Phil 1102: Critical Thinking

Phil 1102: Critical Thinking 9/27/2004 Intro to Rhetoric

Road Map of Fallacies Pseudo-Logical Begging the Question Relevance Modus Moronus Rhetorical Affirming the Consequent Ad hominen NonSequetor Fallacies of Language Red Herring Ethos Inductive Straw Man Pathos False Cause Shifting the goal posts Hasty Generalization Logos Bad Stats

Beware! • Common Fallacies • Equivocations • Ad hominen • Non Sequetor • Straw men • Red herrings • Shifting the goal posts • Poisoning the well • ‘Spin’

Analyzing Rhetoric • Precision in Language: • Embedding claims in the mouths of others • Ambiguity • Equivocations • ‘Spin’ / Shifting the goal posts.

Embedding in the mouths of others • Fox News clip (again) • Reverse: CIA report • “We assess that Baghdad has begun renewed production of mustard..." • "Baghdad has begun renewed production of mustard...". • the department of Energy "assesses that the tubes probably are not part of the [nuclear] program." • "Most intelligence specialists assess this to be the intended use, but some believe that the tubs are probably intended to conventional weapons programs."

Ambiguity • Horoscope

Horoscope analyzed Some of your aspirations tend to be fairly unrealistic. At times, you are extroverted, addable, sociable, while at other times you are introverted, wary and reserved. You have found it unwise to be too frank in revealing yourself to others. you pride yourself on being an independent thinker and do not accept other's opinion without satisfactory proof.

First of all… • Ambiguous Qualifiers: Some of your aspirations tend to be fairly unrealistic. At times, you are extroverted, addable, sociable, while at other times you are introverted, wary and reserved. You have found it unwise to be too frank in revealing yourself to others. You pride yourself on being an independent thinker and do not accept other's opinion without satisfactory proof.

2nd • Ambiguity • 'aspirations‘ • 'unrealistic‘ • 'frank‘ • 'to reveal oneself‘ • 'independent‘ • 'satisfactory'

3rd: Tautology Some of your aspirations tend to be fairly unrealistic.

4th: • Projection ...At times, you are extroverted, addable, sociable, while at other times you are introverted, wary and reserved.. ...Disciplined and controlled on the outside, you tend to be worrisome and insecure on the inside."

Fifth: • Flattery You pride yourself on being an independent thinker and do not accept other's opinion without satisfactory proof.

Orwell’s examples: • I returned and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all. • Objective considerations of contemporary phenomena compel the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account

Modern Example: • The voters should assume I have no litmus test on that issue or any other issue. Voters will know I'll put competent judges on the bench. People who will strictly interpret the Constitution and not use the bench for writing social policy. That is going to be a big difference between my opponent and me. I believe that the judges ought not to take the place of the legislative branch of government. That they're appointed for life and that they ought to look at the Constitution as sacred. They shouldn't misuse their bench. I don't believe in liberal activist judges. I believe in strict constructionists. Those are the kind of judges I will appoint. I've named four in the State of Texas and ask the people to check out their qualifications, their deliberations. They're good, solid men and women who have made good, sound judgments on behalf of the people of Texas.

We both use similar language to reach an exactly opposite outcome. I don't favor a litmus test, but I know that there are ways to assess how a potential justice interprets the Constitution. And in my view, the Constitution ought to be interpreted as a document that grows with our country and our history. And I believe, for example, that there is a right of privacy in the Fourth Amendment. And when the phrase a strict constructionist is used and when the names of Scalia and Thomas are used as the benchmarks for who would be appointed, those are code words, and nobody should mistake this, for saying the governor would appoint people who would overturn Roe v. Wade. It's very clear to me. I would appoint people that have a philosophy that I think will be quite likely would uphold Roe v. Wade.

Equivocation • “It depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.” • “I did not have sexual relations with that woman”

Equivocation variation: No ‘true’ … • A: ‘No Catholic supports Roe v. Wade” • B: “John Kerry is a Catholic and he supports Roe v. Wade.” • A: “Well, then John Kerry is not a true Catholic.”

Straw Man (also ‘quoting out of context) • TONS of examples in the current political season: • Just a few noted by EJ Donne, Sept 24 Wash Post editorial: • Bush RNC: “heart and soul of America is found in Hollywood” • What Kerry actually said (in NY): “Every performer tonight, in their own way, either verbally or through their music, through their lyrics, have conveyed to you the heart and soul of our country”

More… • Bush, RNC: “Today he said, and I quote, ‘We have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left American less secure’. He’s saying he prefers the stability of a dictatorship to the hope and security of democracy.” • What Kerry actually said: “Saddam Huessein was a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in hell. But that was not, that was not in and of itself, a reason to go to war. The satisfaction that we take in his downfall does not hid this fact: …”

Shifting the Goal Posts • Iraq has an advanced WMD program & supports Al Quida (Dec 2001) -> Iraq has a “Weapons of Mass Destruction program related activities” (State of Union, 2004)

Rhetoric • “The art of winning the soul by discourse” – Plato • “the faculty of discovering in any particular case all of the available means of persuasion” – Aristotle • So, how do we convince people, given that valid arguments from true premises are damn near impossible?

Aristotle’s three-fold classification: Ethos Pathos Logos Appeal to Anger Hate Anger Appeal to Character Appeal to Reason • Logic • Inductive • Causal • Deductive • Categorical • Conditional • etc. Positive (Leadership, valor, bravery, etc.) Negative (liar, cheat, etc.)

Sub-forms that : • Ethos -> Appeal to Authority (the argument is good insofar as the authority is good, and that’s a matter of ‘character’) • Pathos -> Appeal to Force (ad bachulum) (insofar as it is an appeal to fear. If it is an appeal to the force of an authority, it is ethos)

Other: Argument from Analogy • Will talk about later. • But, here’s a sample

An apology • The current election season is hitting a new low in rhetoric (witness the article “Tying Kerry to Terror Tests Rhetorical Limits” on the front page of 9/24 Washington Post) • AND, for the most part, the Bush campaign is producing far for fallacies-per-speech (Fps) than the Kerry campaign.

Great Uses of Pathos • http://soundsofhistory.com/ChurchillAndRoosevelt.html • “I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat.“… (3:00) • ‘We will fight them on the Beaches…’ (10:00) • Churchill’s inauguration of the Battle of Britain (finest hour)

Unbelievably egregious uses of pathos I • Tuesday, Sept 21: Sen Orrin Hatch (R, TX): “[terrorists] are going to throw everything the can between now and the election to try to elect Kerry” • Sunday, Sept 19: Sen John Thune (R, SD): “His [Daschle’s] words embolden the enemy”

Sat, Sept 18: Speaker Dennis Hastert (R IL): “I don’t have data or intelligence to tell me one thing or another, [but] I would think they [al Queda ] would be more apt to go [for] somebody who would file a lawsuit with the World Court or something rather than respond with troops.” • When asked if al Queda would be more successful under Kerry: “That’s my opinion, yes”

Fri, Sept 17: Dept. Sec. Of State Richard Armitage said terrorists in Iraq are “trying to influence the election against President Bush” • Earlier this month: Cheney “If we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we’ll get hit again, that we’ll be hit in a way that will be devistating” • And, when asked about the theme of the 3rd day of the RNC, one of the chair people of the convention said “Vote for Bush or die.”

In 2001, Ashcroft said that critics of the Patriot act “only aid terrorists” and “give aid and ammunition to America’s enemies” • In 2003: Rumsfeld said if terrorist think that Bush’s opponents might prevail, “they take heart in that, and that leads to more money going into these activities or that leads to more recruits or that leads to more encouragement.”

In March, 2004, Rep Tom Cole (R OK): “If George Bush loses the election, Osama bin Laden wins the election” • Anne Coulter (Fox News): “It’s unquestionable that Republicans are more likely to prevent the next attack” Kerry “will improve the economy in the emergency services and body bag industry” • CNN’s Bill Schneider said al Queda “would very much like to defeat President Bush”

Fallacies of Appeals to Emotion • Money / Poverty • Age / Novelty • Force / Fear - • Pity • Flattery

Appeal to Money • Equating cost (or lack thereof) w/ value • That’s expensive, therefore it is good. • (Linux): It’s free, therefore it must suck. • Anyone seen that ad for Focusyn (?) where the woman says “The let you try it free – it must be good!”

Appeal to Age / Novelty • Equating youth (the latest) w/ value • It’s new (young) therefore, it must be good • Netscape 7

Force / Fear • Ad Bachulum Many different forms • Explicit: • Cheney’s “Vote for Bush or we’ll get hit again”. • Clip from Johnson • Implicit (fear): • Agnew • Dukasis’ ‘heartbeat’ • Helm’s ‘White Hands’ • Bush (Sr)’s Horton ad • Bernard Shaw’s Dukasis question

Pity

Flattery • Recall the ‘horoscope’.

Fallacies of Relevance Classified • Ad hominens • Appeals to Authority • Appeals to Emotion • Non Sequetors • Red Herrings

Appeal to Authority

Ad Hominens Classified • Ad hominens • Ad hominen (basic) = irrelevant personal information • Abusive / Humiliation: The funniest ad hominen in the history of Televised debates. • Circumstantial (Of course you support tax cuts, you’re wealthy) • Poisoning the well = preemptive attack • ‘Genetic’ fallacy = attacking the origin of the idea (the idea’s history), not the idea itself • Guilt by association = attacking an idea because of those who have held it in the past • To Quoque = “You too”

Abusive • Abusive ad hominens QUAYLE: I have as much experience in the Congress as Jack Kennedy did when he sought the presidency. I will be prepared to deal with the people in the Bush administration, if that unfortunate event would ever occur. WOODRUFF: Senator Bentsen. BENTSEN: Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy, I knew Jack Kennedy, Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you are no Jack Kennedy. (Prolonged shouts and applause)

Circumstantial • Circumstances = the circumstances of the individual attacked, instead of their argument • Note: There are ‘good’ cases of this – I.e. self-interest. Think of Enron, or Haliburton

Poisoning the well • “There he goes again” • “My opponent is going to propose lots of big new social programs” • “Let me introduce the next guest. An columnist known for her wildly liberal views…”

‘Genetic’ Fallacy • Atheists often have difficult relationships with their fathers. That’s why they can’t accept the truth of the Heavenly father. • Careful: History does tell us important things, and many, many people who make arguments seem totally unaware of history (I.e. the people who wrote The Bell Curve, but Gould will make that point for me).

Guilt by association • Hilter cited Nietzsche in Mien Campf. • Therefore, Nietzsche is dangerous. • An Anarchist assassinated W. McKinley in 1908 (?), and Anarchists started the Hay Market Sq. Riot in 1889. Therefore, all anarchists are bomb-throwing, gun-toting lunatics.

To Quoque • Explicit: “How can you call me … when you … all the time!” (Flip-flopper?) • Subtle: Attacking consistency: How can you call your self a vegetarian, when you would accept life-saving drugs that were tested on animals! • Related: What you would do, given the chance. “Make no mistake, he would do the same thing to me if he could!”

Current… • Bush now argues that Kerry’s tax plan (which is designed to roll back Bush’s and place higher taxes on the very wealthy) would tax the middle class, because “Rich hire lawyers and accountants for a reason – to stick you with the bill. We’re not going to let him tax you, because we’re going to win…”

Non Sequetor

Red Herring

Complex Fallacies • Zell Miller: • Clip from speech at RNC • Note: Bush called the US force in Iraq an ‘occupation force’ many times in the Summer of 2004.

Phil 1102: Critical Thinking