In case you missed them, here are the various logical fallacies we’ve been looking at:
Surgeons, Clouds, Red Herrings, Scarecrows, Mistresses, Journalists, Swans, Flying Penguins, Farting Dogs and Non-existent Sofas.
Let’s have a look at how these fallacies can be put into place. We won’t be able to get all of them in, mainly because some of them are quite rare and others are more difficult to spot than others. The most common fallacy you will come across is non sequitur. This is simply when what your opponent is claiming does not follow from what they’ve said.
Warning: This post is pretty long. If you are interested, but don’t want a long read, just look at the first example. The approach is the same in all of the others, there are just different fallacies addressed in the later ones.
On 2 September 2010, I had a look at the debate on Debatwise.org called “Music that glorifies violence against women should be banned.” This was one of the World Online Debating Championship rounds (between Australia and Botswana). I note the date, because the arguments may have been changed/improved since then. Below is one of Australia’s proposition points, titled “A change is needed to stop the cycle of violence.”
Any material which explicitly devalues the intrinsic worth of another human or expresses a message of malefaction or malice without justification needs careful examination. We must consider the impact of the content in music and the content in music videos on the general public; including all of the stakeholders who are affected by being exposed to such negative portrayals of VAW. Men are not as heavily represented in lyrical content, nor have they been suffering from abuse & violence as severely as women over history. As such we find the portrayal of women in music & music videos to be a major problem that must be actioned immediately in order to stop the continuing cycle of abuse against women across the globe.
If music explicitly expresses a message of debasement, hatred, or violence without just cause, then what is the real benefit to society- and in particular women- of producing & distributing such content? There is a clear moral imperative to not accept the current status quo, as women shouldn't be forced to tolerate or condone music which debases their character or dignity.
They then go on to propose their solution to this apparent problem. I won’t look at their solution, because we are only interested in their reasoning. So, sentence by sentence I have analysed what they are saying into simplistic statements, hopefully taking out any emotive content.
Any material which explicitly devalues the intrinsic worth of another human or expresses a message of malefaction or malice without justification needs careful examination.
> If material is devaluing of a human or malicious, then it needs careful examination.
This is an emotive statement that actually means nothing. What is the nature of this ‘careful examination’? To what ends are we to carefully examine this material? WHY does it need careful examination? There is also no justification for this standpoint - it is merely a bold statement of a trivial opinion. Not a good start.
We must consider the impact of the content in music and the content in music videos on the general public; including all of the stakeholders who are affected by being exposed to such negative portrayals of VAW.
> We must consider the impact of music/video content on the public, including those who are affected by being exposed to it.
Again, why must we? Again, what is the nature of our consideration? To what ends are we considering, rather than, say, carefully examining? Also, if we are considering the impact on the public, doesn’t this already imply that we are considering those affected by it?
(Also, although this is a little pedantic, they say “negative portrayals of VAW”. Aren’t negative portrayals of violence against women supposed to be a good thing? It’s usually good to say a bad thing is bad, isn’t it?)
Men are not as heavily represented in lyrical content, nor have they been suffering from abuse & violence as severely as women over history.
> There is an imbalance across the sexes regarding this issue.
If I am kind here, I will assume that this is the result of the authors’ ‘careful examination’ and ‘considering’ of the music/videos. However, this is not at all explicit. Even being kind, there is no justification, there are no facts, no arguments as to how the authors arrived at this conclusion. It is also not explained how this statement is at all relevant to the argument as a whole.
As such we find the portrayal of women in music & music videos to be a major problem that must be actioned immediately in order to stop the continuing cycle of abuse against women across the globe.
> Therefore, if the portrayal of women in music/videos is stopped, then the cycle of abuse against women will stop too.
Now we have a conclusion (“As such...”). So from the empty, unjustified statements that preceded, the authors have somehow concluded that there is a causal link between the portrayal of women in music/videos (not just the negative portrayal, although this is getting pedantic again) and the cycle of abuse against women across the globe. So ALL portrayals of women in music/videos are the cause of ALL violence against women in the whole world. Even the places where they don’t have access to Western music, or know what a ‘booty call’ or a ‘milkshake’ is. How this conclusion has been reached, or how on earth the authors intend to explain or justify it is beyond me. This is the weakest part of the argument - at least the previous bits were trivially true. This is just ridiculous.
If music explicitly expresses a message of debasement, hatred, or violence without just cause, then what is the real benefit to society- and in particular women- of producing & distributing such content?
> This assumes that: ‘Music must have just cause to express a particular viewpoint, otherwise its production and distribution it is of no benefit to society.’
The authors ask what the benefit to society can be if the music expresses its message without just cause? This implies that the message would be beneficial to society IF there was just cause to express it. I find this a very interesting argument and much subtler and more powerful than anything else this excerpt. However, it’s washed up in a sea of empty statements and ridiculous conclusions; and it is only addressed in this sentence. At no point is there an investigation into any of the following, likely enlightening, questions:
- Is this message actually expressed without just cause?
- What constitutes just cause in this case? And why?
- How does a justly expressed message benefit society?
- How does an unjustly expressed message NOT benefit society?
- How does any of this relate to anything the author has said?
It would be good to start answering these questions yourself (as the opposition) and show how they in fact support your argument (if they do)!
There is a clear moral imperative to not accept the current status quo, as women shouldn't be forced to tolerate or condone music which debases their character or dignity.
> Women are being forced to tolerate and condone music that debases their character and this is morally unsatisfactory.
Again, an interesting argument. However, this falls short of laziness and generalisations as well. Women are not being forced to tolerate or condone any music (this is a version of the Loaded Question - it’s just a loaded statement, assuming that women are being forced to tolerate and condone this music). At least not all of them. You might force your sister to listen to Gangsta Rap, but I certainly don’t. The word I take particular umbrage with is ‘condone’. What possible justification do they have for saying that women are being forced to condone this music? Are they being put at gunpoint and told “Repeat after me... ‘G-Funk, Ice-T, Wu-Tang Clan - they all speak the truth!’”?
The major problems with this excerpt are: there is no justification given for any of the statements; and the conclusions are wildly over-generalised to the point of silliness. The third, slightly more minor, problem is that the conclusion in no way follows from the premises (non sequitur).
-----
Next is an example of listening to someone’s argument, thinking that what they say sounds about right, but getting a niggling feeling that it isn’t. Then ‘Going Spock’ and logically analysing what they’ve said to discover the fallacious reasoning.
From the debate “Can science explain everything?” (Also 2nd Sept 2010)
The very purpose of the term “science” is an explanation for everything. If a perfect knowledge could somehow be obtained then the universe and everything in it could be explained by the holder of that knowledge.
This whole debate seems, to me, to be futile as it is like asking the question “Can an explanation for everything explain everything?” the answer to which is unquestionably and obviously: Yes it can.
The question we should be asking ourselves is “Can such a knowledge be obtained?” my answer to which would be “No, absolutely not” but that’s another debate altogether.
One sentence at a time:
The very purpose of the term “science” is an explanation for everything.
> Unjustified claim.
Who says so? I didn’t know terms had purpose. And even if they do, who defined science’s purpose as an explanation for everything? JUSTIFY!
If a perfect knowledge could somehow be obtained then the universe and everything in it could be explained by the holder of that knowledge.
> If perfect knowledge is possible, then complete explanation is possible.
A bold statement that seems like it could be true, but again isn’t justified - or at least argued for. However, it assumes that the possession of knowledge implies the capability to explain.
This whole debate seems, to me, to be futile as it is like asking the question “Can an explanation for everything explain everything?” the answer to which is unquestionably and obviously: Yes it can.
> Asking “Can science explain everything?” is futile, because ‘science’ is ‘an explanation for everything’ and so the question is trivially true.
This assumes the truth of the initial, unjustified statement, as well as assuming that asking a trivially true question is always futile. This is not as stupid as it sounds: consider the question “Is Stephen Fry really Stephen Fry?” This is trivially true, but could be very informative. You may find out that your neighbour Stephen Fry is actually that famous bloke off the telly.
The question we should be asking ourselves is “Can such a knowledge be obtained?” my answer to which would be “No, absolutely not” but that’s another debate altogether.
> We should instead ask: “Is perfect knowledge possible?”, but that is not the same discussion. And so the author ends; with no actual discussion of their alternative question.
Wow. So the author suggests an alternative question, but claims that it is a different discussion. This contradicts what they have said. I’ll show you how, by taking what they say as true and deducing the opposite conclusion. This uses a bit of logic; or as I like to call it “Going Spock”.
Author’s Conclusion:
The truth of the statement “Perfect knowledge is possible” (P) is a different matter from the truth of the statement “Science can explain everything” (E).
Let’s take as true the author’s premises:
Premise 1:
“The purpose of science is an explanation for everything.”
Premise 2:
“If perfect knowledge is possible, then complete explanation is possible.”
We can rewrite E as “Complete explanation is possible”, because if it is, then the purpose of science is achievable, which means that ‘science can explain everything’. (This might not be true, but we are saying it is because we have taken the author’s premises as true and this follows from those premises.) This is known as ‘logical equivalence’, which means (loosely) that whatever makes one of them true, makes the other one true as well.
This new version of E is familiar: by the author’s own admission (premise 2), if P is true, then E (new version) is true. So how can they be different debates? The truth of one is dependent on the truth of the other.
Continuing the Spock Attack, let’s look deeply at premise 2:
“If perfect knowledge is possible, then complete explanation is possible.”
The author’s words are:
If a perfect knowledge could somehow be obtained then the universe and everything in it could be explained by the holder of that knowledge.
Really? I know a lot about my feelings, but am not very good at explaining them. My cousin’s very young children know stuff, but are rubbish at explaining any of it. So if I had perfect knowledge, that would apparently give me the ability to explain all of it.
NONE of this has anything to do with the actual question - “Can science explain everything?” Bugger.
Be careful not to get involved in someone else’s irrelevant point. Just say that it’s irrelevant and explain why, then move on.
---
Another WODC debate gives us an example of a straw man fallacy. In a debate about the legalisation of prostitution in order to reduce HIV infection, the point ‘Prohibition doesn’t work’ has a well-structured argument from the proposition. The opposition correctly note a contradiction in the proposition’s argument, but then go on to talk about something other than prohibition. They promote education as a way to reduce infection, but do not address the proposition’s position that prohibition doesn’t work. What the opposition is saying may well be very good, but it is not about whether prohibition works.
---
In the debate “Should religious education be part of the curriculum?”, the proposition made the point ‘It helps build society’:
Religion is a major influence on people’s lives. It shapes their thought process [sic] and decides their actions e.g. a Jehovah’s Witness refuses blood transfusion based on his/her religious beliefs. Religious studies acts as the academic platform from which we can build a better understanding of these major influences and hence people. With a better understanding of people we are able to relate better with them. Communication is more effective as we understand why they do things. Progress in society is dependent on effective communication amongst people. Religion allows for this by bringing about compromise stemming from an understanding of each other’s viewpoints.
Initial Premises:
- Religion is a major influence on all people.
- Religious studies allow people to better understand the influences of religion on each other.
- Therefore, religious studies allow people to better understand each other.
- If people have a better understanding of each other, then communication is more effective.
- Progress in society is dependent on effective communication.
- [missing]
- Religion allows for effective communication (and so progress in society) by bringing about compromise, stemming from an understanding of each other’s viewpoints.
If we allow for a bit of sloppiness, we can rewrite this last conclusion so that it fits as the ‘further’ conclusion:
Final Conclusion:
- Religious studies make communication more effective and so help progress society.
- Religion is a major influence on some people, not all. Even so, the argument could be used to say the same thing about understanding religious people, rather than all people, so this objection is weak.
- There is no justification for the jumps from better understanding to more effective communication and then to progress in society.
- The final slip up of saying that religion is responsible for this great understanding, rather than the study of religions, implies that the egalitarian ideals of this argument are a thin veil over the top of a single religious preference. I wonder how the author would respond to the Religious Studies syllabus containing the benefits and disasters of the five most adhered-to faiths in the world. In order, they are Christianity, Islam, no faith, Buddhism and Hinduism. Also, if the major benefit of studying religion is to better understand the people around you, then, for example, Judaism should be taught in America and Israel, but nowhere else – 40 per cent of Jews live in the USA, another 40 per cent in Israel.
The opposition’s response is even worse:
it needs to be optional for the student and only the student, because it's their choice to believe or to not believe in religious phenomenon [sic]. And religious people (this is mainly to the Christians) should not try to force their beliefs down their throats, which I find to be quite sinful. And they should teach more than just Christianity but every religion, like paganism and neo-paganism.
OK, this is bad.
The opposition starts their response with a contradiction. Answering ‘no’ to the question “should it?” and then explaining that it shouldn’t because “It should, but…” is a very bad start. Ignoring that this argument is in the wrong place, what does it say?
- Religious education should be optional for the student because it is the student’s choice to believe in religious phenomenon (?).
- Religious people should not force their religious beliefs on others.
- Religious education should teach every religion.
The second point assumes that religious education says that a particular set of beliefs are taught to be true. This may be correct in practice, but in theory it shouldn’t be like that. As a remedy to this practical problem, the author suggests a practical solution – teach about all the religions. All of them? That’s impractical. The Internet tells me there are over four thousand religions. I then went on to compile a list of the religions that have more than 10 million adherents:
Religion | Adherents (millions) |
Sunni Islam | 1050 |
Roman Catholic Church | 989 |
Hinduism | 820 |
Pentecostalism | 450 |
Buddhism | 369 |
Shi’a Islam | 201 |
Shinto | 100 |
Russian Orthodox Church | 90 |
Anglican Communion | 77 |
Lutheran Church | 49 |
Presbyterian Church | 48 |
Ethiopian Orthodox Christian Church | 45 |
Baptist Church | 37 |
Methodism | 33 |
Sikhism | 25 |
Jehovah’s Witnesses | 17 |
Judaism | 14 |
Even teaching the workings of these 17 religions and even considering that there will be an enormous amount of overlap, the whole project seems impractical.
This is an example of using facts and other justification to back up your counter argument.
-- End of Part 4
That’s it then. All finished. Well done for getting this far. Now get out there and destroy some arguments!
No comments:
Post a Comment