Alright, so there have been several threads lately that have kicked off much of a debate. Also, there has been many a thread attempting to appeal for calm and reason as these arguments have become quite heated. If you must, you can place this thread in the latter category. I am attempting to show some basic argumentative and rhetorical fallacies that I am -without naming names- seeing pop up on all sides of these discussions. We will be going over quite a lot here, but please bear with me as this knowledge will serve you well even after the current debates are long forgotten.
First up, many people are referring to others as being "ideological" in these debates, and this is true, strictly speaking. Let's define Ideology: in the postmodern semiological definition of the term, Ideology is a form of pattern recognition. This is quite literally what the human brain is designed to do, and as such, we are all ideological creatures. For example: I know that Charles Manson is a bad person because I possess an ideology that states "murder is wrong." If I did not rely on this ideology, I would have to examine the evidence in the case, or even interview witnesses and Mr. Manson himself to reach a conclusion. Ideology allows me to make fast decisions about complex problems through the recognition of patterns, nothing more. What matters is how we use ideology, and our ability to question, reassess, and rewrite patterns that we had previously made, and that we now find incorrect. Indeed, most moral philosophies see a duty to call out and correct ideology when necessary, but remember that both you and I are ideological beings as well, and we all have many incorrect ways of applying our ideology.
If we wish to avoid circular arguments that do not really go anywhere and do not serve to establish fact or inform opinions, knowing our classic logical fallacies can help greatly in forming an argument that is intelligent and convincing. Also, we can avoid the dreaded argumentum ad nauseam
Let's start with the classic informal logical fallacy:
Argumentum ad hominem
To argue against the man. (Ironically funny considering the recent debates, isn't it?) Really, let's interpret this as "to argue against the person." I will give an absurdist illustration: "Einstein married his cousin, thus all his work should be ignored and he should be forgotten by history." You can clearly see how this is a fallacy here. But in the real world, this is often used in politics to "mudsling" and turn the conversation away from policy towards nonsensical and often erroneous topics invented by those without the ability to win a fair argument. Remember though, that no matter how much one tries to dirty the conversation, in the end, the text itself will stand alone. Eventually, you will either have to fight, defeat, or submit to an argument itself, regardless of the faults of the person who authored it. It is best to realize this straight away and attack the argument rather than than person.
Argumentum ad populum
To argue that something is right because it is a common or universal belief.
"Galileo, you are the only person in Europe who believes that the Earth revolves around the sun. Thus, you are wrong." This is another major tact in political rhetoric, and equally harmful. Often, certain policies are labeled as being "extremist," rather than plainly arguing their merits or problems. It helps to remember that many things we take for granted today were once considered extremist, and were even quite unpopular when first introduced. Also, this fallacy protects the status quo unfairly from legitimate and insightful critique. A hundred years ago, if I proposed a law allowing interracial marriage, I may have been shouted down with the ad populum, but I would still have been equally correct from a rational and moral standpoint. The ad populum is often confused with:
Argumentum ab auctoritate
To argue that the authority of the person asserting is proof of the assertion's truth.
"I have my degree in Physics, and I can assure you that space aliens are real." If you do indeed have such authority, then you should be quite skilled at making and proving arguments in that field. Thus you should argue rather than appeal to outside, often socially applied, authority. This argument can also -and is most often- used by proxy: "Since the government says Saddam Hussain has WMDs, he must have them. How could you know more than the government?" The ab auctoritate here refers not to one's self, but to a conformist ideology of authority, and is used to silence dissent as well as self-justify the person making the assertion. This has applications in the field of psychology that I will not go into here. However, it is worth noting that no actual facts are established nor arguments made with the ab auctoritate, it is a self-perpetuating, and often comforting, logical fallacy.
Argumentum ad homonen or homonem
Note that both spellings considered correct, though I believe homonen is slightly more accurate. Though this mixes Greek with Latin, "Homo" meaning "same" and the suffix "-en" to make, just as the modern English suffix: to "weaken" means so make something weak.
To argue that this is the same as that, regardless of circumstance, context, or weight. "In the 1290s, England purged all of its Jews, forcing them to flee or convert to Christianity. Thus, it had no moral right to oppose Germany's treatment of Jewish persons during WWII." Few would argue this point, but in reality, many times the ad homonen is invoked it has at least some measure of truth. For example: During the earlier parts of WWII, before the "final solution," many Americans pointed out -rightly- that the German treatment of Jews was not that different from America's own treatment of African-Americans. The concentration of the population into ghettos, the restriction of rights, the disenfranchisement and segregation suffered by Jews did have many moral parallels in the US. However, there is one major issue that makes this fallacy dangerous: the fallacy is usually invoked with the intention of preventing, delaying, or nullifying action. Certainly in the case of WWII, this could have led to disastrous consequences.
To go with a less depressing example of the ad homonen at work: A few years back Mr. Rush Limbaugh called Ms. Sandra Fluke, a woman who was publicly advocating for birth control, a "s***" on his radio program. Eventually he apologized, but many came to his defense citing that the libertarian TV host Mr. Bill Maher had previously called then-Governor Sarah Pailin a similarly offensive and derogatory term. This is a clear illustration of the fallacy at work: its intent is rarely to constructively advocate for moral equality, but to assume moral equality in a negative sense. Thus, then end finds all morality obliterated under an infinite accumulation of amoral acts.
Returning to the WWII example: England's treatment of Jews during the medieval era does not absolve it of its moral duty to protect Jews in Europe during the 20th century. In fact under every sane moral philosophy, this fact intensifies England's duty to protect Jews in Europe. Similarly, America's treatment of blacks did not make it free from its prerogative to stop the genocide of millions of innocent people. To assert that "since moral authority was undermined, thus no action should have been taken" completely undermines the basic moral concepts of forgiveness and self-fallibility. And just because you are not right all the time, does not mean that you should not act when you feel that you are correct.
During the negotiations for the first Geneva Convention, one of the diplomats involved cited the "ad homonen of atrocity" as one of the major reasons why nations had difficulty reaching armistice, even when both nations clearly wanted peace. Basically speaking, the arguments would devolve into a comparison of atrocities committed during the fighting, with the only results being the continuation of conflict and the despair of the negotiating parties.Ad homonen is usually a moral argument, but one that strives only for a thin moral "equivalence" rather than moral excellence.
Argumentum e silentio or et silentio
To argue that absence of evidence is evidence. This one is much more simple, thankfully. "Mr. X had to have robbed that bank, because the police have no evidence on anyone else." This is closely related to the modern concept of "burden of proof," which thankfully lies now with the prosecution in criminal cases. You have heard stories of a stranger coming into town the night a murder takes place, then being convicted of the crime despite thin -if any- evidence. In criminal law, this is well-established in theory, if not in practice. However, in discussions like this, it can be very tricky to establish upon which side the burden of proof is placed, if it is placed at all. For that reason, it is best to simply assume that the burden is indeed on yourself, in order to prevent an e silentio in your argument. With that in mind, avoid:
Onus probandi
From the Latin onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat which is a sentence that I don't understand either, so don't feel bad. Basically, this means to shift the burden of proof onto your opponent in an unfair manner. "You called me bad at math? I assure you sir, I am a genius! I am the only person to realize that 2+2=5, and you cannot prove otherwise!" In situations where the burden of proof can be clearly established, either rationally or morally, the onus probandi seeks to eschew that burden illogically, usually to hold onto a position that is otherwise indefensible.
Condescending generalization
Finally! something that isn't Latin, Greek, or both! So, this is easier to explain, I hope. "I once met someone from Australia, they were hanging upside down because they are so used to that down there. Filthy upside-downers." Sure, maybe you met a gymnast from Australia, who happened to be hanging upside down at the time, but it does not follow that they are upside-down all the time, nor that they are filthy. The condescending generalization is always a function of ideology, as we defined it earlier in the post, and this is important to remember. Here we see that the person making the generalization has recognized erroneous patterns, based off of what is likely a small sample. The other part of this fallacy is that it always favors the accuser psychologically, it works much like the ad populum in that can create a sense of superiority over those with which the accuser is engaged, and thus can become self-perpetuating and circular. Hence, "condescending."
Wikipedia has a whole list of these fallacies, though few if any have decent definitions. Check out their list if you want: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies Add some more of your own to this thread if you want, as I am out of time to write any more now.
Before I go, I do want to bring up one more semiological definition, though. I have seen this a few times in these forums, and I want to make sure it is straight, and that is the difference between "discussion" and "discourse." The two words are often used interchangeably, but this is an error. A discussion is just that: a conversation. It can be between any number of people, so any thread on these forums can be called a discussion. A discourse is like that, but several orders of magnitude higher. Discourse is a function not of single people, but of an entire culture or sub-culture. Discourses can include their own definitions of words and phrases as well, as they have a somewhat shared signified due to their own repeated conversations. Please try to remember this, that not everyone will define a "feminist" in the same way that you will, because they come from an entirely different discourse, with different -but equally legitimate- definitions and ideologies.
Thank You.
First up, many people are referring to others as being "ideological" in these debates, and this is true, strictly speaking. Let's define Ideology: in the postmodern semiological definition of the term, Ideology is a form of pattern recognition. This is quite literally what the human brain is designed to do, and as such, we are all ideological creatures. For example: I know that Charles Manson is a bad person because I possess an ideology that states "murder is wrong." If I did not rely on this ideology, I would have to examine the evidence in the case, or even interview witnesses and Mr. Manson himself to reach a conclusion. Ideology allows me to make fast decisions about complex problems through the recognition of patterns, nothing more. What matters is how we use ideology, and our ability to question, reassess, and rewrite patterns that we had previously made, and that we now find incorrect. Indeed, most moral philosophies see a duty to call out and correct ideology when necessary, but remember that both you and I are ideological beings as well, and we all have many incorrect ways of applying our ideology.
If we wish to avoid circular arguments that do not really go anywhere and do not serve to establish fact or inform opinions, knowing our classic logical fallacies can help greatly in forming an argument that is intelligent and convincing. Also, we can avoid the dreaded argumentum ad nauseam
Let's start with the classic informal logical fallacy:
Argumentum ad hominem
To argue against the man. (Ironically funny considering the recent debates, isn't it?) Really, let's interpret this as "to argue against the person." I will give an absurdist illustration: "Einstein married his cousin, thus all his work should be ignored and he should be forgotten by history." You can clearly see how this is a fallacy here. But in the real world, this is often used in politics to "mudsling" and turn the conversation away from policy towards nonsensical and often erroneous topics invented by those without the ability to win a fair argument. Remember though, that no matter how much one tries to dirty the conversation, in the end, the text itself will stand alone. Eventually, you will either have to fight, defeat, or submit to an argument itself, regardless of the faults of the person who authored it. It is best to realize this straight away and attack the argument rather than than person.
Argumentum ad populum
To argue that something is right because it is a common or universal belief.
"Galileo, you are the only person in Europe who believes that the Earth revolves around the sun. Thus, you are wrong." This is another major tact in political rhetoric, and equally harmful. Often, certain policies are labeled as being "extremist," rather than plainly arguing their merits or problems. It helps to remember that many things we take for granted today were once considered extremist, and were even quite unpopular when first introduced. Also, this fallacy protects the status quo unfairly from legitimate and insightful critique. A hundred years ago, if I proposed a law allowing interracial marriage, I may have been shouted down with the ad populum, but I would still have been equally correct from a rational and moral standpoint. The ad populum is often confused with:
Argumentum ab auctoritate
To argue that the authority of the person asserting is proof of the assertion's truth.
"I have my degree in Physics, and I can assure you that space aliens are real." If you do indeed have such authority, then you should be quite skilled at making and proving arguments in that field. Thus you should argue rather than appeal to outside, often socially applied, authority. This argument can also -and is most often- used by proxy: "Since the government says Saddam Hussain has WMDs, he must have them. How could you know more than the government?" The ab auctoritate here refers not to one's self, but to a conformist ideology of authority, and is used to silence dissent as well as self-justify the person making the assertion. This has applications in the field of psychology that I will not go into here. However, it is worth noting that no actual facts are established nor arguments made with the ab auctoritate, it is a self-perpetuating, and often comforting, logical fallacy.
Argumentum ad homonen or homonem
Note that both spellings considered correct, though I believe homonen is slightly more accurate. Though this mixes Greek with Latin, "Homo" meaning "same" and the suffix "-en" to make, just as the modern English suffix: to "weaken" means so make something weak.
To argue that this is the same as that, regardless of circumstance, context, or weight. "In the 1290s, England purged all of its Jews, forcing them to flee or convert to Christianity. Thus, it had no moral right to oppose Germany's treatment of Jewish persons during WWII." Few would argue this point, but in reality, many times the ad homonen is invoked it has at least some measure of truth. For example: During the earlier parts of WWII, before the "final solution," many Americans pointed out -rightly- that the German treatment of Jews was not that different from America's own treatment of African-Americans. The concentration of the population into ghettos, the restriction of rights, the disenfranchisement and segregation suffered by Jews did have many moral parallels in the US. However, there is one major issue that makes this fallacy dangerous: the fallacy is usually invoked with the intention of preventing, delaying, or nullifying action. Certainly in the case of WWII, this could have led to disastrous consequences.
To go with a less depressing example of the ad homonen at work: A few years back Mr. Rush Limbaugh called Ms. Sandra Fluke, a woman who was publicly advocating for birth control, a "s***" on his radio program. Eventually he apologized, but many came to his defense citing that the libertarian TV host Mr. Bill Maher had previously called then-Governor Sarah Pailin a similarly offensive and derogatory term. This is a clear illustration of the fallacy at work: its intent is rarely to constructively advocate for moral equality, but to assume moral equality in a negative sense. Thus, then end finds all morality obliterated under an infinite accumulation of amoral acts.
Returning to the WWII example: England's treatment of Jews during the medieval era does not absolve it of its moral duty to protect Jews in Europe during the 20th century. In fact under every sane moral philosophy, this fact intensifies England's duty to protect Jews in Europe. Similarly, America's treatment of blacks did not make it free from its prerogative to stop the genocide of millions of innocent people. To assert that "since moral authority was undermined, thus no action should have been taken" completely undermines the basic moral concepts of forgiveness and self-fallibility. And just because you are not right all the time, does not mean that you should not act when you feel that you are correct.
During the negotiations for the first Geneva Convention, one of the diplomats involved cited the "ad homonen of atrocity" as one of the major reasons why nations had difficulty reaching armistice, even when both nations clearly wanted peace. Basically speaking, the arguments would devolve into a comparison of atrocities committed during the fighting, with the only results being the continuation of conflict and the despair of the negotiating parties.Ad homonen is usually a moral argument, but one that strives only for a thin moral "equivalence" rather than moral excellence.
Argumentum e silentio or et silentio
To argue that absence of evidence is evidence. This one is much more simple, thankfully. "Mr. X had to have robbed that bank, because the police have no evidence on anyone else." This is closely related to the modern concept of "burden of proof," which thankfully lies now with the prosecution in criminal cases. You have heard stories of a stranger coming into town the night a murder takes place, then being convicted of the crime despite thin -if any- evidence. In criminal law, this is well-established in theory, if not in practice. However, in discussions like this, it can be very tricky to establish upon which side the burden of proof is placed, if it is placed at all. For that reason, it is best to simply assume that the burden is indeed on yourself, in order to prevent an e silentio in your argument. With that in mind, avoid:
Onus probandi
From the Latin onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat which is a sentence that I don't understand either, so don't feel bad. Basically, this means to shift the burden of proof onto your opponent in an unfair manner. "You called me bad at math? I assure you sir, I am a genius! I am the only person to realize that 2+2=5, and you cannot prove otherwise!" In situations where the burden of proof can be clearly established, either rationally or morally, the onus probandi seeks to eschew that burden illogically, usually to hold onto a position that is otherwise indefensible.
Condescending generalization
Finally! something that isn't Latin, Greek, or both! So, this is easier to explain, I hope. "I once met someone from Australia, they were hanging upside down because they are so used to that down there. Filthy upside-downers." Sure, maybe you met a gymnast from Australia, who happened to be hanging upside down at the time, but it does not follow that they are upside-down all the time, nor that they are filthy. The condescending generalization is always a function of ideology, as we defined it earlier in the post, and this is important to remember. Here we see that the person making the generalization has recognized erroneous patterns, based off of what is likely a small sample. The other part of this fallacy is that it always favors the accuser psychologically, it works much like the ad populum in that can create a sense of superiority over those with which the accuser is engaged, and thus can become self-perpetuating and circular. Hence, "condescending."
Wikipedia has a whole list of these fallacies, though few if any have decent definitions. Check out their list if you want: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies Add some more of your own to this thread if you want, as I am out of time to write any more now.
Before I go, I do want to bring up one more semiological definition, though. I have seen this a few times in these forums, and I want to make sure it is straight, and that is the difference between "discussion" and "discourse." The two words are often used interchangeably, but this is an error. A discussion is just that: a conversation. It can be between any number of people, so any thread on these forums can be called a discussion. A discourse is like that, but several orders of magnitude higher. Discourse is a function not of single people, but of an entire culture or sub-culture. Discourses can include their own definitions of words and phrases as well, as they have a somewhat shared signified due to their own repeated conversations. Please try to remember this, that not everyone will define a "feminist" in the same way that you will, because they come from an entirely different discourse, with different -but equally legitimate- definitions and ideologies.
Thank You.
