from your title I take it that you think Mr Bush is most guilty of number 20... I think number 4 may be more to the point - and many of the other numbers are close runners up - care to place your votes? :-)
> -----Original Message----- > From: Haggerty, Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 9:53 AM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Weasel Arguments > > > With all that is going on in the world, I decided it was time > to brush up on > my critical thinking skills and take a good look at how > arguments are being > made. With that in mind, I googled a few sites on critical > thinking and was > surprised at how much I had forgotten to think about since college. > > Found a couple of Web sites dedicated to debunking false or absurd > arguments. > http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html was > really detailed, but there was another one I really liked. > > Carl Sagan, prior to his death, published a baloney detection > kit which > makes for interesting reading: > > http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/baloney.htm > > He gives a good list of bad arguments to practice with, > thought I would > share them with the list: > > 1) ad hominem -- Latin for "to the man," attacking the arguer > and not the > argument (e.g. The Reverend Dr. Smith is a known Biblical > fundamentalist, so > her objections to evolution need not be taken seriously); > > 2) argument from authority (e.g., President Richard Nixon should be > re-elected because he has a secret plan to end the war in > Southeast Asia -- > but because it was secret, there was no way for the > electorate to evaluate > it on its merits; the argument amounted to trusting him because he was > President; a mistake, as it turned out); > > 3) argument from adverse consequences (e.g., A God meting out > punishment and > reward must exist, because if He didn't, society would be > much more lawless > and dangerous - perhaps even ungovernable. Or: The defendant > in a widely > publicized murder trial must be found guilty; otherwise, it will be an > encouragement for other men to murder their wives); > > 4) appeal to ignorance -- the claim that whatever has not > been proved false > must be true, and vice versa (e.g., There is no compelling > evidence that > UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore UFOs exist -- and there is > intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. Or: There may be seventy > kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the > moral advancement > of the Earth, so we're still central to the Universe.) This > impatience with > ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not > evidence of absence. > > 5) special pleading, often to rescue a proposition in deep rhetorical > trouble (e.g., How can a merciful God condemn future > generations to torment > because, against orders, one woman induced one man to eat an > apple? Special > plead: you don't understand the subtle Doctrine of Free Will. > Or: How can > there be an equally godlike Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in > the same Person? > Special plead: You don't understand the Divine Mystery of the > Trinity. Or: > How could God permit the followers of Judaism, Christianity, > and Islam -- > each in their own way enjoined to heroic measures of loving > kindness and > compassion -- to have perpetrated so much cruelty for so long? Special > plead: You don't understand Free Will again. And anyway, God moves in > mysterious ways.) > > 6) begging the question, also called assuming the answer > (e.g., We must > institute the death penalty to discourage violent crime. But does the > violent crime rate in fact fall when the death penalty is > imposed? Or: The > stock market fell yesterday because of a technical adjustment and > profit-taking by investors -- but is there any independent > evidence for the > causal role of "adjustment" and profit-taking; have we > learned anything at > all from this purported explanation?); > > 7) observational selection, also called the enumeration of favourable > circumstances, or as the philosopher Francis Bacon described > it, counting > the hits and forgetting the misses (e.g., A state boasts of > the Presidents > it has produced, but is silent on its serial killers); > > 8) statistics of small numbers -- a close relative of observational > selection (e.g., "They say 1 out of every 5 people is > Chinese. How is this > possible? I know hundreds of people, and none of them is > Chinese. Yours > truly." Or: "I've thrown three sevens in a row. Tonight I > can't lose."); > > 9) misunderstanding of the nature of statistics (e.g., > President Dwight > Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering > that fully half > of all Americans have below average intelligence); > > 10) inconsistency (e.g., Prudently plan for the worst of > which a potential > military adversary is capable, but thriftily ignore > scientific projections > on environmental dangers because they're not "proved". Or: > Attribute the > declining life expectancy in the former Soviet Union to the > failures of > communism many years ago, but never attribute the high infant > mortality rate > in the United States (now highest of the major industrial > nations) to the > failures of capitalism. Or: Consider it reasonable for the Universe to > continue to exist forever into the future, but judge absurd > the possibility > that it has infinite duration into the past); > > 11) non sequitur -- Latin for "It doesn't follow" (e.g., Our > nation will > prevail because God is great. But nearly every nation > pretends this to be > true; the Germans formulation was "Gott mit uns"). Often > those falling into > the non sequitur fallacy have simply failed to recognize alternative > possibilities; > > 12) post hoc, ergo propter hoc - Latin for "It happened > after, so it was > caused by" (e.g., Jaime Cardinal Sin, Archbishop of Manila: > "I know of ... a > 26-year old who looks 60 because she takes [contraceptive] pills." Or: > Before women got the vote, there were no nuclear weapons); > > 13) meaningless question (e.g., What happens when an > irresistible force > meets an immovable object? But if there is such a thing as an > irresistible > force there can be no immovable objects, and vice versa); > > 14) excluded middle, or false dichotomy -- considering only > the two extremes > in a continuum of intermediate possibilities (e.g., "Sure, > take her side; my > husband's perfect; I'm always wrong." Or: "Either you love > your country or > you hate it." Or: "If you're not part of the solution, you're > part of the > problem"); > > 15) short-term vs. long-term -- a subset of the excluding > middle, but so > important I've pulled it out for special attention (e.g., We > can't afford > programs to feed malnourished children and educate pre-school > kids. We need > to urgently deal with crime on the streets. Or: Why explore > space or pursue > fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?); > > 16) slippery slope, related to excluded middle (e.g., If we > allow abortion > in the first week of pregnancy, it will be impossible to > prevent the killing > of a full-term infant. Or, conversely: If the state prohibits > abortion even > in the ninth month, it will soon be telling us what to do > with our bodies > around the time of conception); > > 17) confusion of correlation and causation (e.g., A survey > shows that more > college graduates are homosexual than those with lesser > education; therefore > education makes people gay. Or: Andean earthquakes are correlated with > closest approaches of the planet Uranus; therefore -- despite > the absence of > any such correlation for the nearer, more massive planet > Jupiter -- the > latter causes the former); > > 18) straw man -- caricaturing a position to make it easier to > attack (e.g., > Scientists suppose that living things simply fell together by > chance -- a > formulation that wilfully ignores the central Darwinian > insight, that Nature > ratchets up by saving what works and discarding what doesn't. > Or -- this is > also a short-term/long-term fallacy -- environmentalists care > more for snail > darters and spotted owls than they do for people); > > 19) suppressed evidence, or half-truths (e.g., An amazingly > accurate and > widely quoted "prophecy" of the assassination attempt on > President Regan is > shown on television; but - an important detail -- was it > recorded before or > after the event? Or: These government abuses demand > revolution, even if you > can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs. Yes, but > is this likely > to be a revolution in which far more people are killed than under the > previous regime? What does the experience of other > revolutions suggest? Are > all revolutions against oppressive regimes desirable and in > the interests of > the people?); > > 20) weasel words (e.g., The separation of powers of the U.S. > Constitution > specifies that the United States may not conduct a war > without a declaration > of Congress. On the other hand, Presidents are given control > of foreign > policy and the conduct of wars, which are potentially > powerful tools for > getting themselves re-elected. Presidents of either political > party may > therefore be tempted to arrange wars while waving the flag > and calling the > wars something else -- "police actions," "armed incursions," > "protective > reaction strikes," "pacification," "safeguarding American > interests," and a > wide variety of "operations," such as "Operation Just Cause." > Euphemisms for > war are one of a broad class of reinventions of language for political > purposes. Talleyrand said, "An important art of politicians > is to find new > names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the > public"). > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
