Informal Fallacies: An Introduction
All conspiracy theories operate under a fallacy. They have to otherwise they wouldn't be conspiracy theories and there are hundreds of fallacies that can apply. Everything from bias reporting, cherry picking, argument from ignorance, to newer ones that are just becoming apparent in the age of the internet. It becomes necessary when teaching skepticism to point out the most popular fallacies in reasoning, but then there lies the possibility of taking it too far.
The problem with informal fallacies is that they depend on context. This is in contrast to formal fallacies which depend on neither context or words. P & ~P is always false it does not matter what "P" stands for. Our good friend Ockham said that the law of non-contradiction is the only law that binds god. Yet the informal fallacy is so context driven that the point gets missed by even intrepid, intelligent, and good looking informal logic instructors sometimes neglect it.
We'll start with Ad Hominem fallacy in order to show the problem. Ad Hominem, translates from the Latin, as "against the body." This is a fallacy of attacking the person instead of the argument they are putting forth. If I disregard what my partner is saying because she's blonde, that's ad hominem. Again context matters, because if she's arguing how hard it is to have black hair, I can dismiss her opinion as she's unlikely to have first hand experience.
The Birther conspiracy is a good example. This is the claim that president Chester A. Arthur was born in Ireland and thus not fit to legally hold the office of President of the United States. They claimed that he was a secret Catholic. When that didn't work, the claim was shifted that he was born in Canada and still not legally allowed to be then Vice President. This conspiracy will later be applied to a different president, but I forget which one. In both the past case and the more recent past case, the person occupying the office of the president is claimed to have been an immigrant who's interests are not those of the country.
If we assume the argument to be true, then the Ad Hominem fallacy is not a fallacy. The persons are legally forbidden from holding the office of the president. It's a rather archaic law, but one which made perfect sense at the time. The framers of the Constitution did not want a person whose allegiance was to a foreign monarch to hold the executive power over the United States. Attacking the person for their place of birth makes sense in this respect. However as neither accusation against either Arthur or Obama, were true than the argument is fallacious. It only serves to insult the person or deride any of their ideas based on the notion that they are not "like us."
Contextually both arguments were made at times when there was a social disdain and even hatred of different cultures based on fears of unwashed foreign peoples taking over the country. Obama's case is only obvious because it's so recent. Our current president exploited his supporter's fears of Muslims and Muslim countries by latching on to the idea, which already existed, that Barak Obama was born in Kenya (which is funny because Kenya is one of the most Christian countries in Africa by a wide margin). Just as Chester Arthur's Irish birthplace was not chosen randomly. Irish immigration was seen as the same threat during his time as Vice President. Indeed the Irish immigrant service in the Civil War did not do anything to assist their acceptance into American society. The argument of birtherism is plain xenophobic racism. It cannot be argued differently: either by supporters of Arthur Hinman or the various Obama birthers. Otherwise, why pick out the nation of origin?
We want to critique a person's experience or knowledge, and in pointing out their lack on a specific subject we can surely commit the fallacy just as easily as being contextually appropriate. Actress Christian Hendricks doesn't have an expert knowledge on rain coats, yet she advertises for London Fog. What's her qualification? She looks good in one. Which is basically all we need in a print ad for a rain coat, and that's the issue with most ads. Whether it's some sports star selling deodorant or a pop singer selling Pepsi; we are aware that they aren't experts and we ought to be aware that their faces aren't appearing without a paycheck accompanying it. Is it Ad Hominem to point out that Christina Aguilera sold Pepsi when she used to sell Coke? What are we saying here that she's a brand traitor and the whole thing is a lie? Of course not, it doesn't make sense and given the context we ought to understand that it's a job for her.
There are times when the fallacies are appropriate. If two people are arguing over the age of the Earth it is a good idea to check out their credentials to see if they are qualified to make such assertions. Which person has a better grasp on quantum physics: Deepak Chopra or Lawrence Krauss? Which person should we listen to on medical advice: the woman who played Pepper Potts in Ironman or a Gynecologist?
To close: the biggest problem with teaching any of the informal fallacies again is that they often get taught without good instruction on when they are appropriate to use. A person who constantly ad hominems is no better than a person who pedantically derails any conversation pointing out the fallacies as their partner variously tip toes into what could be considered one. As Aristotle would recommend, you must take the middle path using what's appropriate at the right time.
The problem with informal fallacies is that they depend on context. This is in contrast to formal fallacies which depend on neither context or words. P & ~P is always false it does not matter what "P" stands for. Our good friend Ockham said that the law of non-contradiction is the only law that binds god. Yet the informal fallacy is so context driven that the point gets missed by even intrepid, intelligent, and good looking informal logic instructors sometimes neglect it.
We'll start with Ad Hominem fallacy in order to show the problem. Ad Hominem, translates from the Latin, as "against the body." This is a fallacy of attacking the person instead of the argument they are putting forth. If I disregard what my partner is saying because she's blonde, that's ad hominem. Again context matters, because if she's arguing how hard it is to have black hair, I can dismiss her opinion as she's unlikely to have first hand experience.
The Birther conspiracy is a good example. This is the claim that president Chester A. Arthur was born in Ireland and thus not fit to legally hold the office of President of the United States. They claimed that he was a secret Catholic. When that didn't work, the claim was shifted that he was born in Canada and still not legally allowed to be then Vice President. This conspiracy will later be applied to a different president, but I forget which one. In both the past case and the more recent past case, the person occupying the office of the president is claimed to have been an immigrant who's interests are not those of the country.
If we assume the argument to be true, then the Ad Hominem fallacy is not a fallacy. The persons are legally forbidden from holding the office of the president. It's a rather archaic law, but one which made perfect sense at the time. The framers of the Constitution did not want a person whose allegiance was to a foreign monarch to hold the executive power over the United States. Attacking the person for their place of birth makes sense in this respect. However as neither accusation against either Arthur or Obama, were true than the argument is fallacious. It only serves to insult the person or deride any of their ideas based on the notion that they are not "like us."
Contextually both arguments were made at times when there was a social disdain and even hatred of different cultures based on fears of unwashed foreign peoples taking over the country. Obama's case is only obvious because it's so recent. Our current president exploited his supporter's fears of Muslims and Muslim countries by latching on to the idea, which already existed, that Barak Obama was born in Kenya (which is funny because Kenya is one of the most Christian countries in Africa by a wide margin). Just as Chester Arthur's Irish birthplace was not chosen randomly. Irish immigration was seen as the same threat during his time as Vice President. Indeed the Irish immigrant service in the Civil War did not do anything to assist their acceptance into American society. The argument of birtherism is plain xenophobic racism. It cannot be argued differently: either by supporters of Arthur Hinman or the various Obama birthers. Otherwise, why pick out the nation of origin?
We want to critique a person's experience or knowledge, and in pointing out their lack on a specific subject we can surely commit the fallacy just as easily as being contextually appropriate. Actress Christian Hendricks doesn't have an expert knowledge on rain coats, yet she advertises for London Fog. What's her qualification? She looks good in one. Which is basically all we need in a print ad for a rain coat, and that's the issue with most ads. Whether it's some sports star selling deodorant or a pop singer selling Pepsi; we are aware that they aren't experts and we ought to be aware that their faces aren't appearing without a paycheck accompanying it. Is it Ad Hominem to point out that Christina Aguilera sold Pepsi when she used to sell Coke? What are we saying here that she's a brand traitor and the whole thing is a lie? Of course not, it doesn't make sense and given the context we ought to understand that it's a job for her.
There are times when the fallacies are appropriate. If two people are arguing over the age of the Earth it is a good idea to check out their credentials to see if they are qualified to make such assertions. Which person has a better grasp on quantum physics: Deepak Chopra or Lawrence Krauss? Which person should we listen to on medical advice: the woman who played Pepper Potts in Ironman or a Gynecologist?
To close: the biggest problem with teaching any of the informal fallacies again is that they often get taught without good instruction on when they are appropriate to use. A person who constantly ad hominems is no better than a person who pedantically derails any conversation pointing out the fallacies as their partner variously tip toes into what could be considered one. As Aristotle would recommend, you must take the middle path using what's appropriate at the right time.
Comments
Post a Comment