Go Home!
Convincing a Moron:
The art of logical falacy (and
how to avoid falling for them) I
Introduction
A good argument is one that supports your contention.
However, often through omission or malice, people often choose to use something
other than a strong, logical, factual argument to get people to come around
to their point of view.
The thing is that logical fallacies are often more effective than legitimate
arguments, especially when arguing with morons. Most people are so unaware
of what you're doing when you use them that they mistakenly believe that
you have put forward a legitimate argument; they don't realise you've cheated.
Similarly, it is important to get to know some common logical fallacies
so you can identify them easily and avoid falling for them (and, where applicable,
use them to your advantage). This is the first part of what will, hopefully,
become a several part series. Kohlberg, Maslow, and logical falacies should
all be taught in schools, but unforunately our education system doesn't cover
it.
ADINA SAYS:
"Just Remember, kiddies...
It's ALWAYS BETTER to
STRETCH THE TRUTH
than to LIE!"
The Falacies of Distraction
There are several good ones to use here, especially on surveys.
First, we can pose a false dilemma. "You are
with us OR you are with the enemy". This is great, because you close the
agenda to all bar 2 options, leaving a whole heap of other options out. Similarly,
rather than closing the argument to an option you like and one that no-one
could support, you can close it off to 2 options that you find acceptable.
For instance, if you're against refugees you could argue "Should we use
the Navy to send back refugees, or should we have a special Coast Guard?"
(neglecting the third option of letting refugees land).
Next, we have the argument from ignorance. This
where, if you can't assume something is true you presume it's false; or if
something can't be proven false it must be true. For instance, you can't prove
that I am not the greatest person in the universe, and since you can't disprove
it it must be true! Similarly, you cannot prove that you do not suck; and
therefore I'll assume that you do suck!
Another great one is the slippery slope; a fallacy
most people are familiar with yet *still* fall for. "Why, if we ban dangerous
dogs, it's a slippery slope to banning all pets!". Come on, we know that
even if dangerous dogs are banned, it's doubtful that all pets would be too;
far from inevitable. Of course, these are great because once we present
what *could* be at the end of the slippery slope, we open up a whole heap
of appeals to consequences of those end results.
Finally, we can lump our argument with something else
and turn 2 simple questions into one complex question. Ask anyone if
they support murder, and they'll say no. You can put anything after "Do you
support murder and..." and the likely answer is no; no semi-morally developed
person in our culture would supatterport muder, no matter what you put after.
A little test to try is to go around and ask a few people "Do you support
murder and War?" or "Do you support genocide and no war?"
In fact, replace murder with anything negative and semi relevant. Alternatively,
lump something that no-one could reject with something you support for the
opposite effect.
Below is a quick example of how these tecniques could be put together:
DEMONSTRATION
When it comes to the Backstreet Boys, you are either
hate them and want a better world for our children, or you are a braindead
level 3 moron in favour of the degeneration of
our society. Where is the proof that Backstreet Boys fans aren't all braindead
level 3 morons? Where is the proof that they aren't seeking the destruction
of modern civilization? The fact is that you can't proove that Backstreet
Boy fans aren't seeking the destruction of Western Civilization!
Given the fact that it's true they are seeking the destruction of western
civilization (again, no evidence is out there to prove that the statement's
false!), it's a slippery slope from when one gets into power until society
collapses in war and famine.
By contrast, the assertion that people who hate the Backstreet Boys don't
want a better future for our children is unfounded. I will hold it true (until
it can be proved false) that Backstreet Boys haters want a better world for
our children, and are against the backstreet Boys and the downfall of civilization.
Therefore, the question we must ask ourselves is do we want a better world
for our children? If so, we must hate the Backstreet Boys. Or we can learn
to like them as Civilization tumbles around us.
Please note that this is just an outrageous example, and I don't believe
(most) of what I wrote in there. Once you've had some of the tecniques pointed
out, the tricks become obvious, yet these same tricks are used in tabloids,
arguments, and editorials every day and people ignore them.
[This is a debate with 4 possible options]
"No, you're either with us, and good, or against
us, and evil... you're against us, so you must be evil!" [Logical
fallacy!] *BANG*
Appeals to Motives in place of Support
A great tactic is to appeal to emotions.
For example, you can always
appeal to consequences;
or more to the point, appeal to the negative or worst consequences of holding
the opposite posititon. This generally applies to people with
level 2 morality.
An offshoot of this is the appeal to force. Think
of this one as being the big guy in the bar who tells a scrawny loudmouth
to "Shut up or I'll punch your face in". It's like an appeal to consequences,
except in this instance it's you who is threatening the negative consequences.
For political pressure groups, unions, governments, and the like who can mobilize
a lot of pressure, and the opposing side realise that you aren't afraid to
use it, this can be a strong argument. Note it's not saying whether your
position is better or worse.
Of course, most of us can't use the appeal to force
most of the time, but we can appeal to pity. In some cases, playing
the sympathy card can work.
Regardless of if you can appeal to force or pity, any
argument can be helped along with emotionally or morally loaded
prejudicial
language. This is where you use words like moral, intellegent, smart,
honest, and other positive words to describe your side. By implication, those
disagreeing are immoral, stupid, moronic, dishonest, and other similar negative
things. In some cases, those negative words
are used to describe the
other side.
And of course, you can always
appeal to popularity. This really
gets the
level 3 crowd. This is where you assume
something is true because (supposedly) everyone thinks so. Of course, everyone
doen't have to know or believe it in reality; for the purposes of TV finding
evnough people to fill a few minutes, who do agree, or a biased opinion poll,
will do.
DEMONSTRATION
W *** INSERT EXAMPLE *** .
[I disagree with your position]
Changing the Subject
Why attack the message, when attacking the person
just as effective. presenting the other side of the debate is. You can make
the attack a personal attack, or perhaps point out there is a conflict of
interest (or create a percieved conflict of interest), or alternatively attack
that they don't practice what they preach.
Okay lets play to level 4 people. We can do this
with an appeal to authority. Normally these aren't a logical fallacy,
unless the person is unqualified to comment, they weren't serious, or experts
disagree on the issue. Also look out for biased experts. Hell, I could write
a whole collumn about this (it's something I might just do).
Another one to look out for or to try is annonymous authority.
And finally, remember style over substance. How an argument is presented,
or how you present yourself when you present an argument, can affect whether
your audience percieves it as the truth or not.
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/toc.htm
DEMONSTRATION
W *** INSERT EXAMPLE *** .
[Logical fallacy!]
"Well you're the sort of person who'd make that
assertion!" [Logical fallacy!]
*BANG*
Go Home!
