PSEUDOREASONING I

1
PSEUDOREASONING I

• Recall that pseudoreasoning is false reasoning,
  and includes using emotional appeals, factual
  irrelevancies, and persuasive devices to persuade
  people to accept or reject claims when there are
  no rational grounds for doing so.
• Pseudoreasoning exploits the rhetorical content
  of words and phrases, where rhetoric here once
  again means the use of language to persuade or
  influence beliefs or attitudes rather than to
  prove them logically.

2
PSEUDOREASONING II

• MP Sometimes pseudoreasoning and other
  rhetorical arguments are used in place of
  argument, and other times they are used in
  addition to argument.
• MP Still other times they are used as if they
  were legitimate argument.
• The key thing to keep in mind is that
  pseudoreasoning and rhetorical techniques can
  tempt us to accept a claim or modify our
  position on an issue without our having a good
  reason for doing so.

3
AD HOMINEM I

• Ad hominem df. Attacking a person rather than
  his or her argument, view, or position on an
  issue.
• Ad hominem is Latin for to the man, and the
  idea in this kind of fallacy is that criticisms
  are directed towards the person rather than to
  the persons thoughts about or arguments for a
  particular view.
• MP However, ad hominem reasoning is
  fallacious since logically, the faults of the
  person are one thing, and the defects in what he
  or she says are quite another and the faults of
  the individual dont automatically attach
  themselves to what he or she says.

4
AD HOMINEM II

• Joe may be a right wing radical who is
  anti-government and against gun control, and I
  might disagree with such attitudes, but that in
  itself will not prove that his reasoning on a
  particular political issue is automatically
  wrong. And Jane may be a liberal feminist who is
  pro-choice in abortion, and I might think that
  such views are wrong, but that alone will not
  show that whatever she says about social issues
  are either right or wrong simply in virtue of her
  holding these opinions. Rather, her argument for
  or against a certain social issue must be
  assessed on its own merits, and so independently
  of her personal beliefs.
• Thus arguments have to be assessed on their own
  as arguments, and so independently of our
  attitudes towards the person by whom the argument
  is given.

5
AD HOMINEM III

• Disliking either a person or something negative
  about him, and finding critically acceptable
  reasons to reject a claim that he makes are two
  different things.
• We commit the error or fallacy of reasoning
  called ad hominem when we reject a persons
  claim merely because we dislike the person or
  something about the person. This version of ad
  hominem is called personal attack.
• Because we simply reject a claim made by a person
  or group because we dislike the person or group,
  personal attack ad hominem pseudoreasoning is
  much more emotional or psychological than it is
  rational or logical.

6
AD HOMINEM IV

• If we think that a persons negative
  characteristics are relevant to rejecting a claim
  she makes, then it may be plausible to reject the
  claim. However, we must be able to explain the
  relation of those characteristics to the claim
  being made so that rejecting the claim for this
  reason can be made plausible.
• For instance, if we know that a person x is a
  hater of another class of people y, then any
  negative claim about y made by x may be
  reasonably regarded as being suspicious and
  likely to be false, at the same time that further
  information may be needed to assess the claim
  accurately.

7
AD HOMINEM V

• Circumstantial ad hominem df. A fallacy in which
  a persons claim is rejected based upon the
  circumstances of the person making the claim.
• In circumstantial ad hominem the attack is not on
  the person, but her circumstances, and it is
  inferred that a claim made by the person is false
  because someone in her position or circumstances
  would make such a claim.
• For instance, thinking that a tax cut proposed by
  a wealthy congressman cannot be good for the
  average person because of his position of wealth
  is a circumstantial ad hominem. Rejecting Bills
  arguments against the death penalty because he is
  sitting on death row is also circumstantial ad
  hominem.

8
AD HOMINEM VI

• Personal attack and circumstantial ad hominems
  overlap, and trying to distinguish between them
  in particular instances can be pointless. The
  main thing to recognize is that, if it is an ad
  hominem, then it is fallacious.
• Pseudorefutation df. A type of ad hominem based
  on charges of inconsistency where no relevant
  inconsistency exists.
• Relevant inconsistencies concern inconsistencies
  between claims. Thus if Jane says that it is both
  snowing and not snowing at the same time in the
  same place, then we can reject her claim as
  logically inconsistent.

9
AD HOMINEM VII

• However, if there are no inconsistencies between
  claims, then the fact that a person may not act
  (or may not always have acted) as if the claim
  before us is true does not allow us to infer that
  the claim is false or even that the person
  thinks the claim is false.
• For instance, Jane may claim to love Jim, but we
  cannot reject her claim simply by noting that she
  has never acted as if she loved Jim. And we cant
  then infer that she herself believes her claim
  about her love for Jim to be false. Either would
  be pseudorefutation.
• We must also recognize that a person can change
  his mind and either accept something which he
  earlier rejected, or reject something which he
  earlier accepted. A person does not contradict
  herself by now agreeing with the morality of
  euthanasia when she earlier rejected it. To say
  that this is contradictory is pseudorefutation.

10
AD HOMINEM VIII

• A child might be punished by her parents for
  cheating on a test because she is told by them
  that cheating is morally reprehensible. For the
  child later to reject the claim that cheating is
  immoral because she finds out that her parents
  cheat on their taxes would be an example of
  pseudorefutation. She has not used reasoning to
  reject the view, but has thought that if its
  okay for you its okay for me. She could rightly
  accuse her parents of being hypocritical, but
  their behavior is not itself a reason for finding
  cheating acceptable.
• The child might cheat again and then, after being
  caught, attempt to justify her actions by saying
  you do it too! This brand of pseudorefutation
  is called tu quoque or you too pseudoreasoning.

11
AD HOMINEM IX

• To this point we have looked at ad hominem
  arguments in relations to something negative
  about a person, and have seen that, in abusive or
  personal attack ad hominem, a persons claim is
  rejected merely because we dislike the person or
  something about the person.
• However, it is also fallacious to accept an
  argument merely we like the person or something
  about the person. This form of pseudoreasoning
  does not have a name in the literature, but it is
  an ad hominem because a persons claim is
  accepted, not on the basis of critically
  acceptable arguments, but because of an agreeable
  characteristic(s) which the person has.
• Accordingly, it is once again emotional or
  psychological rather than rational or logical.

12
AD HOMINEM X

• However, as before with negative characteristics,
  if we think that a positive characteristic(s) of
  a person is relevant to accepting a claim she
  makes, then it may be plausible to accept the
  claim. However, we must be able to explain the
  relation of those characteristics to the claim
  being made so that accepting the claim for this
  reason can be made plausible.
• For instance, if we know that Jane is a lover of
  classical music, and her love has made her listen
  carefully and extensively to such music, then a
  claim which she makes about the worth of a
  particular classical composition might be
  accepted hypothetically as likely to be true, at
  the same time that further information may be
  needed to assess the claim accurately.

13
POISONING THE WELL I

• Poisoning the well df. Attempting to discredit
  in advance what a person might claim by relating
  unfavorable information about the person.
• This is a kind of pseudoreasoning which can be
  thought of as an ad hominem in advance.
• For instance, if A says Bs loyalty is to her
  political party. Therefore, anything she says
  about a particular issue will simply reflect the
  party line. The idea is that Bs thinking about
  an issue then need not be considered on its own,
  and so A has poisoned the well of discourse.

14
POISONING THE WELL II

• MP When A poisons your mind about B by
  relating unfavorable information about B, you may
  be inclined to reject what B says to you.
• Psychological studies show that even a statement
  such as It is not true that Professor x grades
  unfairly may bias our thinking about someone in
  advance.
• However, a critical thinker must be extra
  careful not to reject what a person says just
  because we have an unfavorable impression of the
  individual.

15
GENETIC FALLACY I

• Genetic fallacy df. Rejecting a claim, policy,
  or position on an issue simply because of its
  source, associations, or history.
• For instance, a member of political party x
  commits the genetic fallacy when he rejects an
  idea simply because it came from a member of a
  different party y.
• Ad hominem pseudoreasoning is a kind of genetic
  fallacy since here we are rejecting a claim or
  something due to a person based on where it comes
  from, namely, that person.
• For instance, to reject the music of Richard
  Strauss, to say that it cannot be good, simply
  because it is said that Strauss was sympathetic
  to the Nazis is to commit the genetic fallacy.

16
GENETIC FALLACY II

• MP say that when we reject a claim, policy, or
  position just because of its source,
  associations, or history, we commit the genetic
  fallacy.
• However, we also commit a genetic fallacy if we
  accept a claim, policy, or position only on the
  basis of its source, associations, or history.

17
BURDEN OF PROOF I

• (Inappropriate) burden of proof df. The burden
  of proving an issue is placed on the wrong side
  of an issue, or is placed too heavily on one side
  rather than another.
• When person x makes a claim that a certain thing
  t is true, and another person y disagrees and
  thinks that that thing is false, one side or the
  other has the burden of proof Does x have the
  burden of proving that t is true, or does y have
  the burden of proving that t is false?
• It depends on the nature of the claim. It is
  legitimate to talk of burden of proof concerning
  claims. Burden of proof names a fallacy or a kind
  of pseudoreasoning only when the burden of proof
  is placed on the wrong or too heavily on one
  side when x should have the burden of proof, but
  the burden of proof is placed on y, or the other
  way around.

18
BURDEN OF PROOF II

• Initial plausibility. MP The general rule that
  most often governs the placement of burden of
  proof is The less the initial plausibility a
  claim has, the greater the burden of proof we
  place on someone who asserts that claim.
• For instance, if I assert that there is a
  rhinoceros in the room with us, and there is no
  evidence of that, then I have the burden of
  proving that it is in the room. This is because
  any claim which conflicts with your own direct
  observations is open to serious doubt.
• Accordingly, the burden of proving that a rhino
  is not in the room would be inappropriately
  placed on you, and to say Prove that it is not
  in the room would be the fallacy of
  (inappropriate) burden of proof.

19
BURDEN OF PROOF III

• Remember that the more a claim coincides with
  our background information, the greater its
  initial plausibility.
• If I now assert that the rhinoceros in the room
  is invisible, and that is why you cant see it,
  but yet it exists, then I have the burden of
  proving that it exists, and the burden of proving
  that it does not exist would be inappropriately
  placed on you.
• This is because invisible rhinos conflict with
  our background information information which
  says that there are no such things as invisible
  rhinos.
• Once again, my claim lacks initial plausibility,
  and so, once again, I have the burden of proof,
  and to place it on you would be fallacious.

20
BURDEN OF PROOF IV

• Affirmative/negative. MP Other things being
  equal, the burden of proof falls automatically on
  those supporting the affirmative side of an issue
  rather than on those supporting the negative
  side.
• This is the idea that reasons should be given why
  something is the case rather than why something
  is not the case.
• For instance, a person who maintains that global
  warming is due to industrial pollution has the
  burden of proving that that is the cause and not
  something else.
• The affirmative/negative rule also applies to
  existence versus nonexistence, so that a
  scientist who maintains that life exists
  elsewhere in the universe has the burden of
  proving that it does.

21
BURDEN OF PROOF V

• MP In general, the affirmative side gets the
  burden of proof because it tends to be much more
  difficult or at least much more inconvenient
  and perhaps impossible in some cases to prove
  the negative side of an issue.
• I think that it is possible to prove the negative
  claim that there is no perceptible rhino in the
  room, but not that there is no imperceptible
  rhino in the room. Still, there is no reason
  which favors such an assertion, and so it should
  be rejected.
• Saying No one has proved that there are no
  invisible rhinos, therefore it is perfectly
  acceptable to believe in them is an appeal to
  ignorance.
• An appeal to ignorance df. Saying that absence
  of evidence against a claim counts as evidence
  for that claim.

22
BURDEN OF PROOF VI

• Special circumstances. MP Sometimes getting at
  the truth is not the only thing we want to
  accomplish, and on such occasions we may
  purposely place the burden of proof on a
  particular side.
• For instance, in our system of justice a person
  is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and the
  burden of proving that an accused is guilty rests
  with the prosecution.
• In addition, it is reasonable to place a higher
  burden of proof on someone who advocates a policy
  that could be dangerous or costly if he or she is
  mistaken.
• For instance, one would place a high burden of
  proof on someone who recommends a risky health
  procedure or substantial financial investment.

23
STRAW MAN

• Straw man df. Ignoring an opponents actual
  position, and presenting a distorted,
  oversimplified, or misrepresented version of that
  position in place of that position.
• For instance, saying that Johns view about
  abortion is simply that no one has a right to
  tell a woman what to do with her body is straw
  man rhetoric if Johns position about the
  abortion issue and the rights of the mother
  versus the rights of the child is considerably
  more sophisticated than this.

24
FALSE DILEMMA I

• False dilemma df. Limiting consideration to only
  two alternatives when in fact there are others
  that deserve consideration.
• Thus, to think that x or y are the only options,
  when in fact there is at least one other option z
  is to commit the fallacy of false dilemma.
• For instance, saying that either we replace the
  school cafeteria with fast food franchises or
  students will not each lunch on campus. However,
  another alternative which could be considered
  would be to improve the food at the cafeteria.

25
FALSE DILEMMA II

• False dilemma also occurs when we think that, of
  two alternatives x and y, one must be true and
  the other false when both x and y could be false.
  
• If this is the case, then to say that, because y
  is false, x must be true, is to commit the
  fallacy of false dilemma.
• For instance, saying that Either party x is
  going to have to get control of Congress in the
  next election or we are going to have war is a
  false dilemma in that it might both be false that
  party x gets control of Congress and false that
  we have war.

26
FALSE DILEMMA III

• Recall that placing a distorted, oversimplified,
  or misrepresented version of a persons position
  is called straw man because the position of the
  real man is replaced with a position which he or
  she does not hold hence the position is as
  false as a straw man is unreal.
• False dilemma pseudoreasoning can involve straw
  man pseudoreasoning. Thus, a person who attempts
  to get someone to accept position x may present
  an alternative position y in such a way that y is
  distorted, oversimplified, or misrepresented.
• For instance, a candidate who is trying to get
  you to vote for her may so misrepresent her
  opponents position in an effort to get you to
  vote for her, that the position described is that
  of a straw man.

27
FALSE DILEMMA IV

• A false dilemma is opposed to a true dilemma,
  that is, one in which only two alternatives truly
  present themselves, as when a physician tells a
  patient Either you have surgery or you will
  die.
• MP False dilemma pseudoreasoning only occurs
  when reasonable alternatives are ignored. In such
  cases x and y may be false, and some other
  alternative may be true.
• MP Before you accept x because some
  alternative y is false, make certain that x and y
  cannot both be false. Look especially for some
  third alternative, some way of rejecting y
  without having to accept x.
• The either x or y alternative characteristic of
  false dilemma can also be stated as if not x,
  then y.

28
THE PERFECTIONIST FALLACY

• The perfectionist fallacy says either x is
  perfect or it must be rejected.
• Saying that no piece of legislation should ever
  be passed which will not deal exactly with every
  problem which it is designed to concern is an
  example of the perfectionist fallacy.
• The perfectionist fallacy is a version of false
  dilemma.

29
THE LINE-DRAWING FALLACY

• The line-drawing fallacy df. Insisting that a
  line must be drawn at some precise point when in
  fact it is not necessary that such a line be
  drawn.
• For instance, if we cannot tell exactly how many
  grains of sand it takes to have a heap, then we
  can never say that a number of such grains is or
  is not a heap. But clearly some things are heaps
  and some are not, and this is true even if we
  cant specify exactly where to draw the line
  between a heap and a number of grains which are
  not a heap.
• MP treat the line-drawing fallacy as a version
  of false dilemma, since the claim is either
  there is a precise place where we draw the line,
  or else there is no line to be drawn. But there
  can be a third alternative, namely, that while
  the line cant be drawn in a precise place, still
  it can be drawn.

30
SLIPPERY SLOPE I

• Slippery slope df. Thinking that some thing x
  must lead to some other thing y, but there is no
  logical necessity in ys following from x, nor is
  any argument given for the necessity.
• Saying that euthanasia should not be legalized
  since, if it were, it would inevitably lead to
  abuses, and people would be euthanized who did
  not really want it, is an example of slippery
  slope pseudoreasoning.
• The fallacy of slippery slope occurs when there
  is no reason to think that x will lead to y and
  yet it is maintained that x will lead to y.

31
SLIPPERY SLOPE II

• A second version of slippery slope occurs when
  someone claims we must continue a certain course
  of action because we have already begun that
  course.
• For instance, maintaining that we must continue
  the program of military build-up because it has
  already begun, and so certain industries are
  counting on it financially, is slippery slope
  pseudoreasoning if it cant be shown that there
  are other more substantial reasons for continuing
  the build-up other than those which are simply
  related to the fact that it has already begun.
• Any force that slippery slope pseudoreasoning has
  is psychological rather than logical. A thought
  of y may follow from a thought of x even though y
  does not have to follow x in fact.

32
BEGGING THE QUESTION I

• Begging the question df. Assuming to be true
  what you are trying to prove. Since you have
  merely assumed it, you have not proved it.
• Realism is the view that objects in the external
  world, such as tables, exist apart from
  perception. If you were to attempt to argue for
  realism by saying that you would not see your
  table when you enter your kitchen if the table
  did not exist apart from perception, you would be
  guilty of begging the question. Here the issue is
  whether or not objects exist unperceived, but
  that they do is assumed in the premise that,
  apart from realism, you would not perceive your
  table on entering your kitchen. Therefore the
  conclusion that realism is true repeats the truth
  of realism assumed in the premise.

33
BEGGING THE QUESTION II

• Begging the question is also known as reasoning
  in a circle because one returns to a premise in
  the reasoning in which the thing to be proved is
  assumed.
• In the preceding example, the thing to be proved
  is that objects exist unperceived, but that they
  do so exist is itself returned to (or assumed) in
  the premise that you would not perceive what you
  do perceive unless objects like tables exist
  unperceived.
• But if it is legitimate to question the
  conclusion, as it is here, then it is legitimate
  too to question the premise which the conclusion
  repeats. This is why a question begging argument
  is not proof, but is a form of pseudoreasoning.

34
BEGGING THE QUESTION III

• MP Persuasive definitions can beg questions.
  Defining capital punishment as state-sanctioned
  murder assumes the immorality of the death
  penalty in that definition. However, the
  definition, and its implicit view that capital
  punishment is immoral, need not be accepted.
• MP point out that the real problem in cases of
  question begging is a misunderstanding of what
  premises (and definitions) it is reasonable for
  ones audience to accept.
• MP We are guilty of begging the question when
  we ask our audience to accept premises that are
  as controversial as the conclusion were arguing
  for and are controversial on the same grounds.

35
COMMON GROUND

• MP If you ever to hope for any measure of
  success in trying to convince someone of a claim,
  you should always try to argue for it based on
  whatever common ground you can find between the
  two of you.
• MP Indeed, the attempt to find common ground
  from which to start is what underlies the entire
  enterprise of rational debate.
• For instance, two thinkers cannot debate the
  existence of God if no definition of God can be
  agreed upon by them. Even though the theist and
  the atheist would support different positions on
  the question of theism, their common ground would
  be agreeing on what the term God means. If no
  agreement could be found here, then the rational
  debate could not take place.