Plan for the Night
- Don’t for your Critical Thinking Essay is DUE Friday, 2/10
- Weekly Discussion Post #5 is also due 2/10
- Moving along on Michael Withey’s Mastering Logical Fallacies
- Special attention to statistical fallacies
- More Highlights from Introducing American Politics
I’ll explain this section. I forgot about grouping the statistics-ish fallacies together, so I had to come up with something on the fly. I have pages from other classes that have good examples for us:
Powerful Forecasters Can Predict, Define, and Shape Simultaneously
- p. 148: An economist’s “proximity to the markets enables [him or her] to keep a little ahead of those whose information comes to them second-hand.”
- p. 148: “If you are a powerful forecaster…the more people believe you, the more likely is it that your forecast will come true.”
These powerful forecasters convey the meaning of the models and the economy itself.
The economy runs on our assumptions that exchange is valuable. Money and credit is valuable because we’ve been indoctrinated to believe it’s valuable. We can be certain (well, 95% certain) that most consumers will make rational decisions with their money. If most do that, we can make small predictions based on what we’ve seen in the past. Don’t let ANYONE tell you any economic policy will lead to a definite outcome. We can find empirical examples for when the following policies worked and didn’t work: Cutting taxes leads to growth; increasing taxes reduces the deficit; investing in this will yield high returns. After all, not only do economists state “all things being equal,” but financial planners always warn (even if it’s just in fine print): “past performance is not a predictor of future results.”
There’s also a problem with the “certainty” that people make rational decisions with their money. Americans spend lots of money on gifts during Christmas, but the value for the recipient is much less than what the buyer paid for the gift. More information on that discussion is here. No, seriously, buying gifts is a waste of money. (Those links aren’t required reading, but they might save you money…)
This discussion comes from Collins, Harry M. & Trevor Pinch. The Golem at Large: What You Should Know about Technology. 2nd Ed. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2014. {Available through Atkins}
Michael Withey’s Mastering Logical Fallacies (pp. 131-194)
Ludic Fallacy (p. 131)
Experts have formal models of phenomena, but no model can predict all outcomes because models are simplified versions of reality–they’re abstractions. They can be quite useful, but they can also be misleading. Besides needing to critique ceteris paribus (“all things being equal”), one must read the fine print a note that past performance does not guarantee future results.
Moralistic Fallacy (p. 139)–this is the case because it ought to be this way
The English Department falls victim to this fallacy quite often, especially when budget cuts head our way. The assumption is that we ought to have tenure-line faculty for every literary period; therefore, the powers that be must give us faculty lines. There will also be appeals to tradition and Western civilization.
There are other arguments that follow this that make us feel good to say, but we don’t scrutinize them closely enough. Consider the book’s example, “All people should be equal. Therefore, one person cannot have any innately superior talents compared to others” (p. 139). Let’s push our thinking here. What does it mean for all people to be equal? Do we want that across the board, or do we have caveats we assume others understand when we make claims about equality?
By the way, Kurt Vonnegut’s “Harrison Bergeron” is an interesting short story about this that might come up in the Fall 2023 Science Fiction & American Culture Class…
Moving the Goalposts (p. 143)–changing the parameters of a debate
The book does a good job pointing out that this means “to raise, or lower, the standard of proff required for acceptance of an argument” (p. 143), which is generally easy to see. What’s more difficulty to demonstrate (and an extremely annoying to attempt) is when the other party doesn’t stick to the parameters of the debate.
Naturalistic Fallacy (p. 150)
This fallacy uses standards supposedly derived from nature to claim what humans should do. The key to this fallacy is recognizing that “nature,” isn’t a good arbiter for establishing the validity of something. After all, meerkats will kill rival females’ babies and make the mothers nurse her own babies…it’s nature.
Proving Non-Existence (p. 159)
I know, I know…you’ve seen ghost hunter shows that prove ghosts haunt places. It is extremely difficult to prove something doesn’t exist. Prove that I don’t have a magic carpet I fly around on to assist the Flying Spaghetti Monster in its shenanigans. What often happens is the proponent of prove it doesn’t exist is shifting the burden of proof to you to prove the impossible. This is offense to an intellectual.
Red Herring (p. 162)
Politicians are famous for this fallacy (and most of these by the way) because they often want to shift attention to a topic that gives them more support with their base. The Presidential Debates are sham displays of talking points with no debate substance (or very little we’d accept in a formal debate). Opponents want to focus attention of their own points. They may also slip in comments later in a statement that–juxtaposed with seemingly valid points–make the statement seem to answer the question or just follow the topic. For instance, during the Vice Presidential Debate in 2020, former VP Mike Pence responded this way to a question about the then newly appointed Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett:
- “President Trump and I could not be more enthusiastic about the opportunity to see Amy Coney Barrett become Justice Amy Coney Barrett. She’s a brilliant woman, and she will bring a lifetime of experience and a sizable American family, to the Supreme Court of the United States.”
- When did family size become a criterion for being a SCOTUS Justice?
Let’s pause on the example Withey uses to introduce red herring. Following formal logic, Withey is correct that China’s occupation of Tibet is irrelevant to the US invasion of Iraq. However, pointing out one’s hypocrisy could very well be relevant to the topic at hand. Why isn’t it appropriate to call out one’s inconsistencies in foreign policy, especially when that person is deriding the intervention of one country but ignoring the imperialistic policies of their own country?
Reductio Ad Absurdum (p. 165)
Similar to Slippery Slope (p. 175), this fallacy claims that if one believes X, they’ll certainly believe Y, but ‘Y’ is absurd. The most recent big version of this was on same-sex marriage. People against marriage equality would scoff: “you want man to marry man? That’s unnatural. You’re probably fine with humans marrying animals.”
Reductio Ad Hitlerum (p. 168)
This doesn’t just have to involve Hitler. The fallacy is an extreme version of ad hominem (pp. 16-28), but instead of attacking the character of a person in an attempt to invalidate a claim, this fallacy uses a practice of someone considered vile (like Hitler) to discredit it. I mean, Hitler drank water…
Sunk Cost (p. 187)–aka defense of marriage
I mostly see this in personal interactions, but there are some bigger, societal-wide examples. Withey rightly points out that this is less about logic and more about “psychology and economics” (p. 167). Maybe the emotion isn’t fear, but we might not want to give up because, as the cliché goes, “hope springs eternal.” You’ve put so much time, effort, and money into something that won’t provide a return or work out, but you just can’t let it go. This happens when someone buys a ring and gives it to their future spouse to be engaged. Months of planning for a wedding occur, non-refundable deposits are made, and the couple settles into the inevitable. One (or both) of the couple finds out something rotten about their partner, something that should be a deal breaker; however, because so much effort went into planning the wedding, they go through with it. Because that makes sense, right?
Unfalsifiability (p. 189)
In another class, I’d assign Cy Knoblauch’s Discursive Ideologies, but let’s just quote him here: “science cannot make direct, affirmative statements about the phenomena of the physical world” (p. 91). Science or scientific claims can be falsified, meaning there must be a way to make a statement not true. Another way to think about this is burden of proof. For those making claims that aren’t scientifically falsifiable, the burden of proof lies with those making the claim, and they can’t shift that claim to others. Imagine this: I fly around in a Magic carpet, but you can’t see it because I make it invisible. You don’t believe me? Prove I don’t have this magic carpet. It is nonsense to believe that I’m right about the magic carpet just because you can’t see it.
Why the obsession with magic carpets?
More Highlights from Introducing American Politics (pp. 82-176)
Again, this is more of reference, but it has some important topics we might want to highlight. We probably won’t get around to it tonight, but we should use it to compare with our next reading Kevin Passmore’s Fascism.
- p. 82: “…evenly enforced laws give democratic society the predictability it needs to function.”
- p. 85: “US Justices serve a lifetime term, which is supposed to reduce their ability to be influenced by the politics of the moment…”
- p. 86: “Original meaning focuses more directly on language, taking the view that, while circumstances may change, we cannot reinterpret the words in the Constitution to fit.”
- This is the definition of conservatism–who benefits by arguing things ought not change?
- p. 92: “Natives….were only granted citizenship in the US in 1924, with the Indian Citizenship Act.”
- p. 95: “The land of tribes that were terminated was purchased by the government.”
- p. 98: Hard and soft power (propaganda).
- p. 99: “…waging a preventative war, to prevent a sequence of events that could possibly pose a threat later.”
- p. 106: “…as the population has aged there have been more and more elderly claiming benefits with fewer people paying [into Social Security].”
- p. 109: “It seems like we are treating people in poverty like criminals and freeloaders.”
- p. 110: “Is it American to force people to pay for something that they don’t want.”
- Let’s follow that logic. Who wants to pay for the invasion of Vietnam, Iraq, etc.?
- p. 111: Rachel Carson–“We still talk in terms of conquest.”
- p. 112: “…much of global warming is simply out of our control. We can’t let our economy tank in the meantime.”
- Let’s dissect this argument: Policies aimed at reducing carbon pollution require regulations that are costly. These costs are foolish because we can’t do anything about global warming. Therefore, we shouldn’t both because it risks hurting our economy.
- This argument and similar ones suggest policies can’t both protect the environment AND boost/maintain the economy.
- Let’s dissect this argument: Policies aimed at reducing carbon pollution require regulations that are costly. These costs are foolish because we can’t do anything about global warming. Therefore, we shouldn’t both because it risks hurting our economy.
- p. 113: Just Say No and prisons
- p. 117: The rhetoric of Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib.
- The tragedy of Abu Ghraib goes beyond a matter of procedures followed or “enhanced”; it was the all-too-common result of a hegemonic power exerting influence over a group to maintain dominance and secure its interests. “I was only following orders” is not the same defense for those on the losing side as it is for those on the winning side. –Toscano, 2020, p. 29
- p. 123: “…with 27 Americans shot dead every day, the United States is an extreme outlier in the world.”
- “…our ability to defend our homes and families….At least I will be prepared…”
- p. 130: “If we tax [businesses] more they won’t be able to create jobs or they will go overseas.”
- A common fear appeal
- p. 134: “…the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets limits on the pollution that manufacturers can emit.”
- Notice that such a statement underscores the anthropocentrism of the EPA–we can pollute, but we’ll limit it.
- p. 142: “…social media often doesn’t expose users to diverse viewpoints…”
- p. 143: Cable news and “the repetition of stories”
- Check out this from The Daily Show with John Stewart, “CNN Leaves It There” (10/12/2009)
- p. 149: Citizens United v. FEC
- This ruling is 100% American, but it isn’t democratic. Let’s discuss.
- p. 156: 3rd and 4th Wave Feminism
- p. 158: “If we let everyone get married, marriage will mean nothing.”
- What fallacy might that be? Reductio ad Absurdum
- p. 166: “I thought [Colin Kaepernick] was utterly disrespectful of all of the veterans who lost their lives protecting that flag.”
- Whoa! Lots to unpack here. Let’s see how willing we are to analyze this critically.
- p. 171: “…Obama activated racists. They can’t handle anyone different from them gaining power.”
Next Week
I’m positive we’ll have some catching up to do, but forge ahead on the reading for next week: Kevin Passmore’s Fascism Ch. 1, 2, and 3. (pp. 1-55). Pay attention to the use of propaganda and, of course, fear appeals. Remember, your Critical Thinking Essay is DUE Friday, 2/10–so is your Weekly Discussion Post #5.