Download Chapter 4: INFORMAL FALLACIES I and more Summaries Reasoning in PDF only on Docsity!
Essential Logic
Ronald C. Pine
Chapter 4: INFORMAL FALLACIES I
All effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare necessities and then must be expressed in a few stereotyped formulas. Adolf Hitler
Until the habit of thinking is well formed, facing the situation to discover the facts requires an effort. For the mind tends to dislike what is unpleasant and so to sheer off from an adequate notice of that which is especially annoying. John Dewey, How We Think
Introduction
In everyday speech you may have heard someone refer to a commonly accepted belief as a fallacy. What is usually meant is that the belief is false, although widely accepted. In logic, a fallacy refers to logically weak argument appeal (not a belief or statement) that is widely used and successful. Here is our definition: A logical fallacy is an argument that is usually psychologically persuasive but logically weak. By this definition we mean that fallacious arguments work in getting many people to accept conclusions, that they make bad arguments appear good even though a little commonsense reflection will reveal that people ought not to accept the conclusions of these arguments as strongly supported. Although logicians distinguish between formal and informal fallacies, our focus in this chapter and the next one will be on traditional informal fallacies.^1 For our purposes, we can think of these fallacies as "informal" because they are most often found in the everyday exchanges of ideas, such as newspaper editorials, letters to the editor, political speeches, advertisements, conversational disagreements between people in social networking sites and Internet discussion boards, and so on.
In analyzing informal fallacies we will have another opportunity to see the importance of logical abstraction and formalization. Recall from Chapter 1 that some forms of argumentation are always invalid and that recognizing these forms behind the scenes of the content is an easy way of judging the argument. In this chapter we will be identifying the simple recipes of very persuasive bad arguments. As Hitler noted in the opening quote above, using a few simple psychological formulas easily persuades people.
(^1) Most logic books distinguish between formal and informal fallacies. Formal fallacies are deductive
arguments whose invalidity can be detected immediately by mere inspection of the argument form. Informal fallacies are said to depend more on the content. We will be blurring the distinction between formal and informal somewhat, because we will show that the best way to learn informal fallacies is to identify the essence, form, or recipe for each one.
Situations may change, and the people may be different, and so the content may change, but the basic tricks are the same. To help defend us against these tricks, logicians identify these formulas, break them down into parts, analyze the logical mistakes, and give them names. Like knowing what a chair is, once you recognize one you know all chairs. Although recognizing fallacies will not always be a simple black-and-white process of identification, categorization saves time and intellectual effort, and provides us with a guide for criticizing arguments and knowing how to make arguments in general better.
So, we will be doing more than just giving names of fallacies and providing a few examples. We will now practice in earnest the slow, deliberate discipline of logical analysis by looking at each fallacy in terms of the following recipe format.
Argument Structure :
Conclusion (identify)
Premise(s) (identify)
Label & description: A brief description of why the fallacy name fits. A brief description of what is taking place in the premises or conclusion consistent with the label.
Argument Analysis: An analysis that provides an argument for why the conclusion is not well supported in terms of identifying one of the following:
- Reasoning: Even if the premises are accepted as true, the inference to the conclusion is poor or weak.
- Questionable premise(s): The premise(s) are presumptive or unfair in some sense; the truth of the premise(s) can be easily questioned. (Covered in Chapter 5)
- Suppressed Evidence: The premises are true and the reasoning valid or apparently strong, but a specific fact or set of facts is omitted, such that if it were provided, it would make a major difference in accepting the conclusion. (Covered in Chapter 5)
Logicians have identified hundreds of informal fallacies. We will map out the logical forms of twenty of the most common ones in terms of the above format. Notice that labeling the fallacy is a very small part of the above process of analysis. Most important is identifying arguments and applying what you have learned by providing an argument for why another argument is weak: applying the concepts of validity, invalidity, and soundness for deductive appraisal, and criteria for reliable beliefs for inductive appraisal. Notice, for instance, in the argument analysis section above the distinction between (1) and (2) requires that you know the very important difference between criticizing an argument's form or reasoning, and criticizing the argument's premises. Some of the
the first caused the second. This type of evidence by itself would make for a very weak inductive inference.
Although we will cover Questionable Cause fallacies in more detail in Chapter 5, here is what a complete analysis will look like in the above format:
EXAMPLE 4-1a
Conclusion: The rise of feminism in the 1970s caused an increase in female crime.
Premises:
According to the national Uniform Crime Report, the number of women arrested rose by 66.1 percent between 1970 and 1980, compared to only 6 percent in the number of men's arrests.
Before the rise of feminism in the 1970s the percentage increase of women arrested had consistently been lower than that of men.
After the rise of feminism the crime rate clearly went up.
Label & Description: Questionable Cause. There is a causal connection in the conclusion and a time sequence in the premises.
Argument Analysis: The reasoning of this argument is weak. Although the premises are relevant and may be true, they provide insufficient evidence for accepting the conclusion. The argument is a weak induction. Just because two events happen together in time does not mean that they are necessarily connected causally. The events happening together could be a coincidence and other factors could have been involved, such as changes in the economy disadvantageous to women or changes in police methodology in recording statistics. Until more evidence is cited to show that this one change (feminism) is more likely to be the cause than other changes happening at the same time, this argument is a very weak inductive argument.^2
All of the fallacies covered in the next two chapters will have an ideal essence or recipe that we can use as a guide for consistent analysis. The essence of Questionable Cause is: Causal statement in the conclusion; time sequence (before and after) in the premises; weak inductive reasoning, but premises at least relevant to the conclusion. To be called a Questionable Cause, a fallacy must have these features, and once these features have
(^2) Although not relevant to analyzing this argument as a Questionable Cause, we could also question the
presumption that a 66.1% increase in female crime represents a dramatic increase in female crime compared to that of men. A large percentage increase (for women) does not necessarily translate into a large number of female arrests, if the total number arrested in the previous decade was very low, and a small percentage increase (for men) can still translate into a large number of men arrested if the total number arrested in the previous decade was already high.
been identified the weakness is attacked always as a weak inductive inference.^3 Here is way to summarize and picture the essence/recipe of Questionable Cause:
EXAMPLE 4-1b
Conclusion: A caused B.
Premise: A happened, and then B happened.
Label & Description: Questionable Cause. There is a causal connection asserted in the conclusion and only a time sequence (before and after) in the premise.
Argument Analysis: Reasoning. Although the premise is relevant to the conclusion, it is insufficient to support the conclusion. Develop by arguing that the argument is a weak inductive inference. Point out that other factors (list some) were happening at the same time and that evidence needs to be presented to support a probable cause rather than just a possible cause.
Although both the interpretation of argument structure and the charge of fallacy require argument, notice that in this formal analysis the goal of the first three steps is descriptive. The conclusion and premise or premises are identified, and then a description is given of the formal characteristics of the premises and the conclusion. In the fourth step (Argument Analysis) an explicit argument must be presented for why the formal characteristics identified are always logically weak, and the particular content must be connected with the formal characteristics. Soon you will be doing this yourself. You will not just passively label and describe, but must learn to argue, to stay on track, and to logically persuade. You will not learn fallacies the way a child learns not to do something, just because his or her parents say so. You must argue for a particular interpretation and make a case that a particular argument should not be accepted. Finding a fallacy is much more than just name-calling; it is the beginning of a dialogue. So, you can't accuse someone of committing a fallacy unless you provide an argument.
However, if you learn the essence or recipe of each fallacy, you will have a lot of help. You will always have a ready-made focus or theme for your argument. For instance, in the case of a Questionable Cause, the theme is always the same: You argue (no matter what the content) that even though the premises are relevant and may be true, the inference from the premises to the conclusion is insufficient because the reasoning is a weak induction. You still have to do some work with the content. You must combine what is being discussed with the formal weakness. In the case above, we had to think of other things that might have happened at the same time the rise of feminism occurred, to show that it is a weak induction to jump to the conclusion that feminism was the cause. However, at least you will always have the focus of the formal weakness to guide you like a recipe in what content to think about.
(^3) Although we could attack the premise and question or quibble whether feminism really began in the
1970s, we don't need to, and it would be off track to do so for a Questionable Cause analysis.
have to do is remember the rule 8 x 8 = 64. Likewise, algebra is actually shorthand arithmetic. We learn that shorthand notations such as 2x^ mean multiply the number 2 by itself x times, so that 2^8 means multiply eight twos together for the result 256. The little x is called an exponent, and this shorthand algebraic expression is called exponential notation. This notation is a lot faster than writing out and calculating 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 = 256. We also learn that if we multiply any number with an exponent by the same number with a different exponent that Bx^ x By^ = B (x+y). This little bit of formal mathematical knowledge comes in handy when you want to calculate the number of atoms in the entire universe. Yes, that's right, the entire universe! Because we know the approximate number of atoms in a gram of hydrogen (10 24 ), and the number of grams of hydrogen in an average star (10^33 ), and the number of stars in an average galaxy (10^11 ), and the number of galaxies in the universe (10^11 ), we simply add it all up as follows:
Number of atoms/gram of hydrogen = 10 24
Number of grams of hydrogen/star = 10 33
Number of stars/galaxy = 10^11
Number of galaxies in the universe = 10 11
Number of atoms in the universe = 10 79 (24 + 33 + 11 + 11 = 79)
If we were to write this number out it would be a 1 followed by 79 zeros. Even if it were physically possible, think how long it would take to count this number of atoms. Although our number is only an approximation,^5 counting this number of atoms one by one would surely lead to an even less accurate approximation we would make from losing track trying to count this enormous number and handing the project over to different generations (it would take many generations!). A little formalization can save an enormous amount of time, and, like Eratosthenes, we can know some amazing things by simply following a few formal rules and trails of reasoning.
Fallacies of Relevance
Now let’s focus on the fallacies for this chapter. Here we are interested in those fallacies that violate one of the most important aspects of good reasoning―what I have metaphorically called staying on track and correctly following a reasoning trail. In Chapter 1 we used the example of the little girl baseball player and her father's reasoning to make the point that a lot of bad reasoning involves shifting attention away from what is relevant for testing our beliefs; that a lot of bad reasoning is simply a psychological excuse for not testing our beliefs, to not think about what we really should think about.
(^5) This result is simplified because it discounts less abundant elements and features of the universe that are
not stars, such as interstellar dust, quasars, and mysterious dark matter. Neutron stars, though, don't count, because they are not made up of atoms! The gravitational forces that formed these stars were so great that the atoms were crushed. However, if our estimate of the number of features or the number of atoms within any of the other features of the universe changes, we can quickly recalculate the total.
Many informal fallacies are called fallacies of relevance because they shift attention away from the heart of an issue and distract us from the type of evidence we should be seeking in order to establish a conclusion. Technically expressed, all fallacies of relevance have premises that are logically irrelevant to the conclusion.^6
Note that Questionable Cause is not a fallacy of relevance. Its premises have the virtue of being at least relevant to the conclusion. Because the cause of an event does happen prior to the event, premises that discuss a temporal order of events are relevant to a discussion that those events are causally related. Questionable Cause is an example of a fallacy of weak induction and it will be discussed in Chapter 5. Although fallacies of relevance and fallacies of weak induction both have weak reasoning, the distinction between relevant and irrelevant premises is crucial for staying on track in criticizing arguments and focusing on what kind of evidence supports what kind of conclusion. Compare the Questionable Cause fallacy with the following.
Appeal to Popularity
One of the strongest psychological forces in human nature is the desire to belong, to be accepted, to have friends, and to be part of a culture where behavior is somewhat the same so one is comfortable in how to act and think. For most people it is uncomfortable to feel "out of place," different, or weird. As with most human desires, there are probably very good evolutionary reasons for the naturalness of the need to belong. As discussed in Chapter 2, it is a mistake to believe that emotional concerns are intrinsically illogical; that logic and emotion are always opposed. Logic and emotion are meant to work together. We know from evolutionary anthropology that our pre-human ancestors lived a very harsh existence. Compared to the competition, our ancestors were frail creatures. Many animals had more powerful physical characteristics; they could run faster, see better, and had better offensive and defensive bodily weapons (claws, fangs, horns, and such). To survive, our ancestors needed to belong to each other and to think; they needed to cooperate and care about each other, and to devise, reason, and calculate. And they needed to apply these tools of survival at the right time and place most of the time, or we would not be here contemplating the relative merits of reason and emotion.
Problems emerge when we use the wrong tool for the job at hand. There are clearly times when it is less sensible to reason analytically than to just feel. It would be most inappropriate to tell a grieving mother and father that they are not being logical about their son's death in a war. Recall the discussion of bureaucratic euphemisms in Chapter 2. There are times when it is more reasonable to be emotional. This would be especially true if the parents were told that their son was killed by "collateral damage from friendly fire in a kinetic military action that is time-limited and frontloaded." (See Chapter 2) On the other hand, we can be seriously distracted from the proper evaluation of something important to us if we react too quickly because of a powerful feeling. Consider the following argument.
(^6) The premises are psychologically relevant though, and this is why they are so often successful in
persuading people to accept conclusions they ought not to accept.
improved the lot of minorities? (A reasoned judgment on this appointment clearly mattered. Thomas was appointed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided the 2000 presidential election by a 5 to 4 vote in favor of George W. Bush, even though Al Gore won the majority vote.)
When majority support is appealed to in the premise or premises of an argument, but no reference is given to the logically relevant reasons for the majority support, an Appeal to Popularity fallacy is committed. This argument is best classified as an Appeal to Popularity (rather than to Authority, as in the next fallacy covered), because the basic tone is: Support Thomas because most people do. Here is how criticism of this argument would be formalized.
EXAMPLE 4-2a
Conclusion: We should support President Bush's Supreme Court nominee, Clarence Thomas.
Premise: Because a vast majority supports Bush's decision to nominate Clarence Thomas.^7
Label & Description: Appeal to Popularity. The premise cites popularity ("vast majority") as a reason for the conclusion.
Argument Analysis: This argument is weak in the reasoning. Even if it is true that a vast majority supports the Thomas decision, the inference to the conclusion is weak. We are not given the logically relevant reasons why a majority is supporting this decision. What are Thomas's qualifications (judicial and legal experience, judicial philosophy, views on important constitutional issues), and how do these qualifications fit the job of a Supreme Court justice? The majority may have very good reasons for supporting Thomas, as did President Bush, but these reasons need to be discussed. But they are not discussed, so it is premature to accept this conclusion.
And here is the formal essence or recipe for all Appeals to Popularity.
EXAMPLE 4-2b
Conclusion: Do X, believe X, or (in the case of an advertisement) buy X.
Premise: Because a majority does X, or believes X, or buys X.
Label & Description: Appeal to Popularity. The premise cites popularity (list the key phrase) as a reason for the conclusion.
(^7) In analyzing a fallacy we need list only the key premise or premises that contain the fallacy appeal. Most
often, arguments will mix relevant and irrelevant appeals, and these arguments are clearly better than a bare Appeal to Popularity. However, even when this happens, isolating the irrelevant appeals is a reminder that we should not be persuaded by these appeals alone.
Argument Analysis: Reasoning. Even if it is true that a majority supports something, the logically relevant reasons for that support need to be discussed. Develop by specifying the relevant reasons that should be discussed.
One of the most important mistakes students make in criticizing Appeals to Popularity is to attack the premise rather than the reasoning; that is, to question the truth of the premise rather than the inference given the truth of the premise. We could indeed question the truth of the above premise. At the time we could have asked for evidence, such as a political poll, showing that a majority of U.S. citizens supported the Thomas decision. But this focus would not be on track in terms of criticizing an Appeal to Popularity. All Appeals to Popularity should be criticized by focusing on the inference (reasoning): even if the premise is true, the inference is weak and the conclusion not supported because the premise is irrelevant to the conclusion; the main issue or issues are not being discussed. In other words, we need not criticize the truth of the premise, because the focus should be on the relevance of the premise.
Some logicians will categorize Appeals to Popularity (and Appeals to Authority, the next fallacy) as fallacies of weak induction. As such, the conclusion is treated as a kind of generalization where the reasoning is something like this: "Well, if a majority of people are in favor of X, there must be (inductive generalization) something about X that is good." But treated this way, the premise is then relevant to the conclusion, because all fallacies of weak induction have premises that are relevant to the conclusion. A major goal of this book is to help you learn the discipline of staying on track, and in everyday acts of persuasion there are so many ways that attention is shifted away from the relevant issues for genuinely testing beliefs. So, I have chosen to view these fallacies as fallacies of relevance. If we are going to conclude that a policy, product, or course of action is good, then we want to know what that something is that makes it good.
With a little reflection on what you have seen in the popular media (TV, magazines, newspapers, Internet), it should be apparent that many advertisements use Appeals to Popularity. "Nissan is number one in the state of California," "Kool cigarettes are number one in Hawaii," "Everyone is voting for Mayor Fasi," "Visa is welcome everywhere," "It's Miller time" (showing what is supposed to be a popular activity-having a Miller beer after work). “Everyone is on Facebook.” Note how these are fallacies of relevance. If you want to buy a car, what is most relevant to know, that many people are buying the car or that a lot of people are buying the car because it is a good car? Kool cigarettes may be the most-often purchased cigarette brand in the state of Hawaii, but should you smoke? And if you do, why Kool? The polls may show that a majority of people are voting for Mayor Fasi, but what are his qualifications, what is his political record, and are his policies consistent with what you want? Visa may be welcome everywhere, and being accepted by merchants is relevant in this case, but is it the best credit card to have? Does it have the lowest interest rate and yearly service charge? The whole world may drink Miller beer when people get off work, but should you? Millions of people may be on Facebook, but is all your personal information safe from hackers and identity thieves?
thousands of teenagers (ethnically and geographically balanced) to keep them informed of what is new. The makers of Sprite learned this lesson well. Once it adopted its “Obey your Thirst” ads, it went from a mediocre selling product to the fastest growing soda in terms of market share in the world. Even though millions of dollars are spent each year trying to figure out what “cool” will be before everyone believes it is “cool,” a big problem in marketing “cool” is that if the advertisement is successful, the product will no longer be “cool” because everyone will be buying it and then it will just be average. So there will have to be a constant search by "cool hunters" for the next “cool” product.
Often advertisers will switch back and forth between bandwagon and snob appeal versions of Appeal to Popularity with no change whatsoever in the product. Miller beer has done this throughout the years. In the 1960s and '70s, Miller beer was advertised as "The champagne of bottled beer," a beer obviously not for the masses. But by the 1980s, as noted above, Miller was supposed to be the beer of choice for the average person getting off work: "It's Miller time." As media techniques and special effects have progressed, verbal appeals have been replaced with multimillion-dollar dramatic, MTV- like video montages (with Britney Spears, Janet Jackson, Eminem) of beautiful people being rebellious, friendly and happy together at the beach, a party, or going out on the town ("Pepsi ... It's just right," "The night belongs to Michelob," "Obey your thirst” (with Sprite)). Political campaigns have adopted the same techniques, with discussion of the issues and a candidate's qualifications replaced with sound bites and carefully selected short media clips, showing the candidate doing something popular. There is nothing wrong with being entertained, but there is a time and a place for entertainment and times when it is more appropriate to do a little work and think critically and discuss matters relevant to important decisions.
Appeal to Authority
As the pace of life quickens, as opinions on right and wrong, true and false seem to multiply exponentially, as the amount of information available to us begins to feel like an enormous wave that will produce chaos and insecurity rather than organization and clarity, it is natural to seek shortcuts and secure foundations. There just doesn't seem to be enough time to sort through it all. One shortcut that we often use is to turn to people whom we admire for advice, people whom we think of as being more experienced on a topic, or in general more intelligent, or happier and more organized in their lives. Or, like a child that imitates his parents, we look to famous people for ideas on how to think and behave.
Like the natural psychology of wanting to belong, which fuels Appeals to Popularity, our desire to seek out shortcuts through expert opinion and advice from others surely has a practical foundation. There isn't enough time for every person to assimilate all the relevant information for every decision, to research every topic related to every alternative course of action. However, there are times when this need for fast advice can be misplaced, the acceptance of advice being too fast and the shortcut in the reasoning too short. An Appeal to Authority fallacy is committed when an improper appeal is made to alleged expert advice in a premise. Here is a famous Viagra example.
EXAMPLE 4-
Rafael Palmeiro, first baseman with the Texas Rangers and the 19th player to reach 500 home runs, is seen in a television advertisement fielding ground balls and hitting batting practice. In the background we here his voice: " I take ground balls, I take batting practice, I take Viagra ."
The implied conclusion of any advertisement is that we should purchase the product. This advertisement is of course aimed at men, but the only reason men are given to use Viagra is that Rafael Palmeiro allegedly uses Viagra. But Rafael Palmeiro is an expert on baseball; he is not a proper authority on Viagra and erectile dysfunction.^8
Note that the advertisement is not discussing the most relevant aspects for the decision. It does not even mention erectile dysfunction at all and the various methods to treat it. Should any man suffering from erectile dysfunction take Viagra? What about the quality of the product? Is this product better than other products and procedures for the treatment of erectile dysfunction? There is also no discussion of possible dangerous side effects and the quality of the product compared to the competition at the time, Levitra and Cialis. Which of these products works in the timeliest way? Which of these products uses the lowest dosage and possibly has the lowest damaging side effects? Which of these products stays in the body longer and hence could be riskier to take?
All the advertisement accomplishes is to take the positive psychological feelings someone might have toward Rafael Palmeiro and transfer them to the use of Viagra. Rafael always seems like such a nice guy and always seems to be in control, he must know what he is talking about. But the appeal is not on track in terms of discussing the relevant items for buying something. No comparative reasons are given as to why Viagra is the best choice. And because Palmeiro is not a proper authority on Viagra or erectile dysfunction, his reasons why he is promoting it need more scrutiny.
Here is a complete analysis:
EXAMPLE 4-3a
(^8) In August 2006 Palmeiro’s baseball career came to an ignoble end. It was discovered that he used
steroids in spite of telling a congressional committee that he never used any performance enhancing drugs to help him have a 3,000 plus hit and 500 plus homerun career.
used Glenn Close, Richard Gere, Barbra Streisand, and Wynton Marsalis to endorse Bill Clinton. For the 2004 presidential election, democratic candidate John Kerry gained the support of some of the biggest names in rock 'n' roll: Bruce Springsteen, REM, Pearl Jam, Dixie Chicks, John Mellenchamp, the Dave Matthews band, and Jackson Browne. But for the incumbent President Bush, the Republicans countered with some of the biggest names in country music: Brooks and Dunn, Wynonna Judd, Hank Williams Jr., Travis Tritt, Lorrie Morgan, and the Oak Ridge Boys. Then in the 2008 presidential campaign, president Obama was endorsed by Oprah.
The fact that competing products and political candidates are endorsed by different famous personalities shows that the most relevant and decisive issues are at a deeper level than mere endorsement. When something is important, and surely voting for a political leader is, it is time to turn on our critical information-gathering and reasoning ability, to discipline ourselves and focus on what is really important. Why is the candidate being endorsed by a famous personality? What are the candidate's qualifications, his or her stand on the issues, and why are these qualifications and positions better than his or her opponent's?
But what if the authority used is a relevant or proper authority? What if the authority figure is an acknowledged expert on that which is being endorsed? Consider these arguments.
EXAMPLE 4-3b
Carl Sagan has stated that biological evolution is a fact, not a theory. As an eminent scientist, he must know what he is talking about.
EXAMPLE 4-3c
Vitamin C has considerable potential usefulness in cancer therapy. The Nobel Prize- winning chemist and molecular biologist, Linus Pauling, has endorsed the benefits of vitamin C for general health and cancer therapy for years.
Scientist Carl Sagan became a somewhat famous TV personality in the 1980s. He appeared on the Tonight show several times, wrote several well-received books and a series of articles on science for Parade magazine, a Sunday newspaper supplement in most U.S. cities, and starred in and led the production of the popular science series Cosmos. He has contributed significantly to educating the general public on the worldview of modern science through his belief that the average person can understand technical scientific subjects if the details of these subjects are explained in non-technical language. Darwin's theory of evolution played an important role in this education, especially its implications for understanding human nature, our chances of survival, and the value of species diversity, preservation, and respect for non-human life. If the Darwinian theory is true, then the human species is the result of billions of chance or contingent events that would not be repeated again anywhere in this vast universe, if we
were to destroy ourselves with the weapons we build with our "intelligence."^11 Nowhere is this point better summarized than by Loren Eiseley in his classic book The Immense Journey.
Lights come and go in the night sky. Men, troubled at last by the things they build, may toss in their sleep and dream bad dreams, or lie awake while the meteors whisper greenly overhead. But nowhere in all space or on a thousand worlds will there be men to share our loneliness. There may be wisdom; there may be power; somewhere across space great instruments, handled by strange, manipulative organs, may stare vainly at our floating cloud wrack, their owners yearning as we yearn. Nevertheless, in the nature of life and in the principles of evolution we have had our answer. Of men elsewhere, and beyond, there will be none forever.^12
Scientists such as Sagan and Eiseley are adamant in their support for Darwin's theory not only because they believe it places the human species in a context that acts as an enlightening antidote to the anthropocentric and us-vs.-them attitudes that produce so much destruction and violence on our fragile Earth, but because as we saw in Chapter 3 the inductive scientific evidence for the theory is overwhelming. Not only do numerous examples exist of genuine confirming instances for the theory recorded in the fossilized rock pictures of animals that lived millions of years ago, but independent areas of investigation, such as developmental embryology and DNA research, point to the same conclusion: the few million species of plants and animals alive today are the lucky descendants of hundreds of millions of extinct species.
Consider, though, the rational gap that exists between merely citing Carl Sagan as an authority who believes that Darwin's theory is true and accepting the theory as true by being aware of all the evidence, or at least a substantial part, that Sagan is aware of. Although appealing to a relevant or proper authority is clearly better than appealing to a famous person who is not an expert on what is being endorsed, given an important issue or decision, the same inference problem exists as with that of appeals to an irrelevant or improper authority―the reasons the authority has for endorsing something are most relevant and should be discussed. To stay on track we should discuss and test beliefs by learning about the evidence authorities use as a basis for their endorsements. Carl Sagan, famous scientific TV personality, should not persuade us. Rather Carl Sagan and the scientific evidence should persuade us.^13 Note also that people who merely accept Sagan's authority as decisive deprive themselves of an important education; they are deprived of learning the amazing story of our historical contingency, the scientific
(^11) In my opinion the awareness of the full ramifications of our historical contingency is one of the most
important items one should learn as part of a college education. Although only one rather dramatic event, consider that if the dinosaurs were not destroyed by a comet striking the Earth 60 million years ago, the human species would never have evolved. For more on our historical contingency (cosmological, biological, and cultural), see Science and the Human Prospect (Wadsworth, 1989; online edition, 2001, 2011; Pearson, 2005), by Ronald C. Pine. (^12) Loren Eiseley, The Immense Journey , Vintage Books ed., (New York: Random House, 1959), page
(^13) Another reason that we should be sensitive to even expert appeals to authority is that experts should be
forced to explain what they know in terms the average person can understand. Claims that something is too complicated for the average person to understand are most often excuses not to try to communicate, and such claims should never be used as a convincing premise.
EXAMPLE 4-3D
Conclusion: Do X, believe X, or (in the case of an advertisement) buy X.
Premise: Because Y says so (Y = a relevant or irrelevant authority, and Y endorses X.)
Label & Description: Appeal to Authority. There is an appeal to authority in the premise (note Y).
Argument Analysis: Reasoning. Even if it is true that an authority supports something, the logically relevant reasons ( the reasons and arguments of the authority) for that support need to be discussed. Develop by specifying the reasons and arguments that should be discussed.
Note the similar features to that of Appeals to Popularity. The important feature (reference to an authority) for categorization is always in the premise, and the truth of the premise is not questioned in criticizing the argument. We could question whether Rafael Palmeiro really uses Viagra, and we might discover that he is only being paid to act in an advertisement, that he does not use the product at all. However, this would be off track for a critique of Appeal to Authority. For this label, the reasoning should be attacked, not the premise. The major focus for all Appeals to Authority is that even if the premise is true, the reasoning is weak―a poor inferential link exists between the premise and the conclusion because relevant matters for accepting the conclusion are not discussed.^16
Traditional Wisdom
Unlike most animals that have instinctual, hard-wired behavior patterns for survival, the human species is capable of learning, of gathering information about the world and passing on that information from one generation to the next. Isaac Newton claimed he was able to discover the principle of gravitational attraction and work out its mathematical treatment because he stood "on the shoulders of giants." Newton was referring to the scientists and philosophers who had come before him and whose work was crucial for allowing him to make the final connections. A large part of our success on this planet has relied on the discoveries of our ancestors.
However, we are also capable of learning that some of the ideas accepted as true or reliable by our ancestors were mistakes or do not always work when applied to new and larger areas of experience. As successful as Newton’s view on gravity was for several
(^16) Sometimes the actor being paid has acted previously as an authoritative personality relevant to the
product being endorsed. Actor Robert Young was best known for his roles in the TV shows Father Knows Best and Marcus Welby, M.D. In both shows, he played the role of a very stable and wise person that people could turn to in times of confusion and agitation. Later, in a Sanka coffee commercial, he seemed to play the same role endorsing the caffeine-free benefits of this product in the commercial. Although there was no direct reference to him being a doctor, he wore the same clothes and acted the same as he did in Marcus Welby, M.D., endorsing Sanka as a cure for upset people who were about ready to strangle their dogs or kids.
hundred years, Einstein was able to show at the beginning of the 20 th^ century that Newton’s science was only partly true and that a better conception of gravity was needed. As our Little League baseball example in Chapter 1 showed, a policy against girls playing may have worked in the past, but policies need to be tested because modern circumstances can be very different from those of the past.
By 2010 there were several states debating the issue of gay marriage. One argument against gay marriage was that traditional marriage should be supported just as it had been for thousands of years. Often the Bible was cited for further support. But the Bible also seems to endorse polygamy (Solomon had 700 wives) and the books of Deuteronomy, Ezra, and Nehemiah imply that traditional marriage would mean that interracial marriage is a sin. Interracial marriage in the United State was not fully legal until a 1967 Supreme Court decision that declared as unconstitutional a Virginia law that made it a felony for people of different races to be married. In some cultures traditional marriage means that a woman is not allowed to have a job or have an education. Most people today do not believe that there are good reasons to continue these traditions.
Thus, an uncritical acceptance of past "wisdom" is similar in its inferential weakness to that of appeals to Popularity and Authority. A Traditional Wisdom fallacy is committed when an action or belief is inferred to be good or reliable simply because the premise says it was considered good or reliable in the past. No support is given as to why the action or belief was considered good or reliable in the past and whether the action still reliably applies in the present or the belief matches current evidence. Here is an example given to me by a former student who at the time was studying to become a police officer.
EXAMPLE 4-
Policeman: "Captain, why do we have to issue twenty traffic citations per month?"
Captain: "Because when I was where you are I had to issue twenty citations per month, and my superior before that had to, and his superior before that also had to, that's why!"
According to my student, as a new recruit in training he had to drive around in a very conspicuously marked police car. Veterans, however, were able to buy their own cars, which were unmarked most of the time, and they could quickly place a portable police light on top of their cars when needed. Hence, my student found it very hard to make the established monthly quota, because most people slow down and drive more carefully when they see a marked police car behind them. He also wondered why there was a quota system in the first place. And why twenty? Should he give a ticket to someone who was driving only a few miles over the speed limit just to be able to make his quota? It seemed to him that in one month he might give a ticket to someone who was only driving five miles over the speed limit, because he needed to make his quota, but that in another month he might let someone go who was driving ten miles over the speed limit because he had already made his quota.
