How to Win Every Argument ( PDFDrive )

How to Win Argument The Use and Abuse of Logic

Every c

Also available from Continuum What Philosophers Think - Julian What Philosophy Is - David Care Great Thinkers A-Z - Julian Bagg

n Baggini and Jeremy Stangroom el and David Gamez gini and Jeremy Stangroom

How to Win Argument The Use and Abuse of Madsen Pirie • \\ continuum • • • L O N D O N • NEW YORK

n Every Logic m K

To Thomas, Samu Continuum International Publishing Group The Tower Building 11 York Road London SE1 7NX © Madsen Pirie 2006 All rights reserved. No part of this publication form or by any means, electronic or mechanic any information storage or retrieval system, w publishers. Madsen Pirie has asserted his right under the C to be identified as Author of this work British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Dat A catalogue record for this book is available f ISBN: 0826490069 (hardback) Library of Congress Cataloguing-in-Publicatio A catalog record for this book is available fro Typeset by YHT Ltd, London Printed and bound in Great Britain by MPG B

uel and Rosalind 15 East 26th Street New York, NY 10010 may be reproduced or transmitted in any cal, including photocopying, recording, or without prior permission in writing from the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, ta from the British Library. on Data om the Library of Congress. Books Ltd, Bodmin, Cornwall

Contents Acknowledgments Introduction Abusive analogy Accent Accident Affirming the consequent Amphiboly Analogical fallcy Antiquitam, argumentum ad Apriorism Baculum, argumentum ad Bifurcation Blinding with science The bogus dilemma Circulus in probando The complex question (plurium Composition Concealed quantification Conclusion which denies prem Contradictory premises Crumenam, argumentum ad Cum hoc ergo propter hoc Damning the alternatives

m interrogationum) viii mises ix 1 3 5 7 9 11 14 15 17 19 22 24 27 29 31 33 35 38 39 41 44

VI Definitional retreat Denying the antecedent Dicto simpliciter Division Emotional appeals Equivocation Every schoolboy knows The exception that proves the Exclusive premises The existential fallacy Ex-post-facto statistics Extensional pruning False conversion False precision The gambler's fallacy The genetic fallacy Half-concealed qualification Hedging Hominem (abusive), argumentu Hominem (circumstantial), arg Ignorantiam, argumentum ad Ignorantio elenchi Illicit process Irrelevant humour Lapidem, argumentum ad Lazarum, argumentum ad Loaded words Misericordiam, argumentum ad Nauseam, argumentum ad Non-anticipation Novitam, argumentum ad Numeram, argumentum ad One-sided assessment Petitio principii

How to Win Every Argument rule 46 49 um ad 51 gumentum ad 53 55 d 58 60 63 65 67 69 72 74 76 79 82 83 86 88 90 92 94 97 99 101 104 106 109 111 114 116 118 121 123

Contents Poisoning the well Populum, argumentum ad Positive conclusion from nega Post hoc ergo propter hoc Quaternio terminorum The red herring Refuting the example Reification The runaway train Secundum quid Shifting ground Shifting the burden of proof The slippery slope Special pleading The straw man Temperantiam, argumentum Thatcher's blame Trivial objections Tu quoque Unaccepted enthymemes The undistributed middle Unobtainable perfection Verecundiam, argumentum a Wishful thinking Classification of fallacies

ative premise vu m ad 126 ad 128 130 131 133 136 138 140 142 145 147 149 151 153 155 157 160 162 164 166 168 171 173 176 179

Acknowledgments My thanks for their helpful sugges John O'Sullivan. For assistance wit Lees, Steve Masty, Sam Nguyen thank all those who have aided a least the publisher and editor.

stions go to Eamonn Butler and th the preparation, I thank Tom and Xander Stephenson. I also and encouraged this work, not

Introduction Sound reasoning is the basis o fallacies undermine arguments fascination, and have been stu millennia. Knowledge of them is inadvertently by others and ev deceive. The fascination and th however, should not be allowe identifying them can give. I take a very broad view of f guage which allows a statemen something it is not has an a reserved for fallacies. Very often to be a supporting argument for support it at all. Sometimes it m evidence which does not sustai Many of the fallacies are c ignorant of logical reasoning, t counts as relevant material. O mitted by persons bent on dece behind the argument and the ev weight to carry them through. This book is intended as a pr to win arguments. It also teache mischief at heart and malice afo

of winning at argument. Logical s. They are a source of enduring udied for at least two-and-a-half s useful, both to avoid those used ven to use a few with intent to he usefulness which they impart, ed to conceal the pleasure which fallacies. Any trick of logic or lan- nt or a claim to be passed off as admission card to the enclosure n it is the case that what appears r a particular contention does not might be a deduction drawn from in it. committed by people genuinely the nature of evidence, or what Others, however, might be com- eption. If there is insufficient force vidence, fallacies can add enough ractical guide for those who wish es how to perpetrate fallacies with orethought. I have described each

X fallacy, given examples of it, and any points of general interest co rence of the fallacy, I have given th how and where the fallacy may imum effect. I have listed the fallacies alpha sification into the five major types end of the book. It is well worth th Latin tags wherever possible. Wh perpetrating something with a L suffering from a rare tropical dise making the accuser seem both er In the hands of the wrong pe than a book, and it was written w It will teach such a person how honestly at times. In learning how practising and polishing each falla identify it and will build up an knowledge of these fallacies prov about politicians and media comm suspicion of double-dealing will precise crimes against logic which Knowledge of fallacies can thus an offensive capability. Your abi enable you to defend yourself ag your own dexterity with them w cessful and offensive, as you set a making arguments go your way.

How to Win Every Argument shown why it is fallacious. After oncerning the history or occur- he reader recommendations on be used to deceive with max- abetically, although a full clas- s of fallacy may be found at the he reader's trouble to learn the hen an opponent is accused of Latin name it sounds as if he is ease. It has the added effect of rudite and authoritative. erson this is more of a weapon with that wrong person in mind. to argue effectively, even dis- to argue, and in the process of acy, the user will learn how to n immunity to it. A working vides a vocabulary for talking mentators. Replacing the vague l be the identification of the h have been committed. s provide a defensive as well as ility to spot them coming will gainst their use by others, and will enable you to be both suc- about the all-important task of Madsen Pirie

Abusive analogy The fallacy of abusive analogy i the ad hominem argument. Ins directly, an analogy is drawn w into scorn or disrepute. The opp pared with something which wil toward him from the audience. Smith has proposed we should go as much about ships as an Armen (Perhaps you do not need to kno Smith can always learn. The po deliberately drawn to make him several Armenian bandleaders w The analogy may even be a vali the comparison being made. Thi less fallacious, since the purpo unargued, material to influence If science admits no certainties, knowledge of the universe than bush. (This is true, but is intended as a sympathetic to the possibility of The fallacy is a subtle one bec which the audience make from petrator need not say anything the associations made by the abusive analogy is a fallacy bec material to influence the argum

is a highly specialized version of stead of the arguer being insulted which is calculated to bring him ponent or his behaviour is com- ill elicit an unfavourable response o on a sailing holiday, though he knows nian bandleader does. ow all that much for a sailing holiday. oint here is that the comparison is look ridiculous. There may even be ho are highly competent seamen.) id one, from the point of view of is makes it more effective, but no ose is to introduce additional, a judgement. then a scientist has no more certain n does a Hottentot running through the abuse so that the hearer will be more certain knowledge.) cause it relies on the associations m the picture presented. Its per- which is untrue; he can rely on hearer to fill in the abuse. The cause it relies on this extraneous ment.

2 In congratulating my colleague has no more experience of it th school. (Again, true. But look who's doing While politicians delight in bo are surprisingly few good uses of domain. A good one should ha comparison, and invite abuse by things being equal, it is easier comparison which is untrue, than of truth. Few have reached the O'Connell's description of Sir Rob ...a smile like the silver plate o (True, it has a superficial sparkle, thing rather cold behind it.) The venom-loaded pens of lit much more promising springs fro trickle forth. He moved nervously about the (And died after the first night.) Abusive analogies take compo preparation, you will find yours stock of comparisons which no conjure up vivid images. Describin 'straightlaced schoolmistresses' or not lift you above the common he of abusive comparison, on the oth

How to Win Every Argument e on his new job, let me point out that he han a snivelling boy has on his first day at g the snivelling.) oth abuse and analogies, there the abusive analogy from that ave an element of truth in its its other associations. All other to be offensive by making a to be clever by using elements memorable heights of Daniel bert Peel: on a coffin. but it invites us to think of some- terary and dramatic critics are om which abusive analogies can e stage, like a virgin awaiting the Sultan. osition. If you go forth without self drawing from a well-used longer have the freshness to ng your opponents as being like or 'sleazy strip-club owners' will erd. A carefully composed piece her hand, can pour ridicule on

Accent the best-presented case you co longhorn; a point here, a point between'. Accent The fallacy of accent depends fo the meaning of statements can c put on the words. The accenting give a meaning quite different fr implications which are not part Light your cigarette. (Without accent it looks like a sim Light your cigarette. (Rather than the tablecloth, or wh burn.) Light your cigarette. (Instead of everyone else's.) Light your cigarette. (Instead of sticking it in your ear Even with so simple a phrase, markedly changed meaning. We read that men are born equal all an equal vote.

3 ould find: 'a speech like a Texas there, but a whole lot of bull in or its effectiveness on the fact that change, depending on the stress g of certain words or phrases can rom that intended, and can add of the literal meaning: mple instruction or invitation.) hatever else you feel in the mood to r.) a changed accent can give a l, but that is no reason for giving them

4 (Actually, we probably read that carries an implication that they do Accent is obviously a verbal Emphasis in print is usually given b them to a quotation from someon In speech, however, unauthorized bringing unauthorized implication with the additional implications i form no part of the statement acc in surreptitiously without supporti The fallacy of accent is often us permissive. By stressing the thing other things are admissible. Mother said we shouldn't throw It's all right for us to use these lu (And mother, who resolved never respond with a kick.) In many traditional stories the glory by using the fallacy of acce ancient curse or injunction. Per looked at the Medusa would be tu it: Samson was blinded by the k promised not to touch him. Your most widespread use of t discredit opponents by quoting never intended. ('He said he wo people. You will notice all of the th Richelieu needed six lines by the find something on which to han fallacy of accent you can usually g

How to Win Every Argument men are born equal. Born equal o not remain equal for long.) al fallacy, for the most part. by italics, and those who supply ne else are supposed to say so. d accents intrude more readily, ns in their wake. The fallacy lies introduced by emphasis. They cepted, and have been brought ing argument. sed to make a prohibition more to be excluded, it implies that w stones or the windows. umps of metal. to lay a hand on them, might well intrepid hero wins through to ent to find a loophole in some rseus knew that anyone who urned to stone. Even villains use king of the Philistines who had the fallacy of accent can be to them with an emphasis they ould never lie to the American hings that left him free to do.') most honest man in order to ng him; with skilful use of the get this down to half a line.

Accident It is particularly useful when action which normally meets w can enable you to plead that admissible. ('I know we are pl warfare against people in far-aw away.') When trying to draw up rules that there are skilled practitione prepared to drive a coach and s will then end up with somethin mail monopoly, which actually s across the street could be con monopoly. (They did only say th Accident The fallacy of accident suppose exceptional case are enough to j The features in question may be on the matter under contention, an unusual and allowable excep We should reject the idea that it i a man lends you weapons, and th to put weapons into the hands o (This fallacy, used by Plato, lies in an 'accident', in that it is a freak c topic, and readily admitted to be Almost every generalization grounds that one could think cover. Most of the general state

5 you are advocating a course of with general disapproval. Accent your proposed action is more ledged not to engage in germ way lands, but the Irish are not far s and regulations, bear it in mind ers of the fallacy of accent quite six through your intentions. You ng as tightly worded as the old spelled out that people shouting nstrued as a breach of the mail he street, though.) es that the freak features of an justify rejection of a general rule. e 'accidental', having no bearing , and may easily be identified as ption. is just to repay what is owed. Supposing hen goes insane? Surely it cannot be just of a madman? n not recognizing that the insanity is circumstance unrelated to the central e a special case.) could be objected to on the of 'accidental' cases it did not ements about the consequences

6 which follow upon certain actio grounds that they did not cover the perpetrator before the co maintain this would be to comm It is a fallacy to treat a gene unqualified universal, admitting invest it with a significance an intended to bear. Most of our g qualification that they apply, all o things are not equal, such as meteorite, the exceptions can b the general claim. ' You say you have never met this s you in a football crowd, for exam 'Well, no.' 'When was this occasion, and w (If I did meet him, it was an acc Accident is a fallacy encounte versal. If you are trying to est things like 'truth', justice' and 'm prised if others spend as much accident through your seals. Plato was searching for justi justify liberty except where there to others, found himself forev began, 'But what about the case hazard. If you are to avoid accid Promises should not always be ke desert island with an Austrian cou

How to Win Every Argument ons could be overturned on the r the case of a meteorite striking onsequences had occurred. To mit the fallacy of accident. eral statement as if it were an g no exceptions. To do so is to nd a rigour which it was never generalizations carry an implicit other things being equal. If other the presence of insanity or a be allowed without overturning spy. Can you be sure he was never near mple?' what papers passed between you?1 cident.) ered by those in pursuit of uni- tablish watertight definitions of meaning', you must not be sur- energy trying to leak the odd ice. John Stuart Mill, trying to e is harm, or serious risk of harm, ver meeting objections which where . . . ? ' It is an occupational dents, avoid universal. ept. Suppose you were stranded on a unt who was running an international

Affirming the consequent spy-ring. And suppose there was promised him... (The only amazing feature of the suppose such freak cases to acceptable.) One of the famous examples What you bought yesterday you terday, so you eat raw meat tod (With the generalization referrin 'accidental' condition.) The fallacy of accident is a go appears to overturn general rules breaking the rules, dig up the fre allow. If the rule does not apply in yours? ('We all agree that it w office if this were the only way trapped in the cellar. So what I d Affirming the consequen To those who confuse hopeless affirming the consequent is a f occupational hazard of those w ments, this particular fallacy fails than one way of killing a cat. When cats are bitten by rabid he obviously there is a rabid hedge

7 s only enough food for one, and you ese lurid stories is that anyone should make the general rule any less of the fallacy is a schoolboy joke: eat today. You bought raw meat yes- day. ng to the substance, regardless of its ood one for anarchists because it s. When it is claimed that you are eakiest case your imagination will y in this case, why should it apply would be right to burn down a tax y to release widows and orphans did was not inherently wrong...') nt sly the order of horses and carts, fallacy which comes naturally. An who engage in conditional argu- s to recognize that there is more edgehogs they die. Here is a dead cat, so ehog about.

8 (Before locking up your cats, refle have been electrocuted, garrotted, possible that a rabid hedgehog go fact.) The arguer has mixed up the ant an 'if... then' construction, the ' the 'then' part is the consequen antecedent in order to prove the c If I drop an egg, it breaks. I dro (This is perfectly valid. It is an ar which we probably use every day following version.) If I drop an egg, it breaks. This (This is the fallacy of affirming the c other incidents leading to a broken upon it, someone else dropping it For valid logic we must affirm the f second. In the fallacy we affirm the deduce the first. Affirming the co an event can be produced by diffe we cannot be certain that only one If the Chinese wanted peace, t exchanges. Since they do supp peace. (Maybe. This conclusion might be be other, more ominous reasons exchanges. The cat can be killed in This fallacy receives a plentiful airin the basis of circumstantial evi

How to Win Every Argument ect that the deceased feline might , disembowelled, or run over. It is ot him, but we cannot deduce it as a tecedents and consequents. In 'if part is the antecedent, and nt. It is all right to affirm the consequent, but not vice versa. opped the egg, so it broke. rgument called the modus ponens y of our lives. Compare it with the egg is broken, so I must have dropped it. consequent. There could be many n egg, including something falling t, or a chicken coming out of it.) first part in order to deduce the e second part in an attempt to onsequent is fallacious because erent causes. Seeing the event, e particular cause was involved. they would favour cultural and sporting port these exchanges, we know they want the most plausible, but there could for their support of international n more ways than one.) ing in our law-courts, since it is idence. Where we have no

Amphiboly eyewitness evidence, we work ba actions which might have cause If he had been planning murder, ance on his wife. He did take ou If he intended poison, he would weedkiller. If he had wanted to cut up the bo Such a saw was found in his tool (There could be alternative exp these actions. It would be fallaci him guilty. But as they mount up twelve good persons and true to coincidence. No doubt they are hanged many a tale, together w This is an extremely good fa impute base motives to someon actions caused by motives do. Y your suggestion of less-than-ho skilfully affirmed consequent. She's just a tramp. Girls like that and she did appear at the office tically transparent! (We can all see through this one Amphiboly Amphiboly is the fallacy of am whenever the whole meaning o

9 ack from what is known to those ed it. , he would have taken out extra insur- ut extra insurance. have bought some. He did buy some ody, he would have needed a big saw. lshed. planations, innocent ones, for all of ious to say that any of them proved p, it becomes progressively easier for o eliminate reasonable doubts about e sometimes wrong and thereby has with the occasional innocent man.) allacy to use when you wish to ne. Motives do not show, but the You can always gain a hearing for onourable motives, by use of a always flaunt themselves before men, e party wearing a dress that was prac- e.) mbiguous construction. It occurs of a statement can be taken in

10 more than one way, and is usuall The Duchess has a fine ship, but sh (This is a duchess who requires es The fallacy is capable of infin examples of amphiboly make use the 'she' refer to the ship or to t may occur with animals. / met the ambassador riding his ho I gave him a lump of sugar. (Would that all diplomats were so Misuse of the word 'which', o produce many classic examples. ( in details about the injury to my There are innumerable versions o FOR SALE: Car by elderly lady wit The mistake usually consists in th alternative reading is possible. S misplaced; sometimes there is no ambiguity. Press headlines, with brevity, are favourite long grass delightful amphiboly will bounc War II masterpieces include: MACARTHUR FLIES BACK TO FRO (With more variations still if the se

How to Win Every Argument ly the fault of careless grammar. he has barnacles on her bottom. specially careful handling.) nite variation. Many excellent e of the confused pronoun: does the Duchess? Similar confusion orse. He was snorting and steaming, so o cheaply entertained.) or its omission for brevity, both ('On the claim form I have filled y spine which I now enclose.') of the advertisement: th new body and spare tyre. he failure to appreciate that an Sometimes the punctuation is ot enough of it to eliminate the their need for both punch and ses from which the occasional ce into view. Legendary World ONT econd word is taken to be a noun.)

The analogical fallacy FRENCH PUSH BOTTLES UP GER (Hand-to-hand combat, yes. But Use of the amphiboly with resort of oracles and fortune-telle the prophet to hedge his bets, outcome one can always take re fulfilled. Croesus asked the ora attacked Persia. The reply 'A mig prophetic indeed. But it was his To become a skilled perpet acquire a certain nonchalance commas. You must learn to cathedral bells tripping through not a whit whether you or the b should acquire a vocabulary of n grammatical style which easily nouns and confusions over subj columns in popular newspap material. The analogical fallacy The analogical fallacy consists of similar in one respect must b comparison on the basis of wh assume that the unknown parts The body politic, like any other b brain directing it. This is why a efficient.

11 RMANS! t this is ridiculous.) intent to deceive is a favourite ers. A timely amphiboly enables , having it both ways. After the efuge in the meaning which was acle what would happen if he ghty empire will be humbled' was s own. trator of amphibolies you must toward punctuation, especially toss off lines such as 'I heard h the alleyways', as if it mattered bells were doing the tripping. You nouns which can be verbs and a accommodates misplaced pro- ject and predicate. The astrology pers provide excellent source f supposing that things which are be similar in others. It draws a hat is known, and proceeds to s must also be similar. body, works best when there is a clear authoritarian governments are more

12 (None of these false analogies lik ever seem to say much about its mechanism.) Analogies are a useful way of enable us to talk about the new audience already have experienc assumption of further similarities i ones already identified. Babies are like the weather in their (They are also wet and full of wind It is fallacious because analogies more than sources of knowledge. of enquiry to us, but it does not discoveries. She had skin like a million dollars. (Green and crinkly?) Analogical fallacies abound in the attempt to make history m comparisons emerge. Past civilizat they are now past, once were civi not. These three utterly commonp into a 'life-cycle' analogy. The sim no longer alive' irresistibly inv organisms. Before our defences civilizations 'blooming' and 'flow the act of 'withering and dying'.

How to Win Every Argument kening the state to a human body s liver, pancreas, or waste-disposal f conveying information. They w concept in terms which the ce of. The fallacy comes in the in the future on the basis of the r unpredictability. d.) s are tools of communication An analogy may suggest lines provide a basis for establishing the interpretation of history. In mean something, all kinds of tions all have it in common that ilizations, and before that were place facts lead many historians mple sequence 'not alive, alive, vites comparison with living are ready, there we are with wering', soon to be engaged in