Discussion questions
Instructor Guidance
Guidance Notes Week Four
Let us address the major fallacies that you will come across in this week’s reading. First you have the “argument from outrage”. I like to call this the “fiery preacher” argument (I can say this because I am a minister). Moore and Parker (2011) call this the “Rush Limbaugh” fallacy. A lot of times we can use anger that incites emotion rather than argument. This argument is a subset of any argument that “appeals to emotion.” It can work the other way as well like using images of starving children that would stir up pity within us to give money to a charity (“argument from pity”); when we do not know anything about the legitimacy or operations of that charity. Someone can also make an argument by stroking your ego with leading compliments (“apple polishing”) or the placement of shame upon you if you do not go with what they want (“guilt trip”). Appeals to emotions such as anger are not always bad things. We should never think that to be logical means that we have to check our emotions at the door. The problem comes when we substitute a real substantive claim with good premises for an “additional” argument with no content or relation to the topic. Connected to this “anger” tactic is another common fallacy known as “scapegoating.” This is where a group finds someone to take the blame for something when there is not an easy answer to the “why” question. Groups like a fall person to take the blame for group or systematic problems.
You may have noticed by now that these types of emotional appeal arguments are related to another very common fallacy: that of “scare tactics”. A good example of this argument is when the USA was deciding whether or not to invade Iraq. Granted, we were making this decision based upon faulty intelligence of WMDs, but the argument for going to war was, “we must attack them before they come over and attack us or our allies.” Despite any legitimate content that such arguments were based upon, the psychological tool used to get everyone on board was that of a “scare tactic”. When someone uses the threat of forcing as an argument (easily falling under the category of scare tactic), this is called an “argument from force”.
Other fallacies appeal both to emotion and group identities. Moore and Parker (2011) place these under emotional fallacies, but I also think they have their own separate category. Remember when you were a teenager and told your parents you wanted to do something because all of your friends were doing it, and then your parents insightfully respond, “well if Johnny jumped off a cliff would you jump off a cliff?” As cliché as this example is, it rings true to so much our personal formation within groups of our peers (the “peer pressure argument”). One the gravest logical fallacy in our own time is that of “nationalism”. We hear this in times of war when someone is not patriotic unless they agree with the status quo (or wear a little flag lapel pin). Nationalism falls under a broader category of “group think”, where our loyalties and associations to groups or communities inform our decisions. Essentially we often check our critical reflections at the door when our psychological attachments are challenged. Everyone is susceptible to this type of fallacy, and you would be hard pressed to find someone who has never succumbed to this type of persuasion.
“Well, I had pizza for dinner; so having a piece of chocolate cake couldn’t hurt me anymore.” Oh boy did we fall prey to “rationalization” in this comment. Trust me, I can always give way to logic of Ben and Jerry’s! How many times do we do things to satisfy our own selfish desires and wants? Now, we may not always do things for a selfish end; some things make work out to go along with our wants and desires despite our input into the situation, but we can commit this fallacy so easily because, well, it’s easy to give into. Recognizing whether or not you are rationalizing away an argument will be based on the amount of self deception that you put into your rationalization. It may be good to have honest friends who will keep you accountable to the logic of your arguments and not your stomach.
What about arguments that everyone knows the answer? Well, that is a good question. A lot of times the fact that “everyone knows” (which is pretty confident to begin with don’t you think?) does not really mean everyone does know. It could be that pressure is being put upon you to accept the argument that “everyone knows” in order not to be embarrassed that you do not know. This type of argument can also take other forms like the argument from “common practice” or “tradition.” Did your parents every tell you the reason why you are supposed to fold the bath towel the way they do is because your grandmother and great grandmother folded the bath towel this way? Well, if not I am sure that you can find some example in your upbringing where the argument from tradition supplanted any form of logical argument.
Another common logical fallacy that we encounter everyday (especially if you watch a politician answer questions at a press conference) is the “red herring/smokescreen” fallacy. The reason why I place them side by side is because it is often hard to tell which one is being performed and used. A red herring is generally a method of distraction, where you pull attention away from the topic at hand. A good example used in Moore and Parker (2011) is that of Bill Clinton being accused of firing missiles at Sudanise terrorists to deflect attention away from the Monica Lewinsky scandal. A smoke-screen is where you pile up so many reasons and premises that have nothing to do with the argument in order to hide your real intentions. Another great example of this is in Moore and Parker (2011), is where George W. Bush was accused of using the WMD’s and Al-Qaida threats in Iraq to cover over his real intention of wanting to secure oil contracts. We run into these types of deflections and blurred statements every day in the world.
There are several other fallacies that we need to address briefly. An “Ad Hominem” fallacy is a fancy word for saying “attacking the person instead of the argument.” For instance, in a debate someone might talk about their opponents personal/moral flaws or shortcomings instead of address the premises of their argument. Another common fallacy is the genetic fallacy. Perhaps you might remember from Sunday school about when Jesus started going around preaching in Galilee and other parts of Israel and the people in the crowds asking, “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Can anything good come from Galilee?” The people assumed that Jesus could not have such wisdom in spiritual matters because of his lineage and hometown. A third popular argument is a “straw-man” argument. This is a common debate tactic where instead of addressing the argument of an opponent, they will create a fictitious image of them that is usually over exaggerated in order to easily push them over and dismiss their point. A good example of this comes from the recent presidential debates between Senator McCain and Senator Obama. In response to Obama’s economic program, McCain simplified Obama’s position as simply “spreading the wealth around.” McCain was averring to the general anti-socialist mentality of most Americans so that Obama’s argument could be dismissed. You may hear this type of argumentation when some says, “that’s just a characterization.”
Another common argument often found in domestic settings is that of a “false dilemma.” This is where you posit two options in a decision making situation as being the only choices; when in fact there could be many choices. A lot of times this type of argument is setup in such a way that there really is not a choice being offered.
A final fallacy that I would like to bring your attention to is the “slippery slope” fallacy. This is the classic scare tactic where is you let X happen then Y must surely follow. The problem is that most of these arguments do not demonstrate the real logical progression from X to Y. For instance, if you were to say that, “We should not allow gay marriage in America because next people will be marrying their cats and dogs.” you would be committing the slippery slope fallacy. It would be a slippery slope because there is no reasonable reason why allowing gay marriage would by necessity entail that people start marrying animals. Another form of this fallacy is when you start falling down the slope, then realize that you are making an error, and then you rationalize that you have to finish falling down the slope because you cannot stop what has been started. This kind of thinking assumes that nothing can be done to alter the logical path of a slippery slope, but it is mistaken since the logical necessity of going from X to Y is usually not very sound to being with.
