Heaving Dead Cats » tips

In Search Of Zingers

Neece — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 02:47:01 +0000

Inspiration comes from many sources. Today my mother told me that some jehovah’s witnesses came a-calling and she wished she had some good, quick zingers to say to let them know she’s a lost cause and they need to leave and never come back. I thought that was rather funny so I’m throwing it out to you.

If someone wants to proseletyze, what is a good, quick response to let them know they are dealing with a godless heathen who is a lost cause?

Please comment with your suggestions. Then I’ll do another post with a nice neat list we can keep nearby for when someone wants to “tell us the good news”.

Logical Fallacy 7: The Red Herring

Neece — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 11:02:43 +0000

A Red Herring is a diversionary tactic. It is an argument brought up in response to another argument which does not address the real issue. There are many types of Red Herring arguments. Sometimes this can be a deliberate attempt to divert the argument and other times it might be done in ignorance. Usually this is an appeal to emotion as well.

The term comes from fox hunting. They used smoked red herrings dragged across the path of the fox to distract the hounds from the fox’s trail.

This is Part 7 in a series about Logical Fallacies, Misconceptions, False Beliefs. We are going through one fallacy at a time. There are many types of fallacious arguments. I’m going to try to explain them with examples then find ways to help you refute those arguments when they occur. Please comment or email if there’s a particular fallacy you want me to tackle, or if you have success with refuting an argument using a good technique you can share.

Types of Red Herring Fallacies: (from Wikipedia’s list)

Ad hominem: attacking the personal instead of the argument.
Argumentum ad baculum: Appeal to Force, Appeal to the Stick: threats or coercion towards the opposing party.
Argumentum ad populum: Appeal to the Majority, Appeal to the People: It’s true simply because so many people believe it.
Association Fallacy: guilt by association
Appeal to Authority: It’s true because the person asserting it is in a position of authority.
Appeal to Emotion: An argument is made to manipulate the emotions instead of valid reasoning.
- Appeal to Consequences: It’s true or false based on whether the premise leads to either good or bad consequences for someone.
- Appeal to Fear: An argument is made to increase fear or prejudice towards the opposition.
- Wishful Thinking: A decision is made based on an what would be pleasant to imagine, rather than evidence or reason.
- Appeal to Spite: An argument is made to exploit peoples’ bitterness or spite towards the opposition.
- Appeal to Flattery: An argument is made using flattery to gather support.
Appeal to Motive: A premise is dismissed by calling into question the motives of the proposer.
Appeal to Novelty: A proposal is superior or better simply because it’s new or modern.
Appeal to Poverty: Argumentum ad lazarum: The conclusion is correct because the speaker is poor, or incorrect because the speaker is wealthy.
Appeal to Wealth: Argumentum ad crumenam: A statement is coreect because the speaker is rich, or incorrect because the speaker is poor.
Argument from Silence: Argumentum ex silentio: A conclusion is based on silence or lack of contrary evidence.
Appeal to Tradition: It’s correct because it has a long standing tradition behind it.
Chronological Snobbery: It’s wrong because the idea was held when something else, clearly false, was also commonly held.
Genetic Fallacy: A conclusion is based solely on someone’s or something’s origin rather than its current meaning or context. Typically transfers positive or negative esteem from the earlier context, instead of finding difference in the present situation.
Judgmental Language: Insulting, compromising, or disparaging language used to influence the recipient’s judgment.
Poisoning the Well: Adverse information is given about the target pre-emptively to the audience, to discredit or ridicule everything the target person is about to say.
Sentimental Fallacy: It would be more pleasant if, therefore it ought to be, therefore it is.
Straw Man Argument: Misrepresentation of an opponent’s position.
Style Over Substance: Emphasizing the way an argument is presented while ignoring or marginalizing the content of the argument.
Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy: Information that has no relationship is interpreted or manipulated until it appears to have meaning.
Two Wrongs Make a Right: It’s assumed that if one wrong is committed, another wrong will cancel it out.
Tu quoque: You Too: You justify your wrong action because someone else does it.

Examples:

First, I’m having trouble coming up with examples. My husband Butch and I played Pente this evening and it took us forever to think up 3 examples for you while we were playing. So, after this logical fallacy, I’m turning the tables back on you and you will get to help me! But for now, here are our lame examples:

Jim comes home over an hour late. Sally says, “I was worried. Why are you late? Why didn’t you call?” Jim replies, “Have you seen the weather lately?” He doesn’t answer her directly. He brings up a whole separate issue meant to distract her from finding out the truth, which is that he’s a cheating SOB who is sleeping with his boss’s secretary. See, it doesn’t have anything to do with the weather, but poor Sally didn’t check so she just drops the subject, even though deep down, she knows something is wrong. Sigh… if only her best friend Jill would tell her the truth. See, Jill knows Jim is a creep because Jill works at the same office for a different boss. But Jill wants to stay out of it because she’s married to Bob, whom she stole from Sally back in college! So she knows that relationship issues are really sensitive with poor Sally, who has never forgiven her. Because Bob is quite a catch and Jim is a jerk! Oh.. where did THAT come from!? LOL
Butch says, “The new Alpha Romeo is coming to the U.S.” and Neece says, “Yeah, but what about the Smart Car? I hear it gets great gas mileage.” Neece hates the new Alpha Romeo (okay, that’s not true, I don’t know a thing about it) but she secretly (ok, it’s not a secret, I really do want one and Butch knows it) wants Butch to buy her a Smart Car, so she plays the Red Herring, distracting Butch from his train of thought onto a similar path which is what she’s interested in, the Smart Car.
- NOTE: if you can make the scent of your red herring similar to the original argument, it’s much easier to trick your opponent onto the new path you want them to follow. So be aware of that!
At Thanksgiving dinner Butch says, “There are no gods.” while passing the mashed potatoes to a bible thumper (his aunt’s mother – she’s a fundamentalist methodist of some sort). She turns beat red and shouts, “Yeah? Well how do you explain the human SOUL? Only GOD can give the spark of life!” Everyone at the table groans awkwardly as Butch goes into a lecture on science and evidence, and the bible thumper turns purple and starts throwing mashed potatoes at him while screaming bible verses. Ah, another festive holiday with Butch’s family! LOL

Wow, sorry, I have no idea where that dreck came from, LOL! In the future, you can help me with examples in the comments. I’m sure they will come to all of us much more easily than to me, alone, in the middle of the night!

Ok! So how do you refute a Red Herring Fallacy? Good question. Since there are so many, we need to come up with a general rebuttal that we can use. Then when we deal with each of the specific types of arguments, we can find more direct counter measures.

First, identify that someone has whipped out a stinky red herring argument. I think the first plan of attack is always to catch the fallacy and tell the person that you’ve caught it. So, you could say, “That’s a red herring. Stick to the argument at hand.” In other words, direct the person back to the original argument with a verbal correction. This might be a good time to remind them of what the original argument or question is.

In our first example, Sally wants to know why Jim didn’t at least call to let her know he’d be late. He starts talking about the weather. Sally needs to redirect the conversation back to the original argument and ignore the red herring. “Never mind the weather, please answer the question, Jim. Why didn’t you at least call and let me know you were going to be so late?” Now, of course, Jim will have to quickly come up with a lie and apologize. It’s not the ideal situation, but at least Sally didn’t get derailed by talk of the weather!

In the second example, Butch would reply to Neece’s Smart car red herring with, “I know you want a Smart Car and I will buy you one for your birthday. But I am talking about the Alpha Romeo. I wanted to tell you about it because I think you’ll really love it. It’s got… yadda yadda yadda.. numbers, boring stats on engine size and suspension configuration or other such nonsense… blah blah blah..”

Anyway, I think the idea here is to identify the Red Herring then restate the original argument or question to get back on track.

Ok, obviously I’m trying to have fun with this. Here’s your homework. If you think of any red herring examples that you’ve had cross your path, or if you have a great way to get things back on track once a Red Herring is thrown out in an argument, please comment! Together we can come up with better examples and solutions than I can come up with alone.

For this lesson, I’m using 2 resources:

This is a series on Logic, Logical Thinking and Dealing with Logical Fallacies in an Argument. Visit the Logical Fallacies page to see them all.

Logical Fallacy 6: Argumentum Verbosium: Proof By Intimidation

Neece — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 05:33:07 +0000

Argumentum verbosium is also known as Proof by Intimidation, or Proof by Verbosity. It refers to an argument that is so complex, so long-winded and so poorly presented by the arguer that you are obliged to accept it, simply to avoid being forced to sift through its minute details.

This fallacy is epitomized by this lovely statement, “If you can’t dazzle them with your brilliance, then baffle them with your bullshit.”

This is Part 6 in a series I introduced awhile ago about Logical Fallacies, Misconceptions, False Beliefs. We are going through one fallacy at a time. There are many types of fallacies. I’m going to try to explain them with examples then find ways to help you refute those arguments when they occur. Please comment or email if there’s a particular fallacy you want me to tackle, or if you have success with refuting an argument using a good technique you can share.

This one doesn’t need examples because it’s pretty easy to spot. If someone goes on for ages, throwing out tons of obscure, random bits of information, you have yourself an argumentum verbosium. Some of the information may seem plausible, it may all sound well-researched, but there’s just no way to check all the supposed facts.

You’ll often run into this logical fallacy with con men in the pseudo-science game, and with conspiracy theorists. If you’ve experienced it elsewhere, let us know.

So how do you refute the Proof by Verbosity? Good question. Again, this is my opinion. I’ve yet to find a resource that teaches how to deal with logical fallacies.

First, how are you hearing this argument? If it’s on TV on an infomercial, your best bet is to change the channel after you realize the con man arguing by verbosity. If you are at a talk given by such a person, again, I’d probably leave.

If, on the other hand, this is someone you know and they are starting another rant filled with obscure “facts”, you could try this:

Call them on their nonsense. Tell them they are arguing with verbosity, which is a bullying technique used by con men.
When that doesn’t work, try to get a word in to say you would like to see them take 20 random facts they’ve pulled out of their hat and give you concrete scientific evidence for each one. The evidence must be peer reviewed and widely accepted. Then you might consider letting them talk about this subject again. (Change the number of facts based on their levels of BS. If you need to make it 50, go ahead!)
Threaten to walk away each time they start talking about their subject. Then follow through.

I’m not sure there is any way to get through to someone who is a conspiracy theorist. They are like fundamentalists. They truly believe what they are telling you. I also don’t think there’s any way to get through to a con artist who is trying to get you to buy his product. He will resist at all costs. So my cynical and jaded way to deal with such people is to turn them in to the Better Business Bureau or some such organization, and then to avoid them.

I’m open to suggestions though. Please feel free to comment with suggestions for how to deal with this type of argument. Also let me know if you have a specific logical fallacy that you’d like to see addressed.

For this lesson, I’m using 2 resources:

This is a series on Logic, Logical Thinking and Dealing with Logical Fallacies in an Argument. Visit the Logical Fallacies page to see them all.

Logical Fallacy 5: Argument From Authority

Neece — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 20:50:59 +0000

(also called Appeal to Authority) Stating a claim is true because a person or group of perceived authority says it’s true. The claimant emphasizes the many years of experience and/or formal degrees held by the person or organization making the claim.

This argument is the opposite of the Ad Hominem Argument because the arguer appeals to positive characteristics of the source to support their argument, such as its perceived authority. If an advertisement shows someone wearing a white labcoat or a stern business suit, that is an appeal to authority.

This is Part 5 in a series I introduced the other day about Logical Fallacies, Misconceptions, False Beliefs. We’re going to go through one fallacy at a time. There are about 20 main fallacies altogether. I’m going to try to explain them with examples then find ways to help you refute those arguments when they occur.

While it’s reasonable to take into account the proper background of education and credentials, or to be suspicious of someone without such expertise, it must inevitably come down to logic and evidence to support the claim, not the person promoting it.

A good authority supports a position because there is evidence or other justifiable reasons that the argument merits, not the other way around. So, good scientists do not attach significance to their own authority. The theory needs to stand on its own and be peer reviewed. There is no need for an appeal to authority.

Examples:
Chinese medicine is valid because it’s been around for centuries and is based on ancient Chinese knowledge.

Oprah says that The Secret is a powerful book, and that it really works. And we all know that Oprah is an expert on everything and only supports stuff that works perfectly.

The Pope says the basic idea of evolution is OK because that’s how God made everything, and the Pope is the supreme expert on all things that have anything to do with god.

Linus Pauling said that taking mega doses of vitamins can lead to all kinds of wonderful health benefits and prevent illness. He was awarded 2 Nobel Prizes on other subjects.

UFOs exist because airline pilots are trained observers and reliable eye witnesses, and are trained to stay calm in an emergency. and they claim to have seen them.

So how do you refute the Appeal to Authority? This one is a bit tougher. Again, this is my opinion because I haven’t found any resources on that yet.

First, I would start by telling the person that they are using the Argument From Authority and explain what that is.
Second, ask for evidence for the claim. Do they have anything to back it up? Where can you find the research and look into it?
If the person doesn’t have anything to back up the claim, and it’s a point of contention that you would really like to clear up, ask for whatever information they have and offer to do the research yourself.

Here is a real example:

My mother is on hormone replacement therapy (HRT). Her doctor is giving her a really hard time and telling her she needs to get off of it as fast as she can and that it’s really bad for her to take it. She has lowered my mother’s dose to a point where my mother has hot flashes, trouble sleeping, and is generally rather irritated and cranky. It’s unpleasant for her (and those around her).

The doctor, who represents a person of authority to my mother, is basing this drastic and uncomfortable change to my mother’s well-being on ONE study done several years ago that was widely publicized and created a huge scare. I won’t go into the details, but basically the study found that a certain demographic of women fitting very specific criteria were at risk if they were on hormone therapy.

The media ran with it, gave it full authority and dramatized the results to include all women taking any kind of HRT. Many doctors, including my mother’s, simply followed the media and the overview of the one study, gave it full authority, and never did any research into the study itself to find out the real results.

To make matters worse, my mother is looking into alternative health products and is cutting her already small dose of real HRT in half because she’s afraid of it killing her, making her even more miserable. The alternative products have no scientific basis that they work at all, are terribly expensive, and are based on the claims of movie stars and people like Oprah, who are most likely compensated. The only thing that people are given by these big name stars is anecdotal stories and pseudo-scientific claims that are carefully worded to sound like real science but still sneak past the FDA. Insidious.

But the my mother’s doctor is the voice of authority here, and that doctor is basing her authority on the authority of the study. I’m just the daughter, so my mother holds no credence in what I say even though I’ve looked into the matter and discovered that there is no reason for her to worry because she’s not in the demographic of possible risk, based on the actual study’s results and not just the media scare.

For this lesson, I’m using 3 resources:

This is a series on Logic, Logical Thinking and Dealing with Logical Fallacies in an Argument. Visit the Logical Fallacies page to see them all.

Logical Fallacy 4: Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam

Neece — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 03:02:27 +0000

Argumentum Ad ignorantiam means the Argument from Ignorance. It basically states that a specific belief is true because we don’t know that it isn’t true. This logical fallacy can also be called the Negative Proof Argument, or Appeal to Ignorance.

This is Part 4 in a series I introduced the other day about Logical Fallacies, Misconceptions, False Beliefs. We’re going to go through one fallacy at a time. There are about 20 main fallacies altogether. I’m going to try to explain them with examples then find ways to help you refute those arguments when they occur.

James stated it quite perfectly in the comments of our last fallacy lesson:

Atheist: “You cannot prove that God exists.”

Theist: “Oh yeah? Well, you cannot prove that God DOESN’T exist!”

Of course this brings up the rule: The burden of proof lies on the person making the positive claim. Basically, if you state that god exists, the burden of proof lies on you.

Edit: I found this video today. Here is Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson explaining it:

Example: You: The Big Bang is so amazing. It all seems so lucky that life arose through chance and happenstance and evolution in the primordial goo.
Opponent: Too amazing. I can’t see how such a thing could happen. Therefore god did it. That’s the only explanation that gives me all the answers.

Example: We know so little about the human brain. We can’t prove that ESP doesn’t exist, therefore it is real.

Example: Those funny lights in the sky don’t look like anything I can recognize as a plane or helicopter, therefore it’s an alien spacecraft.

This logical fallacy is quite common, in my experience. Now, how do you refute it?

First, tell your opponent that he or she has committed a logical fallacy. I find that this is a good way to start, by stating the logical error.
Second, tell them the burden of proof lies on the claimant. Also, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. So claiming something such as ESP, an invisible man in the sky or alien visitation all require real evidence that can be proven and replicated and follow all the rules of good scientific research. The scientific research and math has been done over and over and validated regarding the Big Bang. That’s pretty much well established. And the way it works, too, for such things, is that they are still working on the Big Bang. That’s real science for you. That’s how it really works.
Third, I think I’d mention that science never gives up, never stops searching for answers and even more questions. Whereas creationism and believing in fairy tales just gives up at the first step, as soon as thinking is required.

For this lesson, I’m using 4 resources:

The Skeptic’s Guide To The Universe
The New England Skeptical Society
Skeptoid
Wikipedia

This is a series on Logic, Logical Thinking and Dealing with Logical Fallacies in an Argument. Visit the Logical Fallacies page to see them all.

Logical Fallacy 3: Tu quoque (you too)

Neece — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 02:49:46 +0000

Tu quoque is Latin for “You too”. So you justify your wrong action because someone else also does it. “My evidence may be invalid, but so is yours.”

This is Part 3 in a series I introduced the other day about Logical Fallacies, Misconceptions, False Beliefs. We’re going to go through one fallacy at a time. There are about 20 main fallacies altogether. I’m going to try to explain them with examples then find ways to help you refute those arguments when they occur.

My mother did this on the phone the other day. We were talking about religion when my mother told me I should start a cult or my own religion, because they make so much money. (WTF?) I replied that it would be unethical to take advantage of people who are weak and can’t think for themselves. She said the churches do it all the time, so why shouldn’t I. I told her that sometimes you have to do the right thing just because it’s right. I couldn’t remember the Latin name for the fallacy, but I did note that two wrongs don’t make a right, as people who use this logical fallacy try to assume. (I won’t even go into how weird that whole conversation was. I mean, seriously!)

A lot of times people who are into alternative health modalities will use this argument. They’ll say that even though their therapies may lack evidence, some mainstream modalities also lack evidence.

How do you refute such an argument? Well, I think it’s rather straightforward.

When someone suggests that 2 wrongs make a right, such as the example given by my mother up above, simply call them on it. Two wrongs DON’T make a right.

If you have anything more to add, please feel free. If I think of anything else to help us deal with the Tu quoque fallacy, I’ll be sure to let you know.

For this lesson, I’m using 2 resources:

This is a series on Logic, Logical Thinking and Dealing with Logical Fallacies in an Argument. Visit the Logical Fallacies page to see them all.

Logical Fallacy 2: Ad Hominem- A Personal Attack

Neece — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 06:57:17 +0000

Today’s logical fallacy is also very common, in my experience. It’s called Ad Hominem, which is roughly translated from the Latin for “to the person.” It’s a personal attack against you instead of your argument. It can be subtle because it isn’t just that they call you a bad name, but they use a weakness or characteristic of you to imply that your argument is weak.

This is Part 2 in a series I introduced the other day about Logical Fallacies, Misconceptions, False Beliefs. We’re going to go through one fallacy at a time. There are about 20 main fallacies altogether. I’m going to try to explain them with examples then find ways to help you refute those arguments when they occur.

Example: You: I don’t believe in UFO’s.
Opponent: You’re so close minded!

Example: Opponent: I believe in UFO’s.
You: You’re crazy and/or stupid.

Example: You: I love Volkswagen cars. I think they’re awesome.
Opponent: You only say that because you’re German.

This last example is my favorite because it shows how subtle it can be. Instead of arguing directly, your opponent avoids the issue by saying you’re biased because of your heritage, thus invalidating your argument. They don’t have anything to do with each other, therefore the personal attack is invalid. But it could lead you into defending your heritage, thereby avoiding the original argument.

So, how do you counter such a personal attack? Again, all the resources I found only pointed out the problem, not the solution. This is how I’d refute it:

Example: I don’t believe in ghosts.
Opponent: You’re an atheist, you don’t believe in anything.

My reply: This is a classic ad hominem (wow them with Latin! hee hee) argument. You are trying to change the subject by attacking me personally.

Now, you can defend yourself and deal with the rebuttal: Skeptical thinking does not mean that I don’t believe in anything. I believe in many things.
I’m sure there are things you don’t believe in. Unicorns, for example. Do you believe in unicorns?

When your opponent agrees that he doesn’t believe in unicorns, you now have common ground from which to work from.

A second way would be to avoid defending yourself and simply restate your case along with an invitation to argue that point specifically: Your ad hominem argument is simply a personal attack. You avoided my statement completely. Whether or not I’m an atheist has nothing to do with my statement. I don’t believe in ghosts, mainly because there is no evidence for them. I am open to your ideas, though. Do you have any proof of ghosts?

Ok, so there are two different ways to handle the situation. Let me know if you have any suggestions. Today I went around looking for an OCW course in logic or critical thinking. There aren’t any at this time, which is a bummer, because I would have signed up immediately.

I’m using 3 great resources for these fallacy lessons:

This is a series on Logic, Logical Thinking and Dealing with Logical Fallacies in an Argument. Visit the Logical Fallacies page to see them all.

EDIT: So, this is funny. I was just finishing up this post and publishing it when I got into a discussion with someone via Instant Message.

She was telling me how her naturopathic “doctor” gives her naturopathic “meds” like homeopathy. I asked her if maybe a bit of research was warranted, to see what the naturopath was giving her. Maybe some research would be a good thing.

That didn’t go over well. She basically told me that she was happy and didn’t care if there was any research behind it. She said that she knew all kinds of stuff because she had sold it at an alternative healing shop of some kind.

I mentioned that there was no science behind any of it and she retorted that she didn’t care.

Then she played the ad hominem card! She said, “I don’t pray at the altar of science.” That didnt’ get a rise out of me, so the she got more personal and attacked me more directly, saying I was really hurt by my past “reiki energy” experiences.

The thing is, I wasn’t hurt at all by my reiki and energy healing experiences. In fact, I made quite a bit of money and my experience was quite excellent. I stopped because I realized it was all bullshit. When I realized it only mattered that I present the “healing” with confidence to make it “successful”, I got out of it because it was all a lie and therefore unethical.

Anyway, I thought it was beautiful synchronicity that this all happened right after posting about the Ad Hominem argument so I thought I’d share it with you.

Question: if someone you talk to insists on living in a fantasy world, and they basically say they’re happy living in ignorance, what do you do then? Do you continue to talk to them? If you don’t, there aren’t many people left out there to talk to! If you do, do you just let them ramble on about their magical experiences? I’m stumped.

This is a series on Logic, Logical Thinking and Dealing with Logical Fallacies in an Argument. Visit the Logical Fallacies page to see them all.

Heaving Dead Cats » tips

In Search Of Zingers

Related posts

Logical Fallacy 7: The Red Herring

Related posts

Logical Fallacy 6: Argumentum Verbosium: Proof By Intimidation

Related posts

Logical Fallacy 5: Argument From Authority

Related posts

Logical Fallacy 4: Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam

Related posts

Logical Fallacy 3: Tu quoque (you too)

Related posts

Logical Fallacy 2: Ad Hominem- A Personal Attack

Related posts