How to Win Every Argument ( PDFDrive )

Nauseam, argumentum ad Advertisers have long been l society. They know that a specio force if it is repeated often enoug building up not a rational convi It washes whiter than bleach; bleach. (What they tell us three times is Many of the proverbs we hea so many times that we often com truth in them. This assumption contrary evidence which life thru survives a simultaneous belief quite hard to look before you l hesitation, and while many hand to spoil the broth. All of which s nauseam. To use the argumentum ad n have to do is to repeat yourse situations where it might succe stant repetition over a long peri short bursts. You must be to against you, always reiterating bores your audience to tears, it opposing you. And when the observers will begin to suppose your claims. The civil servant advising his the argumentum ad nauseam: But Minister, as I have been which we can cut the adminis

113 life members of the ad nauseam ous claim acquires credibility and gh. They know the importance of iction but a habit of association. ; that's whiter than bleach; yes, whiter than s true.) ar in childhood are dinned into us me to suppose that there must be n seems able to survive all of the usts before us, and in some cases in contradictory proverbs. It is leap without being lost through ds make light work, they do tend shows the power of the simple ad nauseam is easy enough: all you elf. It is harder to recognize the eed. The general rule is that con- iod of time is more effective than otally impervious to arguments g the same point. This not only also instils in them the futility of ey give up in total weariness, that they can no longer counter minister provides a case-study of explaining for two years, there is no way i strative costs of this department. Every

114 single job is vital to our efficiency. picking up used paper-clips, for ex (And the ad nauseam cracks the the problem.) If you aspire to expert rank, h exhibited by the minister himsel / responded to charges of ministe by saying that I had nothing to ad not care to expand on that at this (Please sir, it wasn't me!) Non-anticipation The fallacy of non-anticipation everything worth doing or saying Any new idea is rejected on the g it would already be part of c rejected because they have not b If tobacco really is so harmful, ho (They didn't know. Nowadays m experience the adverse effects, an measuring such things.) The central assumption of the fal made on several fronts, includin New ideas are constantly being fication for supposing that our an all. The presumption that they into the argument.

How to Win Every Argument . The man we hire to scour the building xample... minister before the minister cracks however, study closely the form lf at the dispatch-box: erial dereliction of duty on 9 November dd to my statement of 4 June. I would s time. n consists of supposing that g has already been done or said. grounds that if it were any good, current wisdom. Proposals are been anticipated. ow come people didn't ban it years ago? more people live long enough to nd we now have more techniques for allacy is unwarranted. Progress is ng the scientific and the social. adopted, and there is no justi- ncestors would have found them did intrudes irrelevant material

Non-anticipation Wise though the sages of old presume in them the totality o complete stupidity. If breakfast television is all that appear? (Because we didn't realize that their morning milk.) It is not just products and pr by invention; the same is true o People didn't need these long Ch they now? (They probably did need them them. The same fallacy would ha continuance of child labour in m The fallacy of non-anticipati who, while possessing a conserv think of any arguments again forward. Mr Chairman, this proposal has twenty years. If there were any been implemented long before (The beauty of this is that your 'evidence' against it in the fu rejection were equally frivolous. To give added effect to the f of the phantom legions who c did not. Their numbers appear t

115 d probably were, we can no more of wisdom than we can assume t good, why has it taken so long for it to people wanted even more pap with rocesses which are revolutionized of changes in our living patterns. hristmas holidays years ago, why should years ago; they just couldn't afford ave supported, and no doubt did, the mines and factories.) tion is a great comfort to those vative disposition, cannot actually nst the changes which are put s been kicked around for more than y merit in the idea at all, it would have now. r current rejection will serve as extra uture. Perhaps the reasons for past .) fallacy, you can enumerate some could have taken up the idea but to be ranged against the idea, like

116 yourself, even though they might it. Are we to assume that we are clev learned and competent people ove proposal such as this, but wisely re (Any more than Beethoven was cle have written his symphonies but d You will find the fallacy extr trends towards emancipation. Afte having women and children partic have been discovered long ago? you to stand up against independ exercise or eating courgettes. If there were any connection betw and obesity, don't you think that seen it before now? (Why should they? They cannot e Novitam, argumentum ad If it is a fallacy to suppose that ag also fallacious to suppose some because it is new. The argument take of thinking that the newness tributing to its soundness. To hea because it is new is to hear the a These new tower-blocks are the c ourselves.

How to Win Every Argument t simply never have thought of verer than the thousands of the very er the years who could have acted on a efrained from doing so? everer than the millions who could did not do so?) traordinarily useful in resisting ter all, if there were any merit in cipate in decisions, would it not ? The same approach will help dent holidays, dining out, taking ween drinking eight pints of beer a day countless beer drinkers would have even see their own toes.) ge is a guide to correctness, it is ething to be more right simply tum ad novitam makes the mis- s of something is a factor con- ar support urged for something ad novitam being used. coming thing. We should build some

Novitam, argumentum ad (Their newness did not stop them or the lives of their tenants.) Some people are surprised oldness can be used fallaciously they appeal to contradictory trait of the traditional, and we like to Either of these can be used as support claims which should sta novitam, like its antiquitam coun fact of the age of the propositio acceptance. Because the newnes its Tightness, a fallacy is commit There was a time when the home with progressive reformers with conservatives. Those were new world. Times change, how builds its nest amongst conserv ably amid calls for the rejectio failed' and for 'looking truly f Meanwhile the argumentum ad progressives looking back to the Advertisers have used the wor ad novitam for many years. Ass new products with new progr powder to toothpaste has been eals were forever new, with t increasing resemblance of the c packet. Great were the shock- when cereals started to appear w In faded brown packets, they pr and rapidly gained sales. The b sent the ad novitams back on t came out with old-fashioned pre

117 m brutalizing the landscape of cities to find that both newness and in support of a contention. In fact ts in all of us. We like the security o be fashionable and up-to-date. fallacies if we try to make them and or fall on their merits. The ad nterpart, introduces the irrelevant on as a means of influencing its ss does not, in fact, contribute to tted by appealing to it. ad novitam found as welcome a s as its sibling, ad antiquitam, did the days of constructing a brave wever, and the ad novitam now vatives. It settles down comfort- on of 'the old ways which have fit for the twenty-first century'. d antiquitam stirs uneasily as it sees e good old days of social reform. rd 'new' as a reflex appeal to the suming that the public equated ress, everything from washing- n 'new, improved'. Breakfast cer- the main innovation being the contents to the cardboard of the -waves in the advertising world which were positively old in style. romised old-fashioned goodness, bold attack of the ad antiquitam the ropes. All kinds of products esentation, 'just as it used to be'

118 was the slogan, with sleepy scen the packets. In Britain, Hovis br improved, featured sepia-tinted Both fallacies have powerful a too far. Now there is a balance country boy wears clothes loo while those brought up in Glasg entirely false childhood memor brown eggs. When using the ad novitam, r of the two fallacies, and confine uitam is unwelcome. You canno new, since people will prefer the nomic theories because they are came of the old ones? Just as yours is the 'new eco moral convictions part of the would much prefer to be brou information, rather than being h Are we to continue in the wa commercial development on awareness of social needs by the unemployed? (With arguments like this, you'll centre for those who would have development.) Numeram, argumentum ad Not many people like to be out the comfort of solid numbers be

How to Win Every Argument nes and pictures of cobwebs on read, instead of being new and ads of rural simplicity. appeal, but ad novitam had gone e between the two. The simplest oking roughly like a space-suit, gow tenements now look back on ries of country smells and fresh remember the conflicting appeal e it to areas where the ad antiq- ot support housing because it is e old. But you can support eco- e new. After all, what good ever onomies', so are your social and 'new awareness'. An audience ught up-to-date and given new hectored to change their minds. ays of the old acquisitiveness by allowing the site, or are we to respond to a new building a modern community centre for win easily. You'll get a community e been employed by the commercial d t on a limb. Many prefer instead ehind them, feeling there is less

Numeram, argumentum ad possibility that so many others mentum ad numeram wrongly e a contention with the correctnes support are not necessarily more numeram supposes that they are Fifty million Frenchmen can't (A glance at the history of that n have been.) The fallacy lies in the fact that contention is neither helped no support. Many people are quite things, and received wisdom is knowledge. Simple observation, nets and stars turning across th guide, no matter how many mill Everybody's smoking Whifters (Because he thinks everybody is The ad numeram can appeal insidiously, to the numbers of th more impressed by the propor Times, than by the numbers ba The question to ask yourself is w thing to the claim. We have an argument here a European golf team. Let's set (And before you jump off a buil votes to carry repeal of the law o

119 could be mistaken. The argu- equates the numbers in support of ss of it. Ideas which have mass re likely to be right; but the ad e. t be wrong! nation will show that they very often t the Tightness or wrongness of a or hindered by the numbers in often wrong about even simple not to be equated with factual , such as that which shows pla- he skies, can be an unreliable lions attest to its truth. s, why don't you? stupid.) al to general numbers, or more hose you respect. You might be rtion of top people taking The acking Britain's biggest daily sale. whether the numbers add any- about whether Ballasteros ever captained a ttle it democratically. lding, make sure you have enough of gravity.)

120 If ideas were decided by numb admitted. Every new idea starts gains acceptance only if the evi from the prevailing view. If numb Bruno was wrong when he said t and the authorities were right to We have to give him a fair trial be say he did it shout 'aye!' (Amazing proof! Sounds kinda un The ad numeram provides an attitudes. If it's not true, then why have so m so many centuries? (Easy. We all make mistakes.) The ad numeram is the specia the mob orator. Those who gove whose outlook and assumptions often come from a milieu in w overcrowding and crime bear ra do upon most. This gives the d appeal to numbers in support o government. On subjects such relations, he can appeal to the a his side as evidence of a conspir elite. Every opinion poll shows that pu those who commit crimes of violen

How to Win Every Argument bers, no new ones would ever be out as a minority viewpoint and idence for it wins converts over bers are the test, then Giordano the earth moved around the sun, o burn him at the stake. efore we string him up. All those who nanimous to me.) n excellent defence of established many millions of people believed in it for al fallacy of the demagogue and ern us tend to form a special class s are not commonly shared. They which the pressures of poverty, ather less upon them than they demagogue the opportunity to of ideas which find little echo in as capital punishment or race agreement of large numbers on racy of silence by the governing ublic whipping is the best remedy for nce.

One-sided assessment (And if you asked them, they'd p ting and disembowelment. They right.) The ad numeram is a fallacy ideal setting you would be hara armed with blazing torches ou during a famine. Even in prin numeram into a clinical countin rage that the obviously correc ignored. When your side is in an unfortu to quote from the past, when foreign countries where you do Sweden is an excellent source for bizarre things. Are we to say that all Swedes most enlightened country do (Yes.) One-sided assessment Many of the decisions we are cal advantages and drawbacks. The f fallen into when only one side of ation. Decisions usually require b account of, and a preference ma ance. To look at one side only is to I'm not going to get married. not to mention the loss of my

121 probably say the same about garot- y could be just as wrong or, indeed, to be used with passion. In its anguing a rabble of 600 people utside a corn merchant's house nt, you should not turn an ad ng of heads, but conjure up out- ct view of so many should be unate minority, the technique is your lot were on top, or from o have a majority to back you. r majorities in favour of the most are fools? That the people of the world's on't know what they are talking about? lled upon to weigh up have both fallacy of one-sided assessment is of the case is taken into consider- both pros and cons to be taken ade for the side that wins on bal- o avoid judgement of that balance: There would be all that extra responsibilit y freedom. Think of the costs of raising

122 children and putting them th insurance premiums... (If that really were all, no one w It is equally possible to look only This encyclopedia is one you admire it. Your children will plement your bookshelf! (On the other hand, it will cost y Either way, the fallacy of one-sid looking only at the objections, o excluding material which bear should be taken account of. material from the argument is w assessment. One-sided assessment is not a for the other side to be presen American culture an adversaria each side has the strongest c passionate observer is likely to therefore expect a counsel to pu and a trade union negotiator to because we know that there w other side. It would be one-sided judgement considered one side Let's not go to Ibiza. Think of (On the other hand, what about the excellent food and the low p

How to Win Every Argument hrough college. Then there are the increase would ever do it.) y at the positive side. u will be proud to own. Your friends will benefit. You will learn from it. It will com you a LOT of money.) ded assessment is committed. By or only at the advantages, we are rs on the decision, and which The omission of this relevant what is fallacious about one-sided a fallacy when space is allocated nted similarly. There is in Anglo- al tradition, which has it that if case put forward, then a dis- arrive at a fair judgement. We ut only the evidence for acquittal, put only the case for an increase, will be someone else putting the d assessment if those making the only. f the heat, the mosquitoes and the crowds the lovely sunshine, the cheap wine, prices?)

Petitio princlpll Life's judgements often call made their balance and come d persuade others by emphasizin unwary should remember that th for a different judgement, once All of the arguments support prosperity; it means a future (And it really is rather unfortunate down to build it.) There is a clever version of o should use when persuading ot ment. This involves making a pur against you, by referring to one other side before you launch int in favour. This polishes your ca apparent objectivity. Of course, if we bought a bigg But think of the convenience! could use it for holidays; you its extra speed would cut dow (Sold, to the gentleman with the Petitio principii The fallacy of petitio principii, o question', occurs whenever us something which the conclusion a master of disguise and is cap

123 for trade-offs. Those who have down in favour are apt to try to ng only the positive side. The heir own scale of values might call they consider all of the factors. the new road. It means progress; it means for our town! te that they have to pull your house one-sided assessment which you thers to agree with your judge- rely token concession to the case of the weaker arguments on the to the overwhelming arguments ase by adding to it the gloss of ger car, we'd need to make new seat covers ! All the shopping would go in the back; w could pick up the children in comfort; and wn our journey times. e fallacy.) otherwise known as 'begging the se is made in the argument of n seeks to establish. The petitio is pable of assuming many strange

124 forms. One of its commonest reworded conclusion as an argum Justice requires higher wages beca more. (Which amounts to saying that jus justice requires higher wages.) It might seem to the novice th for a long walk; it seems too frail look at the world of political dis sion, some still running strongly quite difficult to advance argume in essence emotional. This is why accidentally, and others delibera The political petitio usually appea forward to support a particular c no more than a part of that sam The British government should p painting to an American museum b all works of art. (It looks like an argument, but th for each particular work of art. Ad than that the government should art because it should prevent the Argument is supposed to appe accepted, in order that things accepted may become so. The fa its dependence on the unestablis used, albeit often in a disguise support it.

How to Win Every Argument t appearances has it using a ment to support that conclusion. ause it is right that people should earn stice requires higher wages because hat petitio is not a fallacy to take l to go any distance. Yet a short scourse reveals petitios in profu- after several hundred years. It is ents for a commitment which is y politicians deceive themselves ately, with a plethora of petitios. ars as a general assumption put case, when the particular case is me assumption. prohibit the sale of the Constable because it should prevent the export of he same reason could be advanced ding them up would tell us no more d prevent the export of all works of export of all works of art.) eal to things which are known or which are not yet known or allacy of the petitio principii lies in shed conclusion. Its conclusion is ed form, in the premises which

Petitlo prindpii All arguments which purport be carefully scrutinized for hidd of ideologies, religions or moral they attempt to convince scepti that petitios proliferate in the p Everything can be defined in (Never be surprised when a d 'proving' the existence of a purp the outset to have a purpose, the already been admitted. This is a When using the petitio yours conceal the assumption of the words. Particularly useful are th hidden assumption built into th into this group. Philosophers al stockpile of these words, especi to behave. The obligations the hidden away in words like 'pr factual thing, but it has an 'oug The important thing to reme supposed to look like an argum should therefore spatter it with 'because' and 'therefore', even rewording. When pushed into a corner escape with a well-chosen p assumption of a general tru conclusion. We should not sell arms to M equip other nations with the

125 t to prove the unprovable should den petitios. Arguments in support values all have it in common that ics. They also have it in common proofs. n terms of its purpose. discussion starting like this ends up posive being. If things are admitted at en a being whose purpose that is has petitio prindpii disguised as a proof.) self, you should take great care to e conclusion by skilful choice of he words which already have a hem. Words such as 'purpose' fall lways go into battle with a huge ially when they try to tell us how ey wish to impose upon us are romise'. It looks like a straight, ght' tucked away in its meaning. ember about the petitio is that it is ment in support of a case. You h argument link words such as n if it is no more than a simple you can often effect a dramatic petitio by combining both the uth, and a rewording of the Malaysia because it would be wrong for us to e means of taking human life.

126 (This looks and sounds like an arg way of saying that we should not should not sell arms to anyone.) Poisoning the well The most attractive feature of opposition is discredited before th At its crudest, the fallacy consists about anyone who might disagre some willing victim steps forwar only shows that the unpleasant r Everyone except an idiot knows education. (When someone comes forward being spent he identifies himsel question.) The whole discussion is fallacious rejection of the proposition on th nothing to do with it. The claim i evidence, and does not have to b we would still have to examine t Closer inspection shows that specialized version of the ad insulting the arguer in the hope reject his argument the well-pois one who might argue. It is clever invites the victim to insult himself well. In doing so, it discourages

How to Win Every Argument gument, but it is really just a clever ot sell arms to Malaysia because we poisoning the well is that the hey have uttered a single word. s in making unpleasant remarks ee with a chosen position. When ard to dispute that position, he remarks apply to him, that not enough money is spent on to suggest that enough money is lf to the audience as the idiot in because it invites acceptance or he basis of evidence which has is only an insult, offered without be accepted. Even if it were true, the argument on its merits. poisoning the well is a highly hominem abusive. Instead of that the audience will be led to soner sets up the insult for any- rer than simple abuse because it f by drinking from the poisoned opposition.

Poisoning the well Of course, there may be thos to trains. (There may be those who take cleanliness, convenience, and r ference now, however, wou judgement.) In its crude and simple form great fun and can engender scorn. A version which is only game called 'sociology of kno player starts by asserting that e and politics is only the uncon interest. Next, he shows that fo does not apply to him because things objectively. When anothe views, the first player triumphan opponent can be ignored as the Choice in education is only a advantage for their children (There is no point now in pointin play in improving standards, or some say in the type of educat already been convicted of trying Skilful use of poisoning the main characteristics. The poiso from the audience, it should a tempted to disagree with you. but there will be others who better poison would be one suf to deter anyone from drinking

127 se with defective judgement who prefer bu e into account such factors as price, running on time. To admit the pre- uld be owning up to defective m, poisoning the well is seen to be spectacular coups of withering slightly more subtle appears in a owledge'. To play the game, one everyone else's view about society nscious expression of their class or specialized reasons this analysis e he is unprejudiced and can see er player disagrees with any of his ntly shows that the opinion of his e mere expression of class interest. a device by which the middle classes can bu n. ng to any role which competition might to the advantages of allowing parents ation given to their children. You have g to buy advantage; the rest is just cover.) e well should employ both of its on should not only incite ridicule also act as a deterrent to anyone . 'Only an idiot' will put off some, think they could shrug it off. A fficiently dreadful or embarrassing willingly.

128 Only those who are sexually i single-sex teaching in our scho (Any volunteers?) Well-poisoning is recommend not survive sustained scrutiny. It i opponent whose point goes ag unfortunately, valid. Judicious p opponent look so foolish that pe will also make you look witty and to conceal the fact that you are w Populum, argumentum ad The argumentum ad populum instead of presenting relevant ma on prejudice. It exploits the kn accept that which fits in comforta The popular prejudices may or speaker who makes his case depe an ad populum fallacy. In recommending Higginbotto on him. (Few people think they belong w The ad populum is often equ inflaming passions and prejudic hysteria than to rational discourse the ad populum, choosing words tional temperature.

How to Win Every Argument inadequate themselves now advocate ools. ded whenever your claim might is also useful for dealing with an gainst received opinion but is, poisoning will make such an eople will ignore the validity. It d confident, and may even serve wrong. appeals to popular attitudes aterial. In other words, it is based nown propensity of people to ably with their preconceptions. may not be justified, but the end solely upon them is guilty of om, I'd point out that the smart money is with the stupid guys.) uated with mob appeal, with ces more appropriate to mass e. Mob orators make a career of s calculated to raise the emo-

Populum, argumentant ad Are we to see the streets of this a faces? (The prejudice is xenophobia an faces' do not fit in our streets; b Those who commit the fallac of building up a case which c playing on the emotions of the m although it may be very succes might have developed a case fo assassins, and restoring Caesar's did was more effective. By ap disloyalty and ingratitude, and benefactors, he turned a funera For several centuries the trad appeal were landlords and corn negligible role in society nowad on popular prejudice that I ex cheer by castigating opponent corn merchants. Their disappe populum only partly filled by th are somewhat more nebulous b and dealing in corn were respe be identified, few people would for their occupation. Still, their and sinister quality to enhance / oppose enterprise zones beca areas, characterized by sharp de (You have to be careful, thoug sound of this.)

129 ancient land of ours given over to strange nd the implication is that the 'strange but no argument is advanced.) cy take the easy way out. Instead carries conviction, they resort to multitude. This is not sound logic, ssful. Conceivably Mark Anthony or punishing Brutus and the other s system of government. What he ppealing to popular rejection of d to popular support for public al crowd into a rampaging mob. ditional villains of the ad populum n merchants. Although they play a days, so powerful was their hold xpect you could still raise a lusty ts as profiteering landlords and earance has left a gap in the ad he mysterious 'speculators'. They because whereas letting property pectable occupations which could d write 'speculator' in the space r elusiveness imparts a shadowy e their evil. ause they will become sleazy red-light ealers and speculators. gh. Some audiences would like the

130 Your own ad populums will c basically in support of the little boy. The people against you are t of the financial district and the bu pensions. 'Rich bankers' has los people equate it with their local b rich. Remember to use code-wor judice is not respectable. Racial m be referred to as 'newcomers' o have been here longer than you If we allow the corner shop to clos going out of the community to rich b shop is part of our locality; it's a fri it's the focal point of the communit (People will do anything for it, ex Positive conclusion from n An argument which draws a conc allowed to have two negative pr provided the conclusion is also n whenever a positive conclusion fo include a negative one. Some cats are not stupid, and all c stupid. (Even though some of them are conclusion does not follow. One conclusion would also have to be Although two things can be rel the relationship which each ha

How to Win Every Argument come naturally, since you are man, the underdog, the local the big bosses, the money-men ureaucrats on their index-linked st its effect these days; most bank manager who is not all that rds where people feel the pre- minorities, for example, should or 'strangers', even when they have. se, it will mean hard-earned money businessmen in flash cars. The corner iendly presence in the neighbourhood; ty we grew up in. xcept shop there.) negative premise clusion from two premises is not remises, but it is allowed one, negative. A fallacy is committed ollows from two premises which cats are animals, so some animals are smart enough not to be cats, the e premise is negative, so any valid e so.) lated to each other by means of as with a third, if one of the

Post hoc ergo propter hoc relationships is concerned with deduction must show that the o excluded from some class. In o different relationship with a thir the same class. The fallacy of dra negative premises persuades us by telling of things which do no The trouble with this fallacy mile away. You can try persua sheep by telling them what rats are unlikely to succeed for the the rat before the wool is pulled to spot that you cannot claim because they are different. The only time you stand a c one is when you are calling up a only because anything goes on Post hoc ergo propter hoc The Latin translates as 'after thi and it is the fallacy of supposing another, then the second has b Immediately after the introduct birthrate shot up to a new high fr peas edged canned peas out of t (Too obvious to be true, perhap your daughters beans instead, everything else which preceded stay away from television, jet air to name but a few of the more

131 h what is not true for one, the other one is also wholly or partly other words, if they each enjoy a rd thing, they cannot both be in awing a positive conclusion from s that things do belong to a class ot. is that it can be seen coming a ading an audience that rats are are and what sheep are not. You simple reason that people smell over their eyes. It is just too easy that things are the same simply chance of getting away with this radio phone-in show. And that is a radio phone-in show. is, therefore on account of this', g that because one event follows been caused by the first. tion of canned peas, the illegitimate rom which it did not decline until frozen the market. The link is all too obvious. ps. If your thoughts turn to feeding remember to keep them clear of d the rise in illegitimacy. They should rcraft, polythene and chewing-gum, obvious hazards.)

132 Although two events might be assume that the one would not h The second might have happe might both be linked by a facto prosperity might influence our p peas, and also to engage in activ illegitimacy. Small children at g illustrations of the post hoc fallacy crossed fingers, eyes closed, hopp physical contortion once precede preparations with the outcome differ in no wise from more adu rabbits' feet and clenched-teeth supposition. If it worked once, it Unfortunately for our predict ceded by an infinite number of assign the idea of cause, we nee cession in time. The philosophe ularity as the chief requirement, and space. We are more likely to an infection in a man if its prese infection, and if it is found in the The charm of the post hoc fa behind the everyday idea of ca suppose we understand the me leads to another, Hume showe expectation of regularity. The can subsequent pain are called cause the one to follow on regularly f concoct all kinds of explanations two, but they come down to inte our first and second. How do we really are the cause? Easy. They a This gap in our knowledge p

How to Win Every Argument e consecutive, we cannot simply have occurred without the other. ened anyway. The two events or common to both. Increased propensity to consume canned vities which increase the rate of gaming machines provide vivid y. They may often be seen with ping on one leg, or in whatever ed a win. They link their random of their luck; and in this they ult gamblers, whose concealed h incantations betray the same can work again. tive ability, every event is pre- of other events. Before we can ed rather more than simple suc- er David Hume pointed to reg- , with some contiguity in time describe a germ as the cause of ence has regularly preceded the e body which is infected. allacy emerges when we leave ause and effect. Although we echanisms by which one event ed that it boils down to our ndle flame on the finger and the e and effect because we expect from the other. Of course, we s as invisible threads to link the erposing unseen events between know that these unseen events always follow from one another. provides a vacant lot in which

Quatemlo terminorum fallacies can park at will. Gree natural disasters in terms of hu cause of an earthquake, for exa odotus, or even Thucydides, gra preceded it before concluding the inhabitants of the stricken t The determined fallacist will Whatever your opponent is urg somewhere, in some form, at attribute the unpleasant things tion of that factor. We know th because unpleasant things are always plenty of earthquakes, s casts on TV which you can lay 'Imprisonment is barbaric. W cure them using open prison 'They have been trying tha happened: suicides, moral d want that here?' (A term such as 'moral degene fallacist, being more or less imp Quaternio terminorum Quaternio terminorum is the f three-line argument requires th first two lines, and eliminated because it works by relating tw relating each of them to a third depends on one term, the 'mid premises but disappearing from

133 ek historians regularly discussed uman actions. In looking for the ample, we are likely to find Her- avely discussing the events which that a massacre perpetrated by town was probably the cause. see this as a field of opportunity. ging is bound to have been tried some time. All you need do is s which followed it to the opera- hat unpleasant things followed it happening all the time; there are sex offences and political broad- at your adversary's door. We should try to understand criminals and ns and occupational therapy. ' at in Sweden since 1955, and look what's degeneracy and drunks everywhere. Do w eracy' is the hallmark of the sterling possible to disprove.) fallacy of four terms. The standard hat one term be repeated in the d from the conclusion. This is wo things to each other by first d thing. This 'syllogistic' reasoning ddle term', being repeated in the m the conclusion. Where there are

134 instead four separate terms, we clusion, and the quaternio termi John is to the right of Peter, and P the right of Paul. (This looks reasonable, but one lin the other one simply has 'Peter'. the four-terms fallacy is involve established. After all, they could b We might just as easily have said John is in awe of Peter, and Peter Paul. (The error is more obvious. John m and Peter could respect Paul for Bentley, he might not transfer his upstart.) The fallacy arises because, stri type of argument are separated comes after it is the term. It can b or many other things. Unless the line, there is a quaternio termino we cannot deduce new relations middle term common to both - John is the father of Peter, and Pe father of Paul. (Even your grandfather can see th Now look at the example where

How to Win Every Argument cannot validly draw the con- inorum is committed. Peter is to the right of Paul, so John is to ne has 'to the right of Peter' where These are two separate terms, and ed. The conclusion is not validly be sitting round a table.) d: is in awe of Paul, so John is in awe of might respect Peter for his intellect, r his Mercedes. Since John has a s awe from Peter to the other cheap ictly speaking, the terms in this by the verb 'to be'. Whatever be 'the father of, or 'in debt to', whole term appears in the next orum. Of course, with four terms ships between terms by using a there isn't one. eter is the father of Paul, so John is the his is wrong.) there is a middle term repeated:

Quaternlo terminorum John is the father of Peter, and th John is the father of Paul. (There are three terms, and this Quaternio terminorum can re relationships. If John is in debt t and Peter is in debt to Paul (w John might be very surprised demanding money with menac in love with Mary, and Mary is i theatre dramatist would attem deduction. The four-terms fallacy is mor genuine error than of delibera themselves with arguments con unlikely to fool others. There is it which alerts the unwary; it is l filled in. No date perhaps; m everyone looks at the amount. China is peaceful towards Franc USA, so China must be peaceful (You do not even need to know wrong. Just remember not to tru One way to use the fallacy w smuggle it in amongst a group such as 'bigger than', 'better than', do work because they terms. After a few of these, slip and it might get by.

135 he father of Peter is the father of Paul, so s is valid.) esult is endless confusion in daily to Peter to the tune of 45 dollars, who saved him from drowning), d to find Paul on his doorstep ces. On the other hand, if John is in love with Paul, no one except a mpt to complete the fallacious re likely to appear as a source of ate deception. People may fool nstructed around it, but they are something about the odd look of like a cheque without the amount maybe even no signature; but ce, and France is peaceful towards the towards the USA. w anything about China to know this is ust any relationship with France in it.) with a fair chance of success is to p of comparatives. Comparatives, than', 'stronger than', or 'fatter are transitive, despite the four p in the non-transitive relationship

136 Darling, I'm bigger than you a You stand in the same relation respect your mother. (I just don't want her in the house The red herring When the hounds are intent on choosing, in preference to that hunt, a red herring is used to effe of string, it is led across the trail powerful aroma is sufficient to ma following, and to take up its trail i skilfully drawn onto the trail whic In logic the red herring is dra ment. It is so smelly and so stron irresistibly in its wake, forgetting th the red herring is committed when to divert people away from the p ceed towards a different conclusi 'The police should stop environ veniencing the general public. 'Surely global meltdown is infin (It may well be, but that particularl we were following.) The use of the red herring is f vant material to prevent a con absence. If the argument leads in reason and evidence are taking it

How to Win Every Argument are, stronger, and richer; yet I respect you. nship to your mother, so I, in turn must e.) following a scent of their own selected by the master of the ect the transfer. Tied to a length il the hounds are following. Its ake them forget what they were instead. The red herring is then ch the hunt-master prefers. awn across the trail of an argu- ng that the participants are led their original goal. The fallacy of never irrelevant material is used point being made, and to pro- ion. nmental demonstrators from incon- . We pay our taxes. ' nitely worse than a little inconvenience?' rly ripe and smelly fish is not the one fallacious because it uses irrele- nclusion being reached in its n a particular direction because there, it is not valid to divert it

The red herring by means of extraneous mater material may be. 'Excuse me, sir. What are you out of your pocket?' 'I say, isn't that a purebred G (Even if the policeman is put of The more the red herring ap for a little way, the more attrac effective it will be at diverting a 'Publicans always try to prom 7 think these fashions come beer because they think tha later it might be cask-condit (The attraction here is that it sme about what publicans promote hour or two, the talkers will be by the beer.) Red herrings are used by tho feel the hounds getting unco under pressure will toss out so dogs will turn after it, even in Lawyers scatter them at the feet from crooked clients. Every fam with the trick of putting a wire of listening to the details of his bated breath as the ash grows lo in this case is a visual one, like th which diverts attention away fr

137 rial, however attractive that new u doing with that diamond necklace hangi German shepherd dog you have with you? ff the scent, the dog won't be.) ppears to follow the original trail ctive it is to follow, and the more attention. mote whatever makes them most profit. ' e and go. One time they will promote ligh at is where the demand is; but a year or two tioned ale. ' mells a little like the original trail. It talks e, but after following this one for an as much fuddled by the argument as ose who have a bad case, and can omfortably close to it. Politicians o tempting a red herring that the n the act of leaping for the kill. t of juries to divert attention away mous attorney has been credited through his cigar so that, instead s weak case, the jurors watch with onger and longer. The red herring he salesman's illuminated bow tie rom his inferior product.