In my time spent engaged in loose debate involving general subjects like philosophy, politics or social behavior, there is a phrase I hear far too often that is, to my mind, unforgivably naïve, namely that, “talking never accomplished anything.” The notion, shared by a fair number of people desperate to demonstrate their own impotence, is that debate is all fun and good, but that it actually accomplishes nothing; that you can’t change peoples’ minds, that your ideas are all conjecture, at best.
Ask Lenin what talk can achieve. Or perhaps the Vatican might have a few choice words as regards the potential a good line of argument has. Perhaps the millions of women enjoying the fruits of suffrage might take a moment to honor just what talk can accomplish. The truth is that constructive social reform is ever born on the back of dialogue, and even many bad ones spread this way.
Communication is how new ideas are spread; someone invents, discovers or rationalizes a new idea and they communicate it. The notion is so straightforward and the precedent so overwhelming that to make a claim such as ‘talk never accomplished anything’ seems like something from a particularly incoherent dream. Whenever ideas encounter opposition, talk is still one of the primary means by which that opposition is overcome. For example, the proponents of evolution have not spread that belief through force of arms or suppression of creationist literature. It has been, instead, mere conversation and dialogue, argument and reasoning which have largely promoted the idea, and over time more and more minds have become convinced. The Lutheran movement didn’t achieve power by poisoning the Pope or bribing Cardinals (well, I don’t THINK any Cardinals were bribed,) but rather through the use of convincing words, words so convincing that they have been retained as a part of history, and it’s still largely through their arguments and communicated beliefs that the various forms of Protestantism retain their solidarity today. After all, God hasn’t stepped forward with an endorsement, yet.
Communication, dialogue, debate, these things aren’t merely useful within a social forum, they’re vital. Without the ability or desire to communicate ideas and challenge opposing notions, a society stagnates while at the same time making no attempt to ferret out or deal with possibly destructive beliefs or behaviors. It is through dialogue, both cooperative and conflictive, that we, not as individuals but as groups, can continue to upgrade and expand our society. However, if a society relies on dialogue and debate to test and improve itself, then it seems likely that the quality of dialogue within a society might directly correlate to the quality of the society itself, and that’s an issue I wish to address in this essay.
I’m sure many have heard it declared that we’re on the verge of entering another intellectual dark age. These claims are largely the purview of doomsday criers and bristling cynics, in my opinion, although I do happen to agree with the sentiment. The reason I believe that we are, if not moving in that direction then at least still threatened by its presence is this: that people are increasingly losing their ability to intelligently evaluate data, and worse, they are, instead of recognizing this inability for the handicap that it is, proudly fostering it as an excuse to cling to, even boast and promote, poorly thought out or even demonstrably wrong ideas. As a result, it becomes harder for those ideas possessing merit to compete, and the collection and variety of beliefs and behaviors, then, becomes more and more random, less and less progressive.
At least one reason for the growing numbers of people who lack the capacity to distinguish a demonstrably false idea from one which can at least withstand a cursory scrutinizing is the unfamiliarity most people have with even the most simplistic aspects of formal reason. I, myself, have only a layman’s grasp of formal logic. Certainly I cannot, at will or whim, transform any but the simplest argument down to a mathematical representation. There are certain formal logical errors which I can still fall for, complex if then statements that are known for their counterintuitive truths which I don’t immediately catch. But I know how and why it works. I know what it is. If I study even the most convoluted logical statement, in a little while I’ll have the ins and outs worked out to logic’s satisfaction.
“Whoohoo,” you might say. “Mike can brag that he read two paragraphs from Aristotle.” What’s formal logic? A tool for the debate club, old Jewish guys and think tanks, right? Noam Chomsky uses formal logic, Joe Mows the Lawn doesn’t need to. But that’s not true. In fact, it’s the problem.
In the breadth and scope of human history, only one tool has yet been found by which a person can demonstrate, clearly and repeatedly, an idea to any other human being on earth they can communicate with. That’s logic. Science, mathematics, all the methods by which we manage to successfully and consistently define and interact with our world in a way other people can successfully and consistently understand and recreate, these are all directly born of logic. They all use the exact same formulas and rely on the exact same axioms. No other method of idea sharing and communication has enjoyed so much success, up to and including indifferent violent repression. Drop a ball, you can figure out what’s going to happen to it, using reason. You can predict where it’s gonna go, how fast, what it’s gonna do when it gets there. Can’t do that with Catholic dogma, or Dadaism. The rules of Confucius are useless, as are the assumptions of the Aztecs. At best, these things might offer a hint or two as to how you could react.
In the forums of political and social conflict and dialogue, reason is (ideally) recognized as the supreme arbitrator, to the extent that even many of the larger faiths use it in hopes of promoting their ideas. Among Western society, if you wish to see an idea promoted as, say, law, its generally accepted that your idea should rest on notions which, when applied against reason, hold up in some manner that relates to the reality that society exists in. Now, a good portion of our population gets consciously involved in the operation of our society. Voting, writing letters to the editor, arguing with friends on the internet, all of these are, as stated earlier, ways in which we seek to promote our ideas not merely for ourselves, but our society as a whole to embrace. The notion, then, that a majority of these people are entirely ignorant of, not merely the primary or best, but really the only tool which can consistently be used to test and determine the viability of an idea, this notion should leave people shocked, with their mouths hanging agape, looking about nervously as they suddenly realize what a sword of Damocles our social stability stands beneath.
Most people don’t really encounter formal logic during most of their education, excepting a smattering of mathematics and science which often remains entirely abstract to them, with no real relation to things like philosophy or social reform. This lasts until the first time they see a logical fallacy exposed, and an argument destroyed as a result. And what they learn from this is not to investigate the rules of logic, or consider what they don’t understand about reason. Rather, they learn that the tool, the weapon against reason, the means by which those who use reason might be undermined, is the logical fallacy. And what we’ve seen from this is a host of people, from dipshits on political forums to the pundits of our mainstream media to the talking heads that represent our major political parties making a rush on the rules of informal reason, eagerly seeking out even the most absurd excuse to cry ‘logical fallacy’ in order to avoid reasoned debate. What we see is the misuse of the fallacy, or the ‘Fallacy’s Fallacy’ becoming the dominant form of debate in our nation, not merely infecting but actually replacing reasoned debate. The purpose of this essay is to expose this manner of usage. To further that, I’d like to pick apart a few extremely common examples.
Hunting for Hypocrisy
Probably the most overt and excessive example of this is also the one you’ll encounter most commonly at the top of the political spectrum, and that’s all the pundits and apologists endlessly engaged in trying to expose anyone who expresses an opinion they don’t agree with as a hypocrite.
Point out that Bush is a liar? A bush supporter will point out that so was Clinton. Make a case for charity, they’ll ask you how much you give. Suggest that abortion should be illegal and someone will ask if you’re female (if you’re not.) The point being made is that, somehow, if it can be demonstrated that the argument is being ignored by the opposition, or is in some other manner inapplicable in some quarter, then it’s entirely invalid as an argument, and can be ignored. And that’s where the reason is trumped by illogic. Bush can lie about a reason to launch a war because someone else lied about their sexual activities. Since I don’t donate half my earnings to some official charity, no argument for the benefits of charitable activity need be considered. If you can’t have a kid, hey, the welfare of the unborn is apparently none of your business.
But as Bob once said, “I don’t practice what I preach because I’m not the kind of person I’m preaching to.”
The fallacy here should be obvious to anyone with the mental facility to read the written word, and probably most without it. A reasoned argument regarding a general social behavior is not in any way influenced by the actions or abilities of a single person, or even a portion of the society. Bush’s actions, as they affect society aren’t affected by Clinton’s past, nor are any argument as to how to react to Bush’s actions. Charity either helps or hurts society. Even if I forswear all efforts at charity, preferring instead to line my own pockets, and making sure to rape a few orphans on my way home for good measure, that doesn’t mean that, should I promote the argument that charity has merit, the argument itself is rendered incorrect. And killing humans is the business of all humans, not just those who birth them.
Hypocrisy is not my personal favorite among human behaviors. In truth, I’m not a big fan of most hypocrites. But in the world today, exposing hypocrisy in someone is considered a ‘win’ in logical debate, and since it isn’t, this means that many viable, even crucial arguments are being overlooked because someone has exposed the maker of the argument, or even someone vaguely related to it, as a hypocrite, or a liar. In fact, a majority of ‘explanation’ I hear from right wing pundits and talking heads these days is purely this style of argument. The behaviors of a person making an argument, or those not related to the argument cannot not in any way affect an argument not directly aimed at them in the first place. Attempting to dismiss an argument for such a reason amounts to a form of Argumentum Ad Hominem, subcategory circumstantial.
No Source and Biased Source Dismissals
A really common and unfortunate tactic in debate today is to demand a source for factual information, the various premises on which any condition rests. Now, unfortunately, a lot of people are more than willing to make up facts and figures, and just as many are likely to misread or misquote them (I’ve been guilty of both in my career), and this is pretty unforgivable for those debating for any reason other than the joy of debate. But once again, a lack of a source does not invalidate an argument.
Now, an argument requires premises, and often the facts of an argument make up these premises, or at least support them. Therefore, you might argue that if they are wrong then the argument is not valid, and that’s entirely right. If the premises are wrong, then the argument is invalid. What’s important is that this does not equal, “If you don’t know whether to believe a premise then you can assume it is wrong and the argument is invalid.” Anyone interested in an argument for the sake of its actual relevance will, should they wish to accord with the rules of sound reason, merely slip a silent ‘if’ into the formula and research the data of their own accord, should a requested source not be forthcoming. To dismiss the argument based purely on not being provided a source is not sound logic, it is a fallacy, and it once again is used far too often as an excuse to ignore sound argument, to cling to conclusions that, themselves, may have no merit.
Just as bad is the excuse so many people use to ignore a source provided, namely that it’s ‘biased’. What’s so flagrant and insulting about this is what people will decide is ‘biased’. Bias is almost universal, certainly we don’t have much in the way of news sources which don’t have some agenda. Even science journals are out to kill god according to some Christians, so who can’t be found, in the eyes of someone or another, to have a bias? Therefore, by this logic people can, and do, ignore any source that doesn’t already concur with their opinions, and people grow more and more inclined towards sources that don’t teach, enlighten, or promote sound reason, but which merely reinforce an opinion, no matter how valid or inane.
In the meantime, many very potent, logical arguments or even demonstrable facts, sets of data and fascinating premises are being ignored by, in some cases, a majority of the population simply because the source has been determined ‘biased’. A biased source is not grounds for argument dismissal. Facts and figures promoted by a biased source may be grounds for extra, outside research, especially if the source is known for fabricating data, but that’s as far as it gets. Once again, the honest, rational mind must seek out, confirm and explore information. Finding excuses to not explore is not thinking. It’s the other thing.
The Boy Who Cried Ad Hom
One of the biggest mistakes made by those who like to use fallacies as a dodge is the old ‘Ad Hom’ whine. The argumentum ad hominem is when some personal aspect or circumstance of the opponent or opposition in a debate is used to weaken their stance.
Let’s suppose that I’m having a debate about gay marriage, with me on the ‘pro’ side and Bob on the other. I say to my opponent, “Obviously, attempts to legislate homosexual behavior are fascist. Weren’t you, yourself, at one time a member of the Hitler Youth, Alabama Chapter, Bob?” then this is an argumentum ad hominem. Regardless of whether Bob was or was not a member of the Hitler Youth, and whether or not the behavior is actually a form of fascism, what’s important is that I tried to use personal aspects of Bob’s life to influence the ‘validity’ of my general argument, and that’s the heart of a fallacy. And any personal reference, no matter how seemingly benign, can be an ad hom.
What’s important to remember is that, by that same token, an insult is not automatically an ad hom. If, in that same debate, I say, “The trouble is that those who are promoting the notion that gay parents tend to raise unhealthy children are idiots, like you Bob, you fucking idiot,” then we’ve got a nice healthy ad hom to whine about, since I’m binding my entire argument into a base attack on my opponent. However, if I say, “Bob, you blithering fucktard, the reason that we shouldn’t believe that gay parents are bad for raising children is that every single study so far gathered shows exactly the opposite,” and then hit him with a host of sources, then what we have are two things, an insult AND a sound argument, separate from one another. There is no ad hom, because the presumption that Bob is a fucktard is not being connected to the argument.
As I like to say, “There’s no informal fallacy, I’m just insulting you.”
The Fallacist’s Fallacy
And that’s what it’s actually called. The final and most important point to make, I think, is that even when a valid logical fallacy is pointed out, it does not allow an argument to be ‘ignored’. If a complete argument contains multiple conclusions and premises beyond those containing the fallacy, then they must be taken into account. A single fallacious statement certainly has no bearing on other aspects of the argument. But further, even a single logical argument that contains a fallacy isn’t necessarily wrong! If I say, “If a=c and a=b, then b has to equal c. Of course, Bob is the sort of person who might argue that it doesn’t, but Bob hasn’t been sleeping well, lately,” then, even if Bob is, in fact, inclined to contest my logic and hasn’t been sleeping well, I’m still ad homing him. Trouble is, my argument is also right, so what happens to those who dismiss my argument due to the ad hom?
Informal fallacies are aspects of debate which are logically inapplicable, but which nevertheless pretend to validity. They often prey upon rhetoric, social convention and abstract assumptions to further themselves. Being able to recognize them and account for them in debate is important, and a skill far too many have absolutely no ability in. But just as bad is the use of an informal fallacy, real or imagined, as an excuse to avoid engaging an argument, conclusion or premise openly and rationally. Doing so is just that, making an excuse, and the only end it will serve is to continue to promote ignorance and confusion.