We Are The Logicians, Not Them

[Arkana]

We Are The Logicians, Not Them: A Musing

I sat down recently in a Logic class (I'm a sophomore at Providence College), and the topic of the day was fallacies of argument. Basically, there are three types of fallacies:

1. Irrelevance. This section consists mainly of appeals to different feelings. It includes "ad hominem" attacks, appeals to fear (ad baculum), appeals to shame, and appeals to pride, among other things.

2. Begging the question. This is actually a common tactic in most arguments, and is colloquially known as "dodging the question" in a broader sense. It is a device that answers a question--without really answering it--through misdirection.

3. Contradictory premises. This is also used in arguments, although unknowingly. It makes a statement, then manages to flout that statement with another statement, rendering it irrelevant.

Example: "All of us are equal, but some of us are more equal than others."--Animal Farm

Why am I mentioning this? Because after I left, it got me thinking--both parties, Democrats and Republicans, claim to be the party of logic--but which one really is? Being a Democrat, I freely admit that I often say Democrats are the true party of logic, but to say it without proof is foolish. To find out for sure, I sifted through various Republican talking points.

Subject: Homosexuality

Republican argument: "The Bible says it's bad, so it must be bad."

The fallacy here is one of dicto simpliciter--reasoning from one unqualified statement to another. Obviously, the Bible is not the ultimate authority, so the assumption that its judgment is universal is fallacious as well.

Republican response: "Well, anyone with sense can see that it's bad, because it's against the Bible."

This is another fallacy--called "the vicious circle," or just arguing in a circle. This argument does not say anything new about WHY homosexuality is bad, it merely leads back to the starting premise--that the Bible says it is bad.


Subject: Jeff Gannon

Republican argument: "This is a non-issue. Liberals are hung up over Mr. Gannon because he used a pseudonym."

This is an argument that is clearly flawed, because it is begging the question. The liberal argument is not about Jeff Gannon's name being really James Guckert, it is about something else ENTIRELY--that he was allowed high-level access in the White House while in the employ of a fake news organization. The Republican argument uses clever misdirection by making it look as though the Democratic side is focused on something else entirely.


Subject: Welfare programs

Republican argument: "I've seen poor people on the street with cell phones and yet they still beg for money. They should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. Screw welfare."

Another dicto simpliciter argument. It oversimplifies the concept of the poor, making the assumption that because SOME panhandlers feign money troubles, that it must be true for all poor people.


Subject: George W. Bush

Democratic question: "Why does George Bush make so many mistakes?" (or anything that asks why Bush has done something wrong)

Republican response: "What, do you expect him to be perfect?"

This is another irrelevance--the argument from irrelevant extremes. It implies that because the subject is not ONE extreme, it must mean he/she/it must be the OTHER extreme. In this case, Bush has to be a complete screw-up or always perfect, neither of which the Democratic question implies.



Subject: Terrorism

Republican argument: "If you're not with us, you must be against us!"

Do I really need to say it? It's another fallacy of irrelevant extremes. "Not with us" in the speaker's mind automatically implies "against us," which is of course not universally true. As Obi-Wan Kenobi once said, "Only a Sith Lord deals in absolutes."


Subject: Bush/Cheney Campaign 2004

Republican argument(s):

1. "John Kerry has the most liberal record in the Senate."

2.
"Vote for me, or John Kerry will legalize same-sex marriage."
"Vote for me, or John Kerry will sell our security to the U.N."
"Vote for me, or John Kerry will make abortions a form of birth control."


There are several fallacies here, but only two different types.

1. This one is an irrelevance--an appeal to ignorance. It uses a fact or statistic that no one (obviously) will research to bolster an otherwise unqualified statement. It will eventually lead into an ad populum--an appeal to the masses--to get people to vote Bush instead.

It could also be construed as begging the question--what is meant by "liberal?" The conservative side vilifies it, the liberal side elevates it--it all depends on your own personal beliefs.

2. These are all the same type of fallacy--an irrelevance known as an ad baculum, or an appeal to fear. People in the country feared those things mentioned above, and as such the Bush campaign appeals to those fears. Of course, the fear of homosexuality is also fallacious (see above), but that is beside the point here. These arguments are nothing more than an appeal to a base emotion in order to trigger a targeted response--a vote for George W. Bush.



So there you have it--Republicans claim to be the party of logic, but from where I stand, their arguments are rife with fallacy, irrelevance, and contradiction.

George W. Bush claimed during the 2004 campaign that you may not like his positions, but unlike Senator Kerry, you knew where he stood. After this morning's Logic class, I'm not so sure.


What do you think?

[liberal N proud]

1. You are well on your way to a PhD in Logic

I think you are right in many aspects.
All of your examples recall arguments I have had with fundies. I say argument because that is always what they turn them into.

[Arkana]

2. Want to hear something amazing?

I'm a computer science major, and I can't stand philosophy.

[brainshrub]

3. Great post! Nominated fro front-page.

[smirkymonkey]

4. Good job! Kicked and Nominated!

:kick:

[Arkana]

5. Kick

[Zorra]

6. Most conservatives are incapable of thinking logically.

Their belief systems and thought processes are fear based and this prevents them from thinking objectively.

This is why when republicans get into power they always totally fuck the country up. They don't understand that if you take all the money out of the cookie jar, and don't replace it, there will be no money in the cookie jar. Like Bush, for example: He has a surplus budget. He cuts taxes for the rich, so that there is less money flowing into the budget. He starts a war. He uses up all the money in the budget on the war, and then more. Then he borrows more money to pay for the war. And now he can't figure out why the country is zillions of dollars in debt.

Or: Osama bin Laden attacked America. Osama bin Laden is in Pakistan. Iraq had nothing to do with the attack on the US. Therefore, we should attack Iraq.

This phenomenon is known as "Freeper Logic".;-)

Researchers help define what makes a political conservative
By Kathleen Maclay, Media Relations | 22 July 2003 (revised 7/25/03

BERKELEY – Politically conservative agendas may range from supporting the Vietnam War to upholding traditional moral and religious values to opposing welfare. But are there consistent underlying motivations?

Four researchers who culled through 50 years of research literature about the psychology of conservatism report that at the core of political conservatism is the resistance to change and a tolerance for inequality, and that some of the common psychological factors linked to political conservatism include:

Fear and aggression

Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity

Uncertainty avoidance

Need for cognitive closure

Terror management
"From our perspective, these psychological factors are capable of contributing to the adoption of conservative ideological contents, either independently or in combination," the researchers wrote in an article, "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition," recently published in the American Psychological Association's Psychological Bulletin.

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/07/22_politics.shtml

[CBHagman]

7. Excellent points.

By the way, you'd get the impression from today's politicians that the Bible was 33 percent about condemning homosexuality, 33 percent about abortion, and 33 percent about ensuring that the wealthiest obtain even more wealth. At least that's the way the Christian Coalition and their ilk seem to act.

The reality is that in the four Gospels Jesus makes no mention of homosexuality, though the topic is covered in a couple of espistles (attributable to disciples) and in the Old Testament.

Abortion is not mentioned in the Bible.

As for the topic of the wealthiest, there is a lot in the Scriptures to make the current religious right in this country very, very uncomfortable. I exempt people like Gary Bauer, who do mention issues of social justice and the poor.

At any rate, I think that progressives are the hard-nosed pragmatists, not today's religious right. The current administration recites a mantra of completely fallacious notions and gets away with it, for the most part, because what they say sounds good to those who believe in the strict father model.

[AuntiBush]

15. I call it the "Pied Piper Syndrome."

They blow-out what certain American's want to hear, or can not equate with anything but their narrow-minded agenda (abortion/gays/liberal judges), and they follow off the pier like MICE!

[Arkana]

8. A kick for the later crowd.

[hfojvt]

9. you seem to be appealling to liberal pride here

subject: Homosexuality

For some people the Bible IS the ultimate authority. What blows my mind is the people who ignore the rest of the Bible and yet use the Bible as an excuse for their homophobia.
I feel the stronger argument is the one that shows that there is alot of other crap in Leviticus that nobody pays any attention to, and second that the Bible and Jesus say far more about greed than they do about sex.

Thus I find weaknesses in some of your arguments. You have lopped off the heads of a few strawmen, but the Republican noise machine is a hydra spewing out tons of misinformation and attacks and forcing us to react as some of them stick for some people.

Second, you have not applied the same "ruthless criticism" to Democratic arguments. Thus your claim that "we are the logicians" is not proven by showing that "they are not".

Finally you do not need a logic class to find out that Bush was full of crap when he claimed that "we know where he stands." But that is more a matter of observation than it is logic, as I wrote:

"For over four years Bush has lied and lied and lied about the way his tax cuts primarily benefit the rich. He has lied about numbers which any honest accountant can verify. As a mathematician and an economist, I am outraged by his dishonesty and flabbergasted at his audacity. The audacity to spend over four years lying and then to say "we may disagree, but at least I am a straight talker". In a sense, however, he is right. Those of us who pay attention do know where he stands, on the side of the rich, the powerful, the intolerant, the unthinking, the dogmatic, and pragmatically, on the side of untruth. I know that, however, not by believing what he says, but by watching what he does."

[Arkana]

10. Legally, the Bible is NOT the ultimate authority, and that's what I meant

Plus, I'm not doing the Democrats because they're not the ones on the defensive. We may not be the perfect logicians, but they are the party of the ultimate rejection of logic.

[hfojvt]

11. is the ultimate authority in the legal system

relevant to the argument? I thought the argument was about which way people will vote about homosexuality. So how is the legal system even relevant?

Does your logic class say anything about arguing with questions? Isn't it an effective way to avoid answering any arguments simply by asking questions until the other person runs out of answers or trips up on an answer?

[Arkana]

12. Yes, it's called complex questioning

They ask "loaded questions" that are designed to fool or mislead another person.

I concede that saying the Bible is not the ultimate authority might have been a bit misleading--what I should have said was that not everyone accepts it, so it does not necessarily have the last word.

[hfojvt]

13. enough people probably accept it or respect it

the Bible, that is, so that questioning it is not going to win you very many arguments or friends (except in some quarters, but not enough to win an election). But their argument from authority is not very convincing either. Maybe convincing enough for people who do not have a dog in the hunt.

[northernsoul]

14. don't forget confusing corellation and causation

people on both sides do that one a lot.

[AuntiBush]

16. Excellent ~ Very, logical, in deed!

Thank you!

Kicked!

[followthemoney]

17. Emotion precedes Logic - Machiavellian Logic

What they want they will plan to get. Instill fear in the people and offer security. The logic of the masses leading to the vote for Bush
was the result of the emotions stimulated and solution offered. Machiavellian Logic. Too simple to be effective on the analytical. Very effective on the simple. Logic goes over the head of the emotional.