Re-burdening the solution

Someone on the internet asked me this excellent question:

Hi, A search for a certain kind of fallacy led me and a friend to the Skeptic's Field Guide, and so I though I'd ask if you have any input on our question: You mention Burden of Solution as a fallacy in which "[t]he Advocate denigrates a suggested solution to a problem but fails to propose a viable alternative."

My friend had been wondering if the opposite could also be considered a fallacy: invalidating all criticism of a suggested solution because the one offering the criticisms can't offer a better one... or rather, "Oh, yeah? Well, I'd like to see YOU come up with something better", in response to valid criticisms of a solution. It seems like such a position would be fallacious (or at least bad debate form), but neither of us can find a name or definition for it. Can you offer any advice?

The scenario outlined above most closely relates to the Tu Quoque (you too) fallacy. It's essentially saying, I can ignore your criticisms because you haven't come up with a solution. More broadly it is a Red Herring, and even more broadly, a Non-sequitur. (Sadly, this is all "good debate form" if you're only interested in winning.)

This is a tough one in terms of getting the balance between the Burden of Solution and valid criticism right. Arguably, it's not a critic's job to find solutions. They're a critic. A good critic, however, offers constructive criticism and tries to find ways forward.

The Tu Quoque aspect of this is how the advocate maneuvers the conversation. They don't dismiss the criticism per se, but change the focus from the criticism to the lack of a solution from the critic. Hence the Red Herring. The critic in this case should say, "Let's stay on topic. I never claimed to have an alternative solution for you. It's not my job to find the solution. I'm drawing attention to the specific issues I have with your proposed actions."

If both parties are acting in good faith and are genuine seekers of a solution, the critic should not only point out flaws, they should try to offer a solution or at least admit they don't have one either. And on receiving criticism, the advocate would not dismiss it out of hand because the critic didn't offer any solutions. Of course, this would require rational and disinterested discourse... a common experience of the world at large and the internet in particular.

 

Red Herring

Other Terms and/or Related Concepts

Moving the goalposts; the Chewbacca Defense.

Description

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

Examples

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

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

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

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

(South Park 1998, Season 2, Episode 14)

Comment

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

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

 

A "legitimate" psychic hotline

Karen Stollznow, associate editor of the Australian Skeptic, demonstrated how easy it is to become a telephone and email psychic. She recently received the following correspondence from an ex-employee of the same psychic company (Absolutely Psychic Network) in response to her article:

Hi Karen

I commend you for this website. Indeed there are many psychic networks that are questionable. I know because I have worked for PRN, Psychic Friends Network and other networks as well such as Psychic chat and psychic source. Psychic chat owns a sex club and psychic source has another hot line that markets sexual hookups. But I think you should cut some slack to Absolutely Psychic because they are no where near the sleeze bags in the market. APN is 1 thing and 1 thing only: TESTED PSYCHICS. Now, in my humble and respectful opinion, being offered a contract is much different than being able to maintain it. Calls are monitored and client feedback factors into maintaining the position. This is the equivalent of marriage. Walking down the aisle doesn’t guarantee you a successful marriage. But a person of your great merits knows that and I don’t need to elaborate in any further because you weren’t contracted by them.

Freedom of speech is a great liberty but the written word doesn’t always portray the entire or accurate story. For this reason, I will extend my liberty in free speech as I have worked for Absolutely Psychic Network (APN) for 7 years and have found it to be EXCELLENT.

As for the 2nd person who alleges to have worked for them, I can only say that if she researched the market she would notice that Absolutely Psychic Network/Absolutelypsychic.com (APN) offers the highest pay scale. They have given me a raise every year and gift card for such long years of service. Independent contractor work liberates one to pursue other career paths simultaneously. If she doesn’t have other venues of expression, then sure frustration is possible. But I believe that the universe may be trying to say something to that person. I’m 51 years old and have been around the block longer for quite some time.

Namaste
Belle

This email is really quite inane the whole way through. However, notice how 'Belle' tries to make this particular psychic service from the other "sleazy" ones by pointing out the others also run sex lines. It's an attempted Poisoning of the Well towards the other psychic hot lines, as if that has anything to do with Absolutely Psychic Network. Isn't that equivalent to being the best player in the worst team (pick any sport)? So we have a Red Herring as well.

"Belle" also attempts to "prove" her case with the False Analogy with a marriage. As Jef and I said with our podcast on false analogies, the problem with analogies in argument is how easy it is to turn them around, back onto the advocate.

"Belle" said:

Now, in my humble and respectful opinion, being offered a contract is much different than being able to maintain it. Calls are monitored and client feedback factors into maintaining the position. This is the equivalent of marriage. Walking down the aisle doesn’t guarantee you a successful marriage.

I.e. Karen might have fooled the APN to get the contract initially, but they'd have worked out she was a fake eventually. But, of course, I've been told that there are women who manage to fake it with their husbands throughout their entire marriage...

Podcast: Hunting Humbug 101 - Tutorial 05: Moving the Goalposts and Red Herrings

In this tutorial we look at Moving the Goalposts and Red Herrings.



Here's the link to direct download: (22 mins & 10 mb) and you subscribe here: http://huntinghumbug101.podbean.com/feed/or by clicking one of the buttons below.

The specific examples we discuss can be found by hitting the links above. We also discuss the ultimate Red Herring - the Chewbacca Defense - from the episode of South Park, Chef Aid.

Website:
Share on Facebook
Podcast:

It’s okay to be a racist…

so long as you are raising a family, says cricket writer Peter Roebuck.

I haven't blogged for who knows how long because A) I was working hard, and B) the cricket's been on.

Now that I can blog about cricket and fallacies, I'm back.

Amongst all the hubbub over the 2^nd test in Sydney, Roebuck has called for the boning of Australian captain, and all-round legend (the best since Bradman), Ricky Ponting. The entire article is a vitriolic diatribe but there's one bit in particular which is worth picking out as a classic Red Herring:

Harbhajan Singh can be an irritating young man but he is head of a family and responsible for raising nine people. And all the Australian elders want to do is to hunt him from the game. Australian fieldsmen fire insults from the corners of their mouths, an intemperate Sikh warrior overreacts and his rudeness is seized upon.

Never mind that Harby called Andrew Symonds a "big monkey" after he'd been told, repeatedly, that it was an offensive racist term, and after all the coverage of the incidents in India last year. To Roebuck, Harby is a "Sikh warrior" who is the head of a family with nine children. Wow. It must be tough raising nine children, what, with the millions of dollars he gets from bowling a bit of red leather. (Not to mention not being at home most of the year.)

That's all I'll say regarding a specific fallacy. Just one more point regarding Roebuck's worth as a commentator. He thinks Ponting and Bucknor should be sacked for arrogance and incompetence (respectively), I'd say the same applies to him.

Arrogance: A pom writing a deliberately inflammatory piece calling for the Australian captain to be sacked for arrogance (without any hint of irony).

Incompetence - making this claim:

But ABC cricket commentator Peter Roebuck says there are still serious doubts about next week's Perth Test going ahead.

Roebuck says there is little chance of the two captains being part of any conciliatory talks.

"These two sides are so far apart right now that I think the Perth Test has got no more than a 40 per cent chance of taking place, Bucknor or no Bucknor," he said.

And what do you know, just few hours later:

Indian cricket officials say the tour of Australia will continue, after the sport's governing body stepped in to defuse a crisis over the second Test in Sydney.

The attempted blackmail by the BCCI was obviously a bluff. If you couldn't pick that Peter, your credibility as a commentator is shot. (Who stands to lose the most $$$ if there is no TV coverage of the two remaining tests, let alone the 20-Twenty and One-Day matches?)

Woman beater didn’t kill 90 Iraqis

This Red Herring Fallacy comes from the lawyer for [alleged] woman beater Matthew Newton:

The lawyer for Matthew Newton today described assault charges against the entertainer as a "very minor matter".

…The son of Bert and Patti Newton is accused of assaulting his former girlfriend, actress Brooke Satchwell.

He has pleaded not guilty to the charges, including one count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm…

"Ninety people died in Iraq today, most of them kids," Newton's solicitor Chris Murphy told reporters outside. "This is a very minor matter."

This kind of Non Sequitur is a Red Herring; no different to the kind used in movies and books. It is a deliberate attempt to divert attention away from the real issue under consideration - that Newton [allegedly] beat his [now ex] girlfriend.

Yep, 90 people dying is worse, for sure. But it has nothing to do with the case. And I wonder if Ms Satchwell thinks being assaulted "… is a very minor matter"?

____________
Source: Newton case 'minor' compared with Iraq - The Sydney Morning Herald - 17 Jan 2007.

Examples of Red Herrings

The advocate deliberately introduces an irrelevant topic into a discussion or debate in order to divert attention away from the topic under consideration.
See these examples:

• It’s okay to be a racist…
• Woman beater didn’t kill 90 Iraqis

Listen to the podcast - Hunting Humbug 101: Tutorial 05 - Moving the Goalposts and Red Herrings
http://www.archive.org/download/HuntingHumbug101Episode1-WhatIsHumbug/05Tutorial05_MovingTheGoalposts2.mp3

An extreme example of the Red Herring Fallacy is called the "Chewbacca Defense". From wikipedia:

Chewbacca Defense originated in the animated series South Park. The show satirized attorney Johnnie Cochran's closing argument defending O.J. Simpson in his murder trial. "Chewbacca Defense", meaning a defense consisting solely of nonsensical arguments meant to confuse a jury, has since been applied outside of references to South Park and has been integrated into popular culture slang. 

In the episode, Chef discovers that Alanis Morissette's (fictional) hit song "Stinky Britches" is the same as a song he wrote years ago, before he abandoned his musical aspirations. Chef contacts a "major record company" executive, seeking only to have his name credited as the composer of "Stinky Britches." Chef's claim is substantiated by a twenty-year-old recording of Chef performing the song. 

The record company refuses, and furthermore hires Johnnie Cochran, who files a lawsuit against Chef for harassment. In court, Cochran resorts to his "famous" Chewbacca Defense, which he "used during the Simpson trial", according to Gerald Broflovski. 

Cochran: Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, Chef's attorney would certainly want you to believe that his client wrote "Stinky Britches" ten years ago. And they make a good case. Hell, I almost felt pity myself! But, ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense! 

Gerald Broflovski: Dammit! 

Chef: What? 

Gerald: He's using the Chewbacca Defense! 

Cochran: Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, [approaches and softens] does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.