiority complex. Then again, perhaps he's right, who doesn't enjoy instilling the fear of a brutal reprisal in their young charges' minds? He then continues with the fallacy of False Positioning:

…The behaviorist theory-that people learn only when "good" and "bad" behavior is reinforced by rewards and punishments-seems to be plain wrong...

Ruenzel realises that the actual position of teachers who incorporate behaviourist techniques in their classroom management is too difficult a target. It's complex and detailed. So instead he attacks a caricature of behaviourist theory - a simplistic view of behaviourism that is over 100 years old and is held by no one working in psychology today. Compare behaviourism and neo-behaviourism here (and bear in mind that these overviews are simplistic themselves).

Towards the end of the paper Ruenzel has done a complete back flip (actually, that would leave him facing in the same direction, so I'll make that a "complete about face"):

Of course, if systems of rewards and punishments are really as bad as some assert, they would have been swept from the classroom years ago. The fact that so many teachers deploy them points to some inherent value. Even many of the researchers critical of rewards are reluctant to condemn them unconditionally...

Ruenzel has changed his tune, but in order for us to forget his original position he needs to Move the Goalposts. (Also note that he says: "as bad as some assert". What do you mean some? You asserted that buddy!):

So in the final analysis, how should teachers motivate students? Perhaps that is altogether the wrong question, says psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. Perhaps teachers should instead focus on how to motivate themselves to become more deeply interested in-or remain deeply interested in-the subjects they teach…
…Of course, such a thing is not always possible, Csikszentmihalyi warned. No one is intrinsically motivated at all times, not even the most gifted teachers. And this is where extrinsic motivation comes into play.

Now it is as if the article was never arguing that extrinsic motivation such as "Gold Stars" is counterproductive - the crutch of the poor teacher. This is almost irrelevant. It's actually about getting the teachers themselves motivated. No doubt this is important, but that's not what you were originally arguing now was it David…?

Plimer partakes in poisoned polemic

Humbug! reader Ben pointed me towards this piece of pontificating by Ian Plimer, in The Australian (5th Jan 2006) Global warming a damp squib which uses a few diferent fallacies. Of note is False Positioning, compounded with Stacking the Deck. I've posted on False Positioning already wrt global warming so I won't revisit it. One other nice little bit of flawed reasoning, however, is:

… and in 1997 Chris Rose of Greenpeace maintained the religious mantra with "Time is running out for the climate". We've heard such failed catastrophist predictions before. The Club of Rome on resources, Paul Erlich on population, Y2K, and now Greenpeace on global warming.
This argument is flawed but is not easily classified (it could be seen as a False Analogy, Unfounded Generalization, or just "What does Y2K have to do with global warming?"), - but I'll argue that it’s actually an example of Poisoning the Well. The metaphor is that any "water" (idea) taken from that "well" (source) is poisonous (tainted, of no value).

At first this might not seem to be a particularly clear example - it's certainly not in the "classic" form. Putting it simply, the failed predictions of Y2K * and a population explosion are not in any way, shape or form, related to predictions of global warming. But by linking them together he implies that all "catastrophist predictions" are the same. Ie, any prediction of "doom" is going to be wrong. The classic "poisoning the well" is when an advocate seeks to undermine an opponent's position by linking the position to an original source which is denigrated. The difference here is he links the position - global warming - to denigrated predictions of catastrophes.

He should have gone "the whole hog" and linked them to the failed predictions of the "end of the world" by the Church of the Subgenius - who predicted:

...that on "X Day" [5th July 1998], the end of the world will occur. At 7 AM, "the Men from Planet X, or XISTS, will arrive on Earth, close a deal with "Bob," rupture the card-carrying Ordained SubGenii up to the Escape Vessels of the Sex Goddesses, and destroy the remaining population of Earth, VERY VERY SLOWLY." Bob is J.R. Dobbs, leader and High Epopt of the Church of the SubGenius, Living Avatar of Slack, the Saint of Sales. He was responsible for founding the Church on a shifting, sandy beach of hypocrisy." ^
But this would be a little too obvious. Linking global warming predictions to failed "scientific" predictions makes his point, on the surface, seem reasonable. But it is, in fact, a simple rhetorical device designed to win an argument, not to "seek after truth".

* I shall ignore the fact that this fails to take into account that, perhaps, the warnings of Y2K led to companies and computer manufacturers upgrading their computer BIOSes and operating systems.

^ Their prediction was wrong also - since X day did not materialize, they say: we're still here -- a little shaken, perhaps, and re-evaluating the interpretation of PreScripture... Further study indicated that we have been given a reprieve. The artifact on which the date was written was accidentally inverted; the end of the world will really happen in 8661 CE!

Dodgy tax discussion dodged

Tim Blair is certainly an impressive blogger and advocate for the right. He is a lucid writer and an amusing satirist. However, he is certainly not above pulling a few rhetorical tricks to win an argument. Note his seamless Moving the Goalposts in his post Packer Attackers in defence of Kerry Packer's tax record:

Lots of squealing from the left… about Kerry Packer minimising his taxes. …But they’re wrong about Packer. In fact, he paid far too much. If anything, Packer was overly generous—every year he and his companies paid millions more than they needed to. Over his career, Packer possibly paid billions more than was strictly required... In wages. [Emphasis in original.]

Thus he has ignored whether or not Packer did minimise his taxes, and moved the topic of the "debate" to Packer's overall generosity (in wages, and as you'll see below, charitable donations). I do not know whether Packer paid enough taxes or "dodged" them with clever accountancy; but if the accusation from "the Left" is about Packer's tax, then that's where the argument should stay (if you're bothered with arguing). Being generous with one's money does not mean one should, therefore, be excused from paying (the correct) tax. (In saying this, I neither know, nor really care, whether Packer did "minimise" his taxes, and even if he did, as long as it's legit, then it's legit.)

In arguing Packer's case, in terms of his generosity, Blair continues his goalpost movement and raises the level of his attack on "the Left" by Impugning their Motives:

This is a concept the left struggles with; they’d prefer a businessman hand over his money to a government—any government, even a government they oppose—than directly to people (many thousands of people, in Packer’s case) attempting to earn a living. And then there’s Packer’s estimated $150 million given to charities; the left would presumably be happier if all of that had instead been delivered to the government, so that ... well, so that whatever. It’s not important.
Except the left wouldn’t be happier. They’d still despise Packer because he was rich. They’re simple like that; simple and hateful…

Whilst there may be some truth in what he says, when it comes to whether Packer minimised his taxes or not, the motives behind the Packer detractors pointing this out are irrelevant. (The most obvious argument in Packer's favour - one he used of course - who doesn't want to minimise their taxes?).
Ps. Blair shows skills a False Positioning too.

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).

Jim Soorley's false position

Normally I wouldn't touch the Ex-Lord Mayor of Brisbane's opinion column with a 10 foot pole (pun intended - see below), given its complete lack of point. But he provides a nice example of false positioning when he has a go at the recently past Polish Pope. Also known as the straw-man fallacy, Soorley has attacked an oversimplified version of his opponent's argument to make it easy to "knock down".

Writing about the mission for the next Pope Hard questions wait for new Pope: The role of women must be updated – not all women are home-makers and mothers.

A quick google and here is what the Pope actually said: A woman must give priority to her role as mother before any other public or professional activity… Her original mission, for which she cannot be replaced, is to stay at home to raise children.

Clearly this is not the simplistic statement which Soorley makes. The Pope's beliefs were based on his understanding of Catholic doctrine and biological facts (only females can give birth), not mere sexism. Whether one agrees or disagrees with this is irrelevant. But if one disagrees, the actual point made by the Pope, in all its detail and specifics should be addressed; not a caricature of it. This is the problem with Soorley's pointless pontificating in general. It tends to be ill thought out drivel that he must spend about 30 minutes working on every Saturday morning. I hope he put more effort in as Lord Mayor.

Asinine Adams At It Again

AFTER much ministerial bungling and bureaucratic buck-passing, Amandatory Detention Vanstone had urgent changes made to her rules and regulations lest there be another Cornelia Rau row. Can’t have blonde, blue-eyed locals, least of all ex-Qantas hosties, caught up in Australia’s razor-wire net, mixed up with those pesky Muslims.

Before I look at the specific fallacies Phillip Adams makes in his opinion column A comparatively brief internment, one could be forgiven for making the following inference given the above statement. That Adams has no problems with Australian citizens being locked up in detention centres for illegal immigrants.

I'd say that this probably isn't Adams' position - after all, I don't want to make the same fallacy he does - False Positioning. Adams paints the picture of detention centres as places which the Australian government uses purely to lock up Muslims (though they might be okay if they're blonde and blue eyed?). This is clearly untrue and would be a reprehensible thing to do – and as such an easily defeated position. Thus Adams has built a 'straw man' of the government's policy so he can easily knock it down. Detention centres are for illegal immigrants. Perhaps he finds it difficult to engage and take on the government's actual policies regarding asylum seekers and illegal immigrants?

…the media and my fellow citizens go stark raving bonkers over the plight, the comparatively brief internment, of one white woman. Her suffering, her torments are regarded as a national scandal whereas the stories told by enraged health workers and refugee advocates about families fleeing the Taliban and Saddam Hussein are brushed aside. They’re old news. Could there be more dramatic evidence of the underlying racism of our response to the people we’ve rounded up for mandatory detention?

(Let's ignore the fact - as Adams conveniently does - that if he ever had his way regarding the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, they would all still be in power.) Apparently people are racist because they were upset that an Australian citizen was detained in a facility for illegal immigrants. The most obvious fallacy by Phil is Personal Abuse. Using the term 'racism' to describe our (all Australians besides Adams?) response to the Cornelia Rau episode is an attempt to malign all those who are in favour of mandatory detention and - given he has no actual evidence of racism - is clearly Personal Abuse. This is Adams' 'pre-emptive strike' against those who would disagree with him. If you were upset over the mistaken custody of Cornelia Rau, but don't object to mandatory detention of illegal immigrants, clearly you must be a racist and all of your arguments must be dismissed out of hand.

Besides the obvious Personal Abuse, Adams' risible reasoning continues. His hypothesis is that people who were upset over Cornelia Rau but not refugees in general, are racist. His argument? She is white and (by implication) the refugees are not (they are Muslim). Of course, he fails to cite any actual, verifiable evidence of this. But even if we are to magnanimously grant him this point, his 'argument' is one of Stacking the Deck - deliberately ignoring counter arguments (and evidence) to his point. The only evidence he cites as indication of the underlying racism of Australians is the above. He conveniently ignores an obvious (substantial) counter argument – Australia's large (and always getting larger) number of immigrants, as well as the unflinching acceptance of multiculturalism by most Australians. Further to this, no matter what one's position is regarding refugees, most would agree it's a bad thing to lock Australians up in detention centres for illegal immigrants (by definition).

In the end, this is merely another LAME (Look At Me Everybody) piece of Sanctimony by Adams.

Examples of Straw man / False Positioning

The advocate attacks a weakened, exaggerated, or over-simplified form of the opponent's position rather than the real position.

• Poisoning Obama's Well with Straw Men and Weasel Words
• Name that Fallacy - Occam's razor "debunked"
• Jono's views on Climate Change
• Mr Lefty is worried
• Bishop's no ideology... ideology
• Sod off to Canada
• "Critical" literacy
• Git Gittins gits goin' on a straw man
• A strawsteyn
• Stinking up history with excreta
• I blame the parents
• Greg Sheridan Shadow-Boxes a Straw Man
• Gold stars are okay after all
• Real science is too hard for most
• Jim Soorley's false position
• Asinine Adams at it again