Dysphemisms and euphemisms – it’s all in the naming when it comes to the rhetoric of a cause.Â So one side’s freedom-fighters are the other side’s guerillas or insurgents.Â And now it comes to what terms to use for those who protest much of the Trump Presidency.Â From the start, the term resistance was appealing for those who were sympathetic with the protester-cause.Â And for those who see it as mere trouble-making by sore losers, it’s obstructionism or public tantrums.Â Fair enough, really.Â What really matters is whether the folks have a point.
But that’s just it — if you think they’ve got a point, then that determines the term to use.Â So far, this is the sensible thought shared by many, and Varad Mehta at NRO (with a nicely barbed title, “Resistance is Facile”) makes similar remarks.Â But then he sees a fallacy behind it all when it comes to reporting on the matter:
Thereâ€™s an element of circular reasoning involved: The media reports on the resistance because the resistance exists because the media reports on the resistance. But thinking something doesnâ€™t make it real.
But the second part of the circle isn’t part of the question-begging, is it?Â That is, the media may report on the ‘resistance’ because it is happening and is pretty widespread.Â That’s the first part.Â But the second part isn’t part of the issue, is it?Â Moreover, the resistance doesn’t exist because the media reports on it.Â Rather, it’s something that people are doing on their own, organizing through social media, and so on.Â It’s not because CNN set up some cameras.
So, the lesson is that, to use Mehta’s words, just thinking something is circular reasoning doesn’t make it circular.
Talisse and I have a short bit at Philosophy15 on a new fallacy we’ve been seeing in philosophy.Â Well, really, it’s not a new phenomenon, we’ve just started noticing it. One reason is that we’ve become particularly interested in how dialectical standards change over extended philosophical work. Here’s the basic setup.
Stage 1: Hold one’s dialectical opponents to a very high standard of scrutiny.Â Â Show that they do not pass that level of scrutiny.
Stage 2: Deduce that the standard of scrutiny is likely too high, and then introduce a new, lower standard.
Stage 3: Show that one’s own view passes the lower standard.
The problem is that in many cases, the other views criticized in Stage 1 would pass the lower standard in Stage 3, just as one’s own view does.Â But they don’t get mentioned in stage 3.Â So the argument proceeds as though their being eliminated by the high standards eliminates them full stop.
This strategy we call clearing the decks.Â It shows up lots in the history of philosophy, and it is particularly noxious when philosophers do metaphilosophy.
The basic rule, we think, that gets broken is a form of the rule that in deliberating between choices, one uses a consistent standard for the ultimate decision.Â It’s not that one must use the same standard throughout, as we can find that some standards are too strict or lax and need to change them.Â It’s just that when we make the final decision, we apply the same standard to all eligible options.Â With clearing the decks, once the standard is lowered, there are more eligible options.Â Â In some ways, it’s a form of argument from double standards.
It was a pretty widely used trope to invoke idolatry to criticize the support for the Obama Presidency, especially early on.Â So it’s not a surprise to see it come back for critique of opposition to Trump, except in this case, invoking the fall of what the believers took to be the true religion.Â Enter David French for some gloating:
I’m beginning to get a sense of what it was like to be alive in ancient times when a marauding warlord melted down your villageâ€™s golden calf. Weeping. Gnashing of teeth. Rending of garments. Wearing of vagina hats. Their god failed to protect the village, and now heâ€™s a bracelet on the warlordâ€™s wrist. Itâ€™s pathetic, really, the emotional reaction to Donald Trumpâ€™s victory, but the intensity of the emotion is nothing new. Remember the ecstasy when Barack Obama won?
So, the point is supposed to be that Obama-style liberalism was a kind of false religion — a golden calf, of sorts.Â Now that it’s not only fallen, but is destroyed by another, the old true believers are in shock, despair.Â And French takes it that it’s because these true-believers just have got the wrong religion.
This is post-Christian politics to its core. This is the politics one gets when this world is our only home, and no one is in charge but us. There is no sense of proportion.
The funny thing about analogies is that they are supposed to not be identities.Â But French just went from saying that liberalism is like a false religion that’s fallen to just saying it is a false religion that’s fallen.Â Doesn’t that change the point?Â And, hey, don’t conservative Christians get angry when their religion’s not the law of the land, too?Â Of course, one’s sense of proportion is indexed to the religion (or set of values) one thinks is true – of course you think that others have no sense of proportion when they mourn things you think are worthless or vicious.
Sean Spicer’s first press conference was pretty firey.Â The most eye-catching part of it was his argument that Trump’s inauguration had the highest attendance ever.
That was the largest audience to witness an inauguration, period.
His was a pretty complex argument.Â There were two lines of reasoning. The first, to rebut the claims that the photographic evidence shows attendance to be significantly lower than Obama’s ’09.Â The second, to make the case for a very large number.Â The largest number, period.
The rebutting argument was that the photo doesn’t accurately represent attendance, because the mall wasn’t the place where all the people were (because of fencing, metal detectors, etc.) and because the materials on the ground make the open spaces look larger.
The positive argument was that the spaces filled during the inauguration added up to a very large number.
We do know a few things. So letâ€™s go through the facts. We know that from the platform from where the President was sworn in to 4th Street holds about 250,000 people. From 4th Street to the media tent is about another 220,000. And from the media tent to the Washington Monument another 250,000 people. All of this space was full when the President took the oath of office.
So that’s about 720K.Â (Trump claimed it was 1.5 million, when he was at the CIA office, later.)
But here’s the thing.Â Estimated attendance at Obama’s ’09 was 1.8 million.Â So, even were Spicer’s rebutting argument accurate and his positive argument correct, that’s not even half of Obama’s ’09 number.Â It’s not even the 1 million estimated for Obama’s ’13.
There were three arguments Spicer needed to make here, and he only made two of them.Â The comparative argument for the superlative (period) needed to be made, too.Â And no fudging with gates and ground covering would have fixed that one.
Marco Rubio recently made an interesting analogy after the release of the CBO report.Â He said that the likelihood of the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) actually helping people is as great as the likelihood of the Denver Broncos coming back from their fourth-quarter deficit in the SuperBowl.
I know that there are still some who hold out hope that Obamacare will work, just like there were some in Denver this Sunday still holding out hope that the Broncos could come back and win in the fourth quarter.
Now, there is some debate on the matter, but let’s give Rubio the point for the sake of argument.Â However, if we do, then Aaron Goldstein has a critical point to make:
But letâ€™s not forget that the Broncos actually made it to the Super Bowl. The Broncos were the second best team in the NFL in 2013….
If Rubio is going to compare Obamacare to a football team he should invoke the 2008 Detroit Lions who went 0-16. Better still, the junior Senator from Florida could also speak of the 1976 Tampa Bay Buccaneers who went 0-14. This would be a far more apt comparison because when it comes to Obamacare no one wins.
Ah, a lesson in how to turn an analogy into a straw man.Â At least the Rubio analogy conceded that the ACA had something going for it (at least the Broncos had a chance to make points back earlier), but Goldstein refuses even that.Â Beyond this, the point Rubio was trying to make with the analogy was one of prospects, like for the future, not retrospects, looking at the past.Â Oh well, when the objective is to paint your political opponents in the worst lights, saving the actual point is beside the point.
Existential Comics has a nice series on Fallacy Man, a guy dressed as Zoro who jumps into conversations to point out fallacies.Â It’s a nice way to show the dialectical error of only pointing out fallacies – namely, that naming a fallacy form isn’t helpful feedback for the argument.Â You’ve got to explain why a premise is irrelevant, or how some forms of inference are based on incorrect data.Â Those are all dialectical requirements of reason – exchange.Â The best part, of course, is that there’s also the problem of the fallacy fallacy. (You’ve got to read to the end of the comic.)
Now, the fallacy fallacy requires additional dialectical baggage, and I don’t see it in the comic posted.Â Here’s the basic form of fallacy fallacy:
Premise: The opposition’s case for their view (P) is fallacious. (Then the list of the fallacy forms identified).
Conclusion 1: The opposition’s view, P, is false.
Conclusion 2: And, further, my view is true.
Now, so far, just listing all the fallacy forms you identify in the opposition’s case isn’t yet proof that their view is false or that your view is true.Â BUT: there are a number of considerations that might undercut that.Â Note, the opposition may have the entirety of the burden of proof.Â And so, were the opposition to have the view that, say, there’s an elephant in the room, and they can’t prove it except fallaciously, then there’s reason to believe that there’s no elephant in the room.Â (Otherwise, there’d be evidence).Â Or consider this in a legal context — all the defense has to do is point out the failures of argument from the prosecution, because the burden of proof is entirely on those who argue for guilty.Â In those cases, there are default conclusions, and when the case to the contrary fails, we revert to them.Â So in those cases, fallacy fallacy is no fallacy. To further clarify John’s got a great post on the Fallacy Fallacy Fallacy.
Bruce Chapman reports at AmSpec that Christians are widely persecuted around the world, and one of the prominent examples is the treatment of Coptic Christians in Egypt. Chapman says someone should do something about it.Â That’s right.Â Ah, but then he hypothesizes why people haven’t already done something about it:
One reason for neglect in Washington is probably the continuing secularization of the West. Political forces that demand that domestic religious organizations provide employees insurance for contraception, that Christmas manger scenes be banned from the town park and that graduating high school seniors not be allowed to invoke God in their valedictory addresses are not the kind of people who care much about Christian prisoners in the North Korean gulag or burning churches in Egypt.
Here’s the analogy behind Chapman’s explanation.Â Those who oppose mangers in town squares and compulsory prayer are like those who put Christians in gulags and burn churches — they sympathize with the oppressors.Â In Chapman’s eyes, secularism is religious oppression lite.
Chapman’s error is that those who oppose state-sanctioned religious displays do so precisely in the spirit of opposing oppression.Â Sure, it may feel like being oppressed when the state capitol doesn’t have a manger scene – you’re not getting complete control over the state.Â But that’s not oppression, that’s a reduction in your undeserved and disproportionate power.
And so the analogy isn’t just false, it’s entirely backwards — you get the kind of oppression of gulags and church burnings when you have a state that endorses only one kind of religious view.Â You see, the secularization of the West isn’t motivated by the desire to oppress the religious, but by the desire to reduce religious oppression.
USA Today recently reported that “not all Christians believe there is a War on Christmas.”Â Most who don’t have this belief have the contrary belief – that not only that there is not a war on Christmas, but that the holiday is doing just fine and one doesn’t need to force it on the non-believers.
A recent USA Today story carried the headline â€œNot all Christians believe there is a â€˜War on Christmas.â€™â€Â Hardly surprising. Not all Christians believe Elvis is dead. The obvious escapes many, pious or heathen.
The title of the piece is “Objection, Your Honor. Relevance?”
Two important things.Â First, ad populum arguments are not failures of relevance.Â Otherwise the fact that something is ‘traditional’ or ‘common sense’ wouldn’t lend any support to anything.Â But it does – else conservatism would, at it’s core, be a fallacy.Â Ad populum arguments suffer, instead, from problems of weak authority – the matter is whether there are other reasons undercutting the authority or the accuracy of those attesting.
Second, the analogy between those who don’t believe in a War on Christmas and those who believe Elvis is still alive is mighty ridiculous.Â The difference between the two is that Elvis-death-deniers fail with empirical evidence.Â War-on-Christmas deniers distinguish being oppressed from tolerance.
But it seemed that way because it was hard to imagine the Obama White House botching the design and execution of its national health care exchange. Building Web sites, mastering the Internet â€” this is what Team Obama does!
Except this time Team Obama didnâ€™t. Like the Bush administration in Iraq, the White House seems to have invaded the health insurance marketplace with woefully inadequate postinvasion planning, and let the occupation turn into a disaster of hack work and incompetence. Right now, the problems with the exchange Web site appear to be systemic â€” a mess on the front end, where people are supposed to shop for plans, and also a thicket at the back end, where insurers are supposed to process applications.
The disaster can presumably be fixed. As Cohn pointed out on Friday, many of the state-level exchanges are working better than the federal one, and somewhere there must be a tech-world David Petraeus capable of stabilizing HealthCare.gov. And the White House has some time to work with: weeks before the end-of-year enrollment rush, and months before the mandateâ€™s penalty is supposed to be levied.
Yep, it’s a disaster almost like Wolfie and J-Paul’s destruction of a nation, loss of millions billions of dollars, and bringing about an insurgency against the US occupation.
Here’s a way you can straw man someone.Â Pick out a bad decision she made, then say she chose that bad part of the decision.Â For example, say my wife and I areÂ trying to decide where to vacation.Â She wants to go to a cabin in the woods – something rustic and woodsy.Â But we get there, and the cabin’s filled with spiders and there’s a raccoon in the fireplace.Â Angrily, I say: We could have gone to Chicago, but you preferred a cabin filled with arachnids and vermin! Yes, that’s the choice she made, but not what she chose as she chose it.Â What she chose was rustic vacation… what that choice yielded was spiders and a hissing varmit.Â The lesson: our desires are propositional attitudes, and those attitudes represent what we desire or choose under a specific description.Â Again, she chose rustic cabin… and it happened to have spiders.Â She didn’t prefer the spiders.Â She just chose something that turned out had them.Â That’s not choosing spiders.Â So it’s a straw man – you’re misrepresenting the intentions of your interlocutor by describing them under the description of their worst consequences.
OK.Â So now the point about choice under a description and straw-manning is clear, let’s turn to the way George Neumayr over at AmSpec is handling his portrayal of the Obama Administration’s turn on foreign policy.Â His view is not just that they make bad decisions, but that they choose terrible things.
Ho Chi Minh once said that he won the Vietnam War not in the jungles of Asia but on the streets of America. Islamic terrorists could make a similar claim: from Libya to Egypt to Syria, they rose to power not in spite of American leaders but because of them. Obama and McCain preferred Morsi to Mubarak, the assassins of Christopher Stevens to Gaddafi, and now the enforcers of sharia to Assad.
The final point about Syria is a familiar one.Â (If you haven’t, take a quick look at John Dickerson’s Slate overview of the various arguments regarding Syria.)Â The point is that there would be an unintended consequence of destabilizing Assad – the opposition’s not a bunch of liberal-minded democrats, but radical Islamists.Â But it’s not that with the Arab Spring, the Obama Administration chose to support a member of the Muslim Brotherhood to lead Egypt or that there would be a terrorist attack on a consulate in Libya.Â Those were the consequences of the choices, but, again, choices are under descriptions, and not all consequences are the descriptions.