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.

Ad Hominem

Other Terms and/or Related Concepts

Personal Abuse; Playing the Man (or person) Not the Ball; Personal Attack; Reductio Ad Hitlerum.

Description

The advocate attacks his or her opponent rather than the argument put forward by the opponent. When an Ad Hominem attack is used, the content of the attack does not relate to objective facts about such things as the opponent's membership of a particular group, or the profession they practise (e.g. environmentalist, lawyer). Rather, the abuse is directed at the person's character or other personal attributes.

Example

Phil Schnotter and Nigel Pennyweight are having a heated conversation in the pub about banks when Phil (the advocate) says: "I know why you think bank profits are too high Nigel... you're just prejudiced against banks because you're a penniless loser. If I were such a loser I would be prejudiced against banks too… You just hate hardworking, successful people who happen to have enough money to invest."

Comment

At times this fallacy may be hard to distinguish from other common fallacies such as Impugning Motives and Poisoning the Well. In fact, all three fallacies may be closely associated with each other and may even occur in the one sentence. The key characteristic of an Ad Hominem attack is that an abusive label is directed at the individual and used as a gratuitous insult (that is, an insult which really has no bearing on the subject under discussion).

In the example given above, the use of the word "loser" is the key indicator that an Ad Hominem attack is taking place. The label is simply a term of abuse, and Phil clearly intends to hurt and belittle Nigel by calling him a "loser". Use of such terms is likely to raise the emotional temperature of the discussion and result in an unproductive trading of insults. (Note that immediately after the personal abuse in the example above, Phil then impugns Nigel's motives in the words that follow the personal abuse. He says: "… You just hate hardworking, successful people...")

Another point to consider is whether the personal abuse is, strictly speaking, a fallacy; is there a link between the personal attack and the claim? In the example above, Phil clearly links his abuse of Nigel, calling him a penniless loser, to his hatred of banks, by using the conjunction "because". As such, Phil is fallacious.

If Phil had stated: "You are wrong about bank profits. It's important for banks to maintain a healthy cash reserve to be protected against economic slow downs and recession. And, also, you are a penniless loser." he would still be engaging in personal abuse, but would not fallacious. In this version, the abuse is merely an entertaining adjunct to the argument.

A form of personal abuse which is particularly common today is the unjustified use of a negative label associated with the topic under consideration. For example, a witless advocate might label a proponent of zero population growth a "racist" without justification. In doing this, he or she is actually seeking to undermine the proponent's credibility in order to evade discussion of the issue, rather than engaging in considered debate. It is commonly the case that for each term of abuse that may be directed at a person advocating one side of an argument, there is a term of abuse which may be directed at the other side. For every "greenie", there is a "redneck", for every "misogynist" there is a "feminazi", for every "fascist" there is a "stalinist", for every "homophobe" there is a "queer".

Arguably the most vile form of Ad Hominem is Reductio Ad Hitlerum. This variant, given its name, should be fairly obvious to spot. Comparing the disliked leader of a political party to Hitler is a seemingly popular fallacy that people who hold extreme political views like to make on occasions. Comparing any modern western democratically elected leader to Hitler should be self evidently absurd to the impartial observer. Any advocate of a point of view should avoid labelling an opponent with emotionally laden, abusive and grossly simplistic terms. Labelling invites retaliation, and the intellectual level of the debate plummets beyond any hope of recovery.

The authors of this book are particularly averse to puerile name-calling and gratuitous slander directed at individuals during any disagreement. It is our considered view that anyone who deliberately uses personal abuse in an attempt to win an argument is engaging in unconscionable conduct. No matter what the circumstances, any person who resorts to Ad Hominem only does so because they are a stupid bastard of the first order.

The Perfect Solution

Other Terms and/or Related Concepts

Silver bullet; burden of solution

Description

The advocate claims that because a proposed solution, idea, or system is not perfect, it should be abandoned completely.

Examples

1. Radio "shock jock" Kyle Jones is angrily discussing the speeding fine he received on the way to work in the morning. "These hidden camera speed traps are complete rubbish. I got caught speeding. Big deal. Down the road, after getting the ticket, I was immediately speeding again. They don't work. People still speed. It's just government revenue raising."

2. Recent changes in the sport of tiddledywinks, allow a referee to use slow motion video, infrared "hot spot" cameras and trajectory tracking and prediction "laser eye" software, in any close decisions. This really upsets commentator Gumptal Flabernarky. Commentating on a review in which he believed the referee incorrectly referred, he states: "Is he kidding himself? Even with the slow-motion replay he got it wrong! I could've told him that without the replay. What a joke this use of technology is. If he can't get it right even with the slow-mo, then why have it at all?"

Comment

In the first example, Jones argues that because the enforcement of speeding laws will not be able to catch every person who speeds (the system is not perfect), we should abandon any enforcement completely. This fails to take into account that it is not intended to be perfect and that enforcement is, presumably, intended to be a deterrent. If such a deterrent leads to less speeding and as such, lowers the road toll, then on balance it's probably a good thing.

The Perfect Solution fallacy is closely related to, and often made up of, the fallacies False Dichotomy and Burden of Solution. Speeding and enforcement of speeding laws is not a black and white issue. We need to consider how we deal with different degrees of speeding and repeat offenders, and examine the effect of permanent speed cameras, mobile speed traps, highway patrols etc. If we agree that speeding is bad, but do not like the current laws and enforcement, then we should probably propose other mechanisms, or risk being guilty of the Burden of Solution. How else can we try to stop motorists from speeding other than fines and court appearances? One cannot denigrate the current system, fairly, without proposing some other solution (or at least acknowledging one's own failings).

It is also worth noting that Jones goes on to impugn the motives of the police and government, stating that speeding fines are really about revenue raising, rather than lowering the road death and injury toll. He also fails to acknowledge that most other people wouldn't keep speeding after getting a fine, because most other people aren't self centered wankers.

In the second example we, the audience, are able to see that a referee made the wrong decision because we can check using technology. Yet Flabernarky goes onto argue, because the technology is not perfect, the referees ought to not use it to help make decisions? A self-contradictory argument if there's ever been one.

By analogy we can see the absurdity of this position. "Even with the very latest high resolution medical imaging equipment doctors still make incorrect diagnoses! What a joke this use of technology is. If doctors can't get it right even with the the latest technology, then why have it at all?"

Podcast - Hunting Humbug 101: Tutorial 32 - Impugning motives and poisoning the well

9-11 was an inside Job so Bush could start the war in Iraq for the oil and Hitler’s ideas came out of 

Darwinism… are examples of Impugning Motives and Poisoning the Well (respectively).

https://archive.org/download/HH101/HH101e0045.mp3 

Examples courtesy of

The Onion:

and an arse clown:

Burn it all!

A nice little example of a figurative use of the term "scorched earth". Literally it means:

A military strategy of burning or destroying crops or other resources that might be of use to an invading enemy force. (ODE)

In the context of this Crikey article, it is a Weasel Word:

Just before the axing of ATSIC by the Howard government, and as part of its dissolution, the Yeperenye shopping centre was passed on to the local native title group, Lhere Athepe, and a body called Centrecorp, established back in the mid 1980s by the Central Land Council and other Aboriginal bodies as a charitable investment vehicle for Aboriginal traditional owner groups through central Australia.

Centrecorp, and its assets, is now in the sights of Brough as he adopts a scorched earth policy towards Aboriginal organisations in the Territory leading up to the next elections.

Note the implied (by reference to the looming election) Motive Impugning as well.

____________________

HT to Ben for pointing this out.

Germaine Greer - early running for LAMEASS-OTM

I only just started LAMEASS-OTM and already the ever attention seeking Germaine Greer (prior to this the inspiration for LAME and a suppository ) is a real contender. Regarding the plan to deal with abuse in indigenous communities, she had this to say:

"The real importance of Howard's bizarre interpretation of the urgings to immediate action contained in the Little Children Are Sacred report is that it provides knee-jerk justification for massive erosion of Aboriginal title," she said.

And this:

Writing exclusively for The Bulletin, Greer, a UK-based feminist author and activist, accuses the Prime Minister of declaring war on Aboriginal communities and argues that he has interpreted the Little Children Are Sacred Report as justification for a "massive erosion of Aboriginal title''.

Howard has learned nothing from the Iraq experience, writes Greer, who argues that abuse of Aboriginal women and children has been known about for three decades.

"He is off on another crusade, this time to rescue Aboriginal children in distress,'' she says.

"When you're on a crusade, you ride roughshod over anything that lies in your path. A crusade can be guaranteed to turn a crisis into proliferating catastrophe.''

Typical Greer - Offering no solution, Impugning Motives, Poisoning the Well and of course, making LAME claims.

John Howard had the perfect reply:

Mr Howard says if Dr Greer is against it, it must be right.

"I always thought I was right but I'm even more convinced now," Mr Howard told reporters.

Pathetic and predictable

I’ve noticed that politicians and commentators on politics stick to particular fallacies. Personal Abuse is a favourite, but I also overwhelmingly detect Impugning Motives, Weasel Words, Poisoning the Well and the Burden of Solution. The Prime Minister’s solution to the crisis in Aboriginal communities drew the following responses and examples of the above. First we have the Queensland Premier Peter Beattie:

Mr Beattie said he disagreed with an alcohol ban…. He said the Government was willing to look at long-term sustainable solutions.

"We'll work on this but we're going to be sensible," Mr Beattie said.

"We're not going to do silly gimmicks because there's a federal election, like a total ban."

By claiming banning alcohol (one of the acknowledged drivers of abuse) is merely a “silly election gimmick” Beattie Impugns Howard’s Motives. He claims that Howard actually has a devious motive; he only cares about wining the next election. The unstated implication is that to Howard, the sexual assault of small, defenceless and innocent children is a secondary motivation or even no motivation at all.

Then there are these responses:

… ACT chief minister Jon Stanhope was the lone Labor leader describing the push as “racist”. “I think on any definition of racism, this is racist,” he told ABC Radio today. “Give me an example of any racist action anywhere in the world that has ever successfully led to change.”

Ensuring adequate law enforcement is racist? Stanhope was hoping that by throwing in a Weasel Word, a deliberate use of a dysphemism in this case, he could misrepresent the actual situation.

Not to be outdone, in less than a sentence Bob Brown Impugns Motives with these Weasel Words, describing …the plan as “selective, cynical and racist”.

Indigenous activist Michael Mansell said the same thing, but was far more prolix:

“This is a racist attack on the weak and an immoral abuse of power, amounting to nothing more than political vote scoring,” he said.

If anything, this plan is finally ending racism. If the same problems (students not attending school, extreme domestic violence and sexual abuse) were occurring in urban Sydney, for example, would it have gone on for so long?

In the age of the sound bite, we can almost forgive all these pathetic LAME comments… almost. Alan Carpenter, the Premier of Western Australia makes sure he gets a look in with more Motive Impugning, combined with Poisoning the Well:

Does anybody in Australia honestly believe that what John Howard's doing is not related to the forthcoming federal election? Does anybody honestly believe that? Come on. We've seen it before. I've seen it, we've seen it with the 'Tampa', we've seen it with other pre election periods.

Rann has attempted to undermine the plan by linking it to the Tampa, an event which has been denigrated as nothing more than a pre-election stunt by many commentators.

Not to be outdone, the Premier of South Australia Mike Rann referred to the plan as being based on ‘shock and awe’:

What I'm saying is that it's all very well to have the sort of the shock and awe approach, send in the troops, declare mission accomplished and then pull out, and see the whole thing fall apart. We've seen that before.

As with Carpenter’s humbug, Rann has Poisoned the Well. Arguably Rann has been even more impressive. He has linked Howard's plan to the Iraq war with the Weasel Words "Shock and Awe".

Note that with the exception of Beattie, none of the above explained how they think we should deal with this horrific and shameful problem. They are all guilty of the Burden of Solution. And with all these “criticisms”, the obvious rebuttal is best expressed with the following statement (which I am happy for anyone to use without crediting me): “So what?” Even if Howard was purely motivated by the thought of an election victory, does it matter? Surely all that matters is “will the plan work?”

This is a good piece on the Madness of the Critics by Miranda Devine. In particular, this from Noel Pearson:

Pearson, as always, had the most potent response: "There is within every community good people and it is an absolutely shameful thing that those good people are misled by people whose children sleep safely at night," he told Lateline on Tuesday.

"That's the horrendous thing here, that the people who are nay-saying any kind of intervention are people whose children, like my own, sleep safely at night. And I think that's a terrible indulgence. When our children sleep safely we seek to put roadblocks in the way and we wish failure upon any decisive action that's going to relieve the suffering of vulnerable children."

There's nothing wrong with arguing about how to best address this problem within our indigenous communities, but merely writing off the government's plan as self serving and opportunistic is not only fallacious, it is disgusting. FYI, here’s a link to a report on welfare reform by the Cape York Institute, launched by Pearson on June 19 – From Hand Out to Hand Up.pdf.

Update - 29th June - I can't believe I missed this from leader of the Australian Democrats, Lyn Allison:

Indigenous people have the answers and we need collaborating, not using a jackboot to seize powers.

This outdoes Rann's link to the Iraq war. The Weasel Word "jackboot" is a Well Poisoning association with fascism, in particular, the Nazis and SS. Delightful. (I'll give her the benefit of the doubt. She is probably ignorant of the connection and knows not what she says.) She needs to get some new material however. She has already used the "jackboot". (Ps Lyn - hire someone who understands possessive apostrophes to write your press releases.)

...at the Prime Ministers intemperate comments on Senator Obamas pronouncement...

Mr Howard's [got it right!] jackboot diplomacy puts at risk our relationship with the United States and a possible future president.

Mr Howards interference...

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.

Climate skeptics

Here’s a great example of what it means to be a humbug hunter. This comes from news.com.au and all the associated papers - Climate change 'a campaign of alarmism' by Denis Peters:

A CONCERTED and well-organised campaign has created alarm over human-induced climate change, industrial magnate Sir Arvi Parbo says... The former head of Western Mining Corporation, BHP and Alcoa Australia, is the keynote speaker at a gathering of climate change sceptics being hosted by Western Australian Liberal MP Dr Dennis Jensen, at Parliament House. It also is supported by the Lavoisier Group, an Australian organisation set up as a base for climate change sceptics...

Sir Arvi said he had kept an open mind through 20 years of listening to debate about climate change but was now witnessing a "semi-religious fervour" overshadowing it. "One must admire the skilful way in which the public has been led to believe that there is no longer any uncertainty, and that disastrous climate change caused by humans is imminent," he said. "The appointment of Mr Al Gore as adviser to the UK Government on climate change is a good example...

"His film, The Inconvenient Truth has been widely publicised, has been seen by, and has influenced millions of people around the world. "It has been severely criticised for deliberately and grossly exaggerating and distorting the issues and I understand that the recently published summary for policymakers by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change contradicts a number of Mr Gore's major contentions. "This, in contrast, has had virtually no publicity and no effect on the public."

...Greens climate change spokeswoman Senator Christine Milne later described the forum as "the last gasp of the Dad's Army of sceptics". "What they try to do is give the impression that climate change science is uncertain," she said. "They've been reasonably successful because they've been well funded, as with the tobacco industry before them. "Now this group of people is trying to extend the life of the fossil fuel industry. "They are backed by the coal industry and the oil industry." She said the Lavoisier Group was associated with the Liberal Party and right-wing bodies such as the HR Nicholls Society.

This is a good example of hunting humbug because I, like Milne, am not a climate change skeptic. As far as I can tell, the science behind anthropogenic climate change is quite conclusive. But as a "seeker after truth", I don't care about winning (blatant hypocrisy aside), I care about the quality of an argument.

So, though I might agree with her with regard to climate change, the arguments she uses to attempt to disparage the "Dad's Army of sceptics" are completely flawed and would suggest she is a deeply disturbed individual. In a few short sentences she finds the time to Poison the Well (associated with the Liberal Party and right-wing bodies) and Impugn Motives (trying to extend the life of the fossil fuel industry). These points may well be true, but they say nothing about the validity of the arguments forwarded by the skeptics. Much easier to spout some standard political ad hominem than address any of the actual points made by Parbo I suppose.

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…?

Rewards are bad… okaaay…?

I will be visiting this article – Gold Star Junkies – on more than one occasion as it has many examples of fallacious thinking. (Though this is not to say the article itself doesn’t raise worthwhile issues in education.) The Author, David Ruenzel, cites psychologist Edward Deci, who raised an eyebrow at the idea of public recognition and rewards for people's achievements:

Deci obviously didn't like anything having to do with rewards systems, including award assemblies — "ghastly" he called them.
Ruenzel continues, explaining to Deci that a particular school in California:

…in an attempt to curb escalating discipline problems, began rewarding well-behaved kids with periodic assemblies. …The school also handed out a $5 bill and food certificates on Fridays to a randomly selected student with perfect attendance and good behavior.
…the award policies were fervently defended by parents. …Half Moon Bay is a liberal, Northern Californian community… "This is nothing that touches on the issue of liberalism," Deci said. "For a lot of well-to-do professionals, rewards are an element of their own obsession with achievement. They may all belong to the Sierra Club, but their obsession with success blinds them to the potential problems with rewards."

In one sweeping statement Deci makes an Unfounded Generalization and Impugns the Motives of these students' parents. They all belong to the Sierra Club and the reason they support rewards is because they are obsessed with success (says the successful psychologist!).

I think Deci is wrong to Impugn their Motives. These parents are, most likely, genuinely concerned with their children. I hazard a guess that they hold their views because they are simpletons, lacking the great psychologist's personal insight and expertise. If only they could see things from his perspective. If only they had spent years and years perfecting research in order to prove humans are primarily intrinsically motivated (and as such, behaviourism wrong). Please, you would believe me if you were me… I'm (Special) Pleading with you.

Update: Gold stars are okay after all

9-11 Conspiracy theorist - Part 2

I've already posted on 911 in Plane Site, but it's pure gold for a "fallacy finder" such as myself. In response to a review of the show by Gordon Farrer of The Age, the conspiracy theorist and delusional paranoid (note my continued Personal Abuse) Dave "The Dirty One" von Kleist, motivated, only by an insatiable need to become a famous country singer (note that I am Impugning his Motives) serves up a few more:

On our radio program, we have interviewed a two-star General, an Air Force Colonel (with 30 yrs. identifying aircraft ant aircraft parts), an Army Major, Air Force Major, a 33 yr. veteran of the DoD in missile defense systems, numerous Airline pilots including an instructor, and the United Airlines pilot who flew Flight 175 up to two months before 9/11 when he retired. They agree that a 757 could not have caused the damage at the Pentagon and that the planes that hit the towers could not have been commercial aircraft. That is their opinion not mine.

Now, how many of these "experts" have seen a 757 fly into a building before or after 9-11? None I'll wager. Yet somehow, by merely looking at photos, they can tell that it's impossible that a plane caused the damage? "Attributing Authority" to these people is fallacious for two reasons. False Attribution - as the sources The Dirty One cites aren't "experts" in the correct field, they are made up of people who are irrelevant (at best marginally relevant), unqualified, and unidentified (and for all we know - non-existent). (The correct "experts" I assume, would be from the fields of engineering, ballistics and demolition.) And two, Appeal to Authority - Dave does not explain why they hold this view, but merely presupposes their "eminence" will suffice as an argument.

The Dirty One continues:

What "experts" can you bring forth to support or justify your condemnation of the hard photographic evidence presented in the film? I would be most interested as to what your explanation would be in regard to the "pod" and the "flash" is. How do you explain the Pentagon photos and footage taken before the collapse of the "E" ring? I noticed (and so did many of your readers) that you didn't address any of these issues. In fact, you didn't address one issue, not one. I would challenge you to do so however, coward "journalists" usually throw their rocks, shoot their arrows and then run and hide. Prove me wrong.

Ah, the Burden of Proof fallacy. One of my "favs". Dave has no actual evidence for his case (like footage of a missile or eyewitness accounts), he merely makes spurious claims with selective use of videos and photos. So instead of making his own case with actual evidence, he says: "If you can't prove me wrong, then I must be right." Well, lots of people have "proved you wrong".

The above link serves to demonstrate The Dirty One's Deck Stacking. All his claims are bogus. One example of a bogus claim is when Dave argues: "If it was a plane that hit the Pentagon, where's the wreckage?" To which he shows photos where wreckage can't be seen (and implies he has looked at all the photos there are). Well, here's one Dave! Oh, I see, you have seen it. Of course! The wreckage was planted… and the photo only came about months later? Question! Why would "they" wait to release a photo of "planted" evidence Dave?

I know a little physics, and I vaguely recall some terms - work and energy. Reminded of this I thought to myself, in order for a plane travelling at a high velocity (large Kinetic Energy) to come to a halt, something would have to do work on it (apply a force over a distance). If the force was relatively small (like the resistance from brakes and air), the distance would be quite large (say, at least the distance of a runway). With a bigger force (perhaps resistance from a building), the distance would be smaller (say, the distance to travel completely inside the aforementioned building). Given the plane travels inside the building, it's hardly a surprise that the wreckage of the plane is also in the building (for where else could it be?) which then, due to loss of structural integrity, collapses on top of the wreckage.

Dodgy Dave, in his "documentary", also likes to use eyewitness accounts. He only uses a couple to help his cause, but fails to quote the hundreds of other eyewitnesses. Yet more Stacking the Deck.

If you need any more evidence that Dave "The Dirty One" von Kleist is a liar - re-examine the photo of him. It was taken after a questioner asked Dave if he was taking any of these. Dave initially responded "No", but when he realised his "tell" (Pinocchio Syndrome) had given him away, he got all grumpy.

Update: Popular Mechanics - 9/11: Debunking The Myths

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.

What's the point in Jim Soorley?

He's like a car accident, I know I shouldn't look (read him) because I'll regret it (in fending off the inanity of his "thoughts" I will be forced to bite off my own tongue), yet I invariably do (when I buy the Sunday Paper).

His inconsistencies and invincible ignorance drive me to distraction. For example, he gave us (this Sunday) some "awards" for the year (Packer good, Rumsfeld bad):

SECURITY

The Packer Award to the federal and state agencies who got ahead of the terrorist planners in Sydney and Melbourne and made preventive arrests.

The Rumsfeld Award to John Howard who could not help but grandstand on the issue just days before the arrests, putting at risk the whole operation.
In one sentence he Impugns the Motives of the PM (without any rationale), and delivers a Factoid Propagation (putting the operation at risk). (That's only two fallacies in one sentence, so it'll be a while before he catches Phillip Adams.) And Jimbo conveniently ignores the fact that he [the PM] had to rush the terror laws through parliament for the arrests to be effected - and perhaps people would like some kind of justification for that? (But if you were to actually do any research, Jim, I guess it would take more than the normal 15 minutes it takes to write your waste of ink, sorry, column. And what's more, why let the truth stand in the way of some more pointlessness?)

And now for a few Jimbo inconsistencies: Hey Jim, funny that you give the good "award" to those federal and state agencies - one of them wouldn't be ASIO would it? I thought you thought (in your paranoia - where's the evidence?) ASIO was bad: "…we now have ASIO running the country, giving secret briefings behind closed doors, which will alter forever our whole social and civic fabric."

And in the same column (How we have let the terrorists win - 2/10/2005) you said:

We have been regarded as one of the great liberal democracies where civil liberties would never be betrayed. Well, the terrorists have won the battle in Australia – our national leadership team met and imposed draconian legislation on us all on the basis of fear.

Yet a little over a month later (20/11/2005) you give us Terror response was a disgrace:

Remember the Queensland Government's campaign telling us to look for suspicious bags on railway platforms and trains? It cost us $800,000. One of Australia's security risk experts pointed out to me this week that both Central Station and Roma St Station still have lockers for bags. I would have thought that if suspicious bags on trains were cause for a terror alert, we would remove any place where terrorists could place bags with explosives. I will not tell you the words the expert used, but "incompetent", "stupid" and "a joke" are mild versions of what he had to say.

So should we or shouldn't we have ads alerting us to the dangers of terrorism? I would have thought, given your tone and previous column, you'd say "no". But, we should remove lockers for fear of bombs… wouldn't mean the terrorists had won? Don't think about it too hard (i.e., just give it your usual consideration) because I wouldn't want you to suffer cognitive dissonance.

Ps. You probably actually misunderstood the security expert. Most likely he had read your previous columns and was actually referring to you.

Examples of Impugning Motives

The Advocate makes an unwarranted claim that the opponent has devious motives.

• Germaine Greer - early running for LAMEASS-OTM
• Pathetic and Predictable
• Climate skeptics
• Looking after one of the boys - Solomons' style
• Marking is pointless and fun says Alfie Kohn
• I blame the parents
• Gold stars are okay after all
• Rewards are bad… okaaay…?
• Dodgy tax discussion dodged
• What's the point in Jim Soorley?