Chapter Twelve.                                                                                                     (Problems printing? Click here.)

Counter Argument by Analogy

A very important and powerful form of counter argument is the counter argument by analogy. This kind of counter argument says that the other argument is bad because it is like some third argument that is obviously bad. (The fact that this technique juggles three different arguments makes this a tricky category at first.) In this technique, you show that a bad argument is bad by showing that it has the same logical form as an argument that everyone can see is fallacious. That's why it's called counter-argument by analogy. You show a logical flaw in someone else's argument by presenting a different argument with exactly the same logical form and which is clearly a bad argument. (I'm going to call this the "hypothetical bad argument" because no-one's seriously offering it as an argument, and because it's supposed to be a bad argument.)

Now, there are basically two ways for counter-argument by analogy to go wrong. First, the "bad" argument may turn out to have a different logical form from the argument it's trying to refute. Second, the "bad" argument may turn out not to be bad after all.

The basic motivation behind using a counter-argument by analogy is that sometimes it's easier to show than to explain. Sometimes it may be hard to see that a bad argument is bad. And you may not get the explanation, or be able to see that it's an instance of a fallacy. However, if you can see that this argument has the same logical form as another argument, and can see that this other argument is no good, then you're more likely to be able to see that the original argument is no good. Analogical counter-arguments are very powerful, because if you can prove that two different arguments have the same logical form and that one of them has bad logical form, then by the nature of logic, the other argument is bad in exactly the same way.

A good counter-argument by analogy has the following properties.

1. The two arguments being compared really do have exactly the same logical form. 
2. The "bad" argument really is logically bad.

Here are some examples of what I take to be good counter-arguments by analogy. (In each case it is Rocofale who gives the good argument. Fallachi's argument is there just to be refuted. )

1. Fallachi. You say that we'll have to buy monitors eventually, so that doing it my way will cost more. That's negative thinking, so of course we will save money. 
Rocofale. That's like saying that a suspension bridge made of cotton candy will stay up because saying it won't is "negative thinking." 

2. Fallachi. You are extremely well qualified, but I can't promote you because there's a perception that you're not qualified. 
Rocofale. So if there was a perception that you had been stealing from the company you'd think that you should be fired, right? 

3. Fallachi. The black community should not be upset that we created a marketing campaign and special brand names to appeal to young black people. This wasn't intended to get people to start smoking. It was designed to get people to switch brands, so it's a brand identification issue, not a health issue! 
Rocofale. So if somone put deadly poison in your coffee with the intention of getting you to switch brands, that would be a brand identification issue, not a homicide!

4. Fallachi. My company had a permit from the state of New York, and a permit from the U.S. government to put all those tons and tons of toxic chemicals in the Hudson river, so it's completely unfair to call my company a "polluter."
Rocofale. So if I killed you, and had a permit to hunt you down, kill you, and have you stuffed, it would be completely unfair to call me a "killer."

5. Fallachi. I agree that you've given a lot of reasons why the "war on drugs" is immoral, futile, and incredibly harmful to a lot of people, and that not even one pro-drugwar argument has stood up to scrutiny, but drugs still cause some real problems, (which I can't prove to be solved by the drug war) and you  haven't come up with any definite solution to those problems, so we should continue the war on drugs.
Rocofale. That's like saying that because I'm not sure how to fight a fire it's okay for you to go on pouring huge quantities of gasolene on the fire and on surrounding buildings.

If I'm right about these being good counter-arguments by analogy, both the following claims are true for each dialog.

1. The argument offered by Rocofale has exactly the same logical form as Fallachi's.
2. The argument offered by Rocofale has a clearly false conclusion.

You may have the urge to say "but Rocofale's arguments are silly, and so they can't possibly be relevant to Fallachi's arguments!" Well, they are silly, but that doesn't mean they're not relevant. A logical form is not something that can be good in one argument but bad in an other. If it's good, it's good everywhere. If one instance of it is bad, all instances are bad.

You can think of it this way. In each of his arguments, Fallachi is implicitly offering a rule that's supposed to justify his conclusion. Here are the rules he implicitly offers.

        1. If a thought is negative thinking, then the opposite thought is true.
        2. A perception justifies the same actions that the correponding reality would justify.
        3. The intention behind an action wholly determines what kind of action it is.
        4. If someone has a permit to do something, then it's unfair to call him the kind of person who does that thing.
        5. If a policy doesn't work and causes harm we should go on doing it until someone comes up with a definitive solution to the problems our policy isn't solving.

To refute Fallachi by analogy, all Rocofale has to do is make up an example where following the rule would result in an obviously false conclusion. Silly conclusions are the most obviously false ones, so it makes sense to use arguments with silly conclusions. If the rule is the same, then showing it would result in a silly conclusion shows that it's a silly rule.

The way to break a counter-argument by analogy is to show that the silly argument uses a different rule. If Fallachi could show that Rocofale's argument used a different rule, the two arguments wouldn't be analogous, and Fallachi's argument would not be refuted.

Take the following eight arguments marked by letters and find their closest analogs in the numbered arguments below. Each argument may have more than one analog. For each analog, say whether it's based on exactly the same logical principle, or not. Make your best attempt before checking the answers!

A. You'd better give up that idea that people have a right to decent paying jobs. That sounds like socialism, and you know what they do to socialists around here! (Answer)

B. Salt is made of sodium and chlorine. Sodium explodes in water. So salt explodes in water. (Answer)

C.Salt is made of sodium and chlorine. Salt is safe to eat, so chlorine is safe to eat. (Answer)

D. I measured the circumference and the diameter of this circle. The circumference of this circle is 3.142 times its diameter. So Pi is about 3.142. (Answer)

E. The post office is inefficient because a secret society of sadists wants us all to suffer. The simple fact that the post office is so frustrating proves that this secret society is real. (Answer)

F. You'll change your opposition to the New Gulf War pretty quick when you're being gassed or bombed! (Answer)

G. Russia has a choice. Stride forward in capitalism or turn back to communism. (Answer)

H. Our leaders must be telling the truth, because if they weren't, we would be on the brink of launching a completely unjustified imperialistic military adventure that would kill thousands of innocent people for the "crime" of defending their own country. (Answer)

Possible answers.

i. Vuntag condemns all unbelievers to an eternity of being forced to watch Dukes of Hazzard reruns! So you'd better believe in Vuntag or you will find yourself spending all of eternity having to watch Bo and Luke foil Sheriff Lobo.

ii. A 100-miles-per-gallon carburetor would solve the world's energy crisis. It would save the environment and ease the suffering of millions of people, so it's got to exist.

iii. The fact that Raymundo has never had a cold can only be explained if he's been secretly drinking wheatgrass juice every day for the last thirty years. He's never had a cold so he must have been drinking wheatgrass juice!

iv. This is the carburetor from my car, it weighs under three pounds. So my car weighs under three pounds.

v. Of course an airplane's "black box" is black. If you don't just accept it I'll come over there and slap you silly!

vi. I measured the carrying capacity of this pick-up truck. The carrying capacity of this pick-up truck is 600 pounds, so the carrying capacity of any pick-up truck is 600 pounds.

vii. Ralph Nader is not a Democrat. Therefore he's a Republican.

viii. My car weighs over a ton. This is the carburetor from my car, so it weighs over a ton

Now let's scaefod a counter argument by analogy.

Marley. I'm tired of hearing you criticize our glorious leader!
Winston. Have any of my factual claims turned out to be false?
Marley. Well no, but...
Winston. And has our leader produced any evidence to back up his important claims?
Marley. Well, not actual evidence, not for the important claims, but...
Winston. So why shouldn't I criticize him?
Marley. Well, gosh darn it, Winston, you should love your country!
Winston. So you're saying I shouldn't criticize our leader because I should love my country?
Marley. Exactly!
Winston. Isn't that like saying a shareholder shouldn't criticize a manager because he should love his company?

Marley.     1. A citizen should love his or her country.
                 (2. It is impossible to both love a country and criticize its leader.)
                C. Winston should not criticize his country's leader. DIRECT

Winston     1. Saying "I shouldn't criticize our leader because I should love my country"
                     is like saying "a shareholder shouldn't criticize a manager because he should love his company"
                   2. Saying "a shareholder shouldn't criticize a manager because he should love his company" is a bad argument.
                  C. It isn't proved that I shouldn't criticize our leader.            COUNTER

Marley is proposing a moral rule ("you shouldn't criticize your country's leader") so he bears the burden of proof.

Marley. Explanation argument. [It's an explanation argument because it isn't any other kind of argument.]
             Facts offered. None, unless you count the fact that Marley is tired of having his beliefs challenged.
             Explanation offered. "It is impossible to both love a country and criticize its leader."

Winston. Analogy Counter argument.
              Target. "It is impossible to both love country and criticize its leader."
              Hypothetical Bad argument. "It is impossible to both love a company and criticize its CEO."

[Notice that I expressed the analogy in terms of the basic logical principle that Marley needs in order to make his argument work. I think doing it this way makes the logical structure of these arguments much more clear.]


Critique.

Based on information given here, there is no moral rule that says there's anything wrong with criticizing the leader of one's country. Marley has the burden of proof here, but he fails to produce any facts that support his conclusion. The only support he offers is to say that Winston should love his country. This is only connected to Marley's conclusion if there is a general moral principle that love of an institution is incompatible with criticism of that institutions leader. Winston exposes the absurdity of this "principle" by pointing out that if it were applied in the business world it would mean that shareholders who loved their companies could never criticize the leaders of those companies. Since shareholders obviously have every right to criticize those whose decisions affect their income, Marley's principle is obviously false. Furthermore, since Marley's principle is obviously something he cannot just assume, he commits the fallacy of begging the question by assuming it.



Example 2.

Every time I argue against condom distribution in schools, some idiot pipes up with the idea that at least some teenagers are going to go out and have sex anyway, so the best way to protect them is to try to make sure they do it safely. That is the stupidest idea I've ever heard! Would you give teachers bulletproof vests because you think students are going to go out and start shooting? No of course you wouldn't! Nobody would. And yet these idiots are still out there handing out condoms to schoolchildren.

At first glance, this might look like a straight analogy argument.

Premise Thingy:........Handing out bulletproof vests to teachers on the theory that students are inevitably going to shoot
Conclusion Thingy....Handing out condoms to schoolchildren on the theory that students are inevitably going to ... um, you know
Property .................Stupid, stupid, stupid

With the following standardization.

1. Condom distribution is based on the idea that some teenagers will have sex no matter what you do.
2. Condom distribution based on that idea is like bulletproof vest distribution based on the idea that students will inevitably start shooting.
(3. Bulletproof vest distribution based on the idea that students will inevitably start shooting is a very stupid idea.)
C. Condom distribution is a very stupid idea.

But notice that it's saying that somebody else's policy of condom distribution is a bad idea, and it attacks the reasoning behind that policy, which makes it a counter argument, by analogizing it to a hypothetical bad policy, which makes it a counter argument by analogy. So we should maybe standardize (and analyze) it like this.

Pro - 1. (Direct)
1. No matter what adult authorites do, at least some teenagers are going to have sex.
(2. These disobedient teenagers deserve protection from STDs and pregnancy.)
(3. Distribution of condoms would help protect the disobedient teenagers from STDs and pregnancy.)
C. We should distribute condoms to those teenagers who want them.

HBA - 1 ("HBA" stands for Hypothetical Bad Argument.)
1. No matter what adult authorites do, at least some teenagers are going to open fire in school.
(2. Their teachers deserve protection from flying bullets.)
(3. Distribution of bullet-proof vests would help protect those teachers from flying bullets.)
C. We should distribute bullet-proof vests to those teachers who want them.

Hmm, they don't look that similar, do they? Well, maybe if I restandardize both of them, the similarities will be more obvious.

Pro - 1. (Direct) (Restandardized)
1. No matter what adult authorities do, at least some teenagers are going to have sex.
(2. The people placed at risk by this unpreventable behavior deserve protection from its consequences.)
(3. Teenagers are at risk here.)
(4. Distribution of condoms would help protect the people at risk.)
C. We should distribute condoms to those teenagers who want them.

HBA - 1  (Restandardized)
1. No matter what adult authorities do, at least some teenagers are going to open fire in school.
(2. The people placed at risk by this unpreventable behavior deserve protection from its consequences.)
(3. Teachers are at risk here.)
(4. Distribution of bullet-proof vests would help protect the people at risk.)
C. We should distribute bullet-proof vests to those teachers who want them.

Okay, that seems better. Now, here's the main argument against condom distribution.

Con - 1 (Counter to Pro-1)
1. Pro-1 is logically identical to HBA-1
2. HBA-1 is a logically bad argument
C. Pro-1 is a bad argument.

This argument is deductively valid, so if it's premises are true, it's comclusion will be true also. However, are these premises true? In the paragraphs above, I went to considerable trouble to make HBA-1 logically identical to Pro-1, so I think premise 1 is true. But what about premise 2? Look carefully at the logic of HBA-1. Ask yourself the following question. If it really were the case that all of those premises were true, would it really be the case that the conclusion definitively does not follow logically from those premise? This hypothetical "bad" argument has the curious property that the closer it's logic approaches that of the argument it's attacking, the better it looks! A counter argument by analogy can only succeed if it's HBA is clearly a logically bad argument. When the HBA is even the slightest bit reasonable, the counter by analogy fails.

Counter arguments by analogy work because every argument comes with an explicit or implicit candidate principle which needs to turn out to be a real principle of logic to work. Counter arguments by analogy work by taking these candidate principles and plugging in hypothetical facts to generate hypothetical conclusions. When applying a candidate principle to some hypothetical premises produces a hypothetical conclusion that would clearly be absurd even if those premises were absolutely true, then the candidate principle is shown to itself be logically absurd.

Here are some exercises with answers. They will help you with the in-class exercises, but not the homework, because the homework doesn't require you to do a critique. Because I'm lazy, I'm just doing critiques for these exercises, not the full scaefod.

A. Savion. If an argument is bad, I can refute that bad argument by showing that it has the same logical form as an obviously bad argument
Baird. Rubbish! That's like saying you can sink a battleship by sinking a toy boat that happens to be painted the same color! (Answer)

B. Gaven. It is pretty clear that there are no real atheists. I have met many Vuntagians who used to profess atheism, and all of them admitted to me that they had really always known in their hearts that there is a Vuntag.
Mick. Oh, so I guess I'm living proof that there are no real Vuntagians, because I once used to profess Vuntagism, but I really knew in my heart that there is no Vuntag. (Answer)

C. Todtkopf. People who smoke both marijuana and crack generally start smoking marijuana some months before they start on crack. So marijuana is a threshold drug that leads people to later take on more dangerous substances!
Revanchi. But your only evidence that marijuana is a threshold drug is that people who smoke both generally start smoking marijuana some time before they start on crack. But everyone who smokes crack previously drank milk, so if marijuana has a threshold effect, then so does milk! (Answer)

D. Crown. We know that Fnorbert exists because we know that morality exists. We see people acting badly and we see people acting well. This could only be true if Fnorbert existed, because Fnorbert is defined as the only possible source of morality, so Fnorbert exists.
Laphroig. Sure, and we know that there's a secret conspiracy fixing all basketball games because cheese exists. We see cheese sold in supermarkets and in speciality stores and so on. This could only be true if there was a secret conspiracy fixing all basketball games, because this secret conspiracy is defined as the only possible source of cheese, so there is a secret conspiracy fixing all basketball games. (Answer)

E. Gem. Ideas about morality must be supported by something more than just the facts of physics, biology and anthropology. You cannot tell what people ought to do just from facts about what they are. We think it is bad to make people suffer because we bring to them the idea that suffering is bad. That idea is not found in any  fact about any person. The fact that people can suffer does not imply, by itself, the fact that suffering is wrong, any more than the fact that paper hats can burn can imply any fact about whether it is right or wrong to burn them.
Teagan. This Is-Ought dichotomy states that ideas about what a person ought to do cannot be logically deduced from ideas about what a person is, and thus it erects an insurmountable barrier between a thing and its proper behavior. This is like the doctrine of vitalism, which held that life could not be generated purely from chemical forces, and thus erected an insurmountable barrier between chemistry and life. Vitalism has conclusively been proven false, so we should conclude that the Is-Ought dichotomy is false also. (Answer)

F. Snortblaster. Iraq was a lot like Afghanistan was before Jimmy Carter's boy Zbigniew Brzezinski started arming Islamic terrorists there. Like Afghanistan before Brzezinski, it had a secular government over a Muslim people, and was far more socially progressive than any Islamic Republic. Also like Afghanistan was, it was an independent nation that is much more closely tied Moscow that it was with the United States. Just as destabilizing Afghanistan led to a horrific and unpredictable series of human disasters (Russian invasion, guerilla war, and eventually the Taliban) in that region, destabilizing Iraq is likely to lead to an unpredictable series of horrific human disasters in that region.
Jolie. That's like saying that Colombia is exactly the same as Cuba because they both speak spanish, or that Argentina is like Austria because they're both Catholic countries! You have to understand that all Muslim countries are different from each other, and so statements made about one Muslim country cannot apply to all other Muslim countries. Once you understand the differences between various Muslim countries you'll realize that the comparison between Iraq and Afganistan gives us no reason to think that destabilizing Iraq will have the consequences you say it will. (Answer)

G. Donavan. I think we should give an enormous tax break to the rich. Both Forbes Magazine and the Wall Street Journal say it will stimulate the economy, increase employment, raise wages, eliminate the deficit, reduce the federal debt and bring peace in the Middle East.
Clifford. That's ridiculous! Giving a tax break to the rich is like the government seizing a big stash of stolen money, and then giving some of it back to the bank robbers. (Answer)

G. Witta. That needle's getting close to "E", so we should stop and put gas in the tank very soon.
Courtney. I can prove absolutely that the windshield washer fluid container is full, and will stay full for a long, long time. So you're wrong as usual. (Answer)
 

Homework 10 Match arguments marked by letters to arguments marked by numbers according to similarity of logical form. You can do this exercise on your own lined paper, (if it doesn't have curly edges from ripping it out of a spiral notebook), or you can use Homework 10 Answer Sheet  1. Astrology came from mythology. Mythology has been decisively debunked in recent years. And so, since mythology has been shown to be untrue and unscientific, it follows that astrology is untrue and unscientific. 2. Environmentalists claim that the world is losing it's capacity to absorb the effects of energy prospecting, development and production, but the best research by all the best universities proves that the world is a long way from running out of energy, so the environmentalists are wrong. 3. Over ten years ago we finally succeeded in abolishing sex education in our schools. We did so just in time. In the last decade we have seen a slow and steady rise in the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies among our children. These frightening statistics make it imperative that we make sure sex education is never again allowed in our schools. 4. Americans who failed to support the invasion of Iraq committed a serious moral wrong, because the invasion was extremely dangerous for the soldiers who took part in it, and several were killed. Since they were risking their lives, Americans should have supported the President and his decision to go to war, even if they didn't believe that the invasion was justified. ******************************************************************* A. Sports fans should support vertical bowling, because the bowlers who hurl bowling balls straight up in the air are risking their lives to entertain us. Given that several air bowlers have been killed by their own balls, sports fans should support the Bowling Comissioner and his decision to start an air bowling league, even if they don't think that air bowling is much fun to watch B. I can prove absolutely that the windshield washer fluid container is full, and will stay full for a long, long time. So you're absolutely wrong when you say we're close to running out of gas, and so we have no need to get off the freeway and start looking for a filling station. C. Since we stopped pumping oxygen into that sunken submarine the sailors have gotten sicker and sicker. This is a very serious situation which we must address immediately by making sure that there is absolutely no oxygen in that sunken submarine. D. Modern chemistry is a discipline that is in serious trouble. It has been conclusively proved that chemistry historically developed out of alchemy, the futile search for the "philosopher's stone" that would turn lead to gold and confer immortality. So chemistry is futile, since it developed from something futile.

Possible Quiz Questions (This ain't homework! Memorize the answers for next class, cuz there might be a quiz using similar questions.)

i. If Mutt's argument has the same logical form as a good argument, does that mean that Mutt's argument is good?
ii. If Mutt's argument has the same premises as a bad argument, does that mean that Mutt's argument is bad?
iii. If Mutt's argument has the same logical form as an argument that's bad because it has a false premise, does that mean that Mutt's argument is bad?
iv. If Mutt's argument has the same logical form as an argument that's bad because of it's logical form, what does that tell us about Mutt's argument?

Copyright © 2004 by Martin C. Young

---

This Site is Proudly Hosted By.