Now, in this post, I cover a different way of interpreting the statements and arguments made by the candidates. That is by looking for False Arguments or Errors in Logic. Just because we find someone making a false argument or making a mistake in their logic doesn't mean they are lying or, conversely, if they make a perfectly logical argument, it doesn't mean that they are telling the truth. It just gives us a way of seeing if the argument they are using is valid. Maybe they are trying to say the correct things but are just getting it wrong. This would be like me trying to convince you that the apple we are both looking at is really red when other people are saying it is green. It may really be red but I could make a fallacious argument, say by using a bad analogy. I might say, "That apple is a fruit and here is another fruit that is red so the apple must also be red." Well, that is just a bad argument. It doesn't mean the apple isn't red. It just means you're talking with a person that doesn't know how to make a good argument. You should call me on that and force the conversation back to logic.
But this can also help us not be convinced of something that is just wrong. By looking at the logic of the argument, you can look at the individual pieces of the argument and independently check them for truth. Earlier this month, I read an article on one of my favorite blogs, Earl Pomerantz: Just Thinking, in a post titled "Inside Job", where Mr. Pomerantz starts by talking about how hard it is to have a discussion where one side is arguing from a logical standpoint while the other side is arguing from emotion. He says that emotion will win and we have to watch out for that.
But then he goes on to talk about how even a logical argument can be subverted by a logical fallacy. For instance, in the argument about when one side sees that it does better in elections if the voter turnout is low while the other side does better if the turnout is high. One panelist said that since both sides work to get the turnout in their favor, it all evens out. But Mr. Pomerantz labels this as a false dichotomy meaning that they are making these things seem equal when they are not. After all, working to lower the voter turnout is a subversion of our democracy and everyone should avoid trying to get fewer people to vote.
If you look at the comments to that post, you'll see that I responded with a short list of websites that talk about other logical fallacies and I will repeat those here (with some more additions I've found since then). I think it is important for us to be able to analyze an argument to get at the truth. This is important not only in politics and in this election year. It is an important skill to have in general. While I think it is wrong to learn how to win an argument just for the sake of winning, I think it is important to know how to argument effectively and truthfully so we can convince people of our ideas and to let people know what we think. We should strive to present our ideas in a clear and understandable manner and we should do it without distorting the truth.
If you want to learn more about the idea of logical fallacies, you might want to look at these websites:
The Fallacy Files - This is a blog with periodic posts about where logical fallacies show up and how to spot them. It also has a drop-down list of named fallacies you can use to look up a specific fallacy.
Logical Fallacies section at the Nizkor Project - This is just one part of a larger website that is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and to combat hatred. It lists the logical fallacies to deconstruct arguments that the Holocaust didn't happen or that there were good reasons for the terrible things the Nazis did.
A list of fallacious arguments - This a part of the website run by a computer scientist who seems to want to investigate arguments that distort the truth about global warming, UFOs and scientific creationism. He has a nice list of specific logical fallacies and short descriptions of them with examples.
The Wikipedia list of fallacies - Of course you knew there had to be a Wikipedia entry for something like this. This is similar to the others but it is arranged differently and links to other Wikipedia pages about the specific types of fallacy. But each one has a short definition on the main page to help you find what you're looking for.
There are more but that is enough to get started. I find it fascinating that people have studied this and given names to different types of false arguments. It's nice to know that some people are interested in
trying to wall off the bad arguments that can be used to distort the truth or to persuade people of the wrong thing. Lets hope the candidates won't make us work too hard to see through their lies.
No comments:
Post a Comment