Remember, you can ignore all the hyperlinks in this page. None of them are required. They are just there in case you need a little help.
The aim of this course is to enhance, as much as possible, your ability
to detect, analyze, and critique bad arguments. We are only concerned with
terminology, techniques, fundamental principles and other complicated
matters to the extent that they help you get better at detecting,
analyzing, and critiquing bad arguments.
To explain the title, a marlinspike is a small, spiky tool used by sailors of old fashioned sailing ships to make and unmake knots by applying leverage to ropes and cords. In particular, sailors would often use the point of the spike to work into knots that had tightened-up under tension, separate the cords, and thus make it easier to untie the knot. This course is intended to equip you with a sort of "mental marlinspike" that you can use to work your way into arguments, and thus make it easier for you to analyze, evaluate, and critique those arguments.
To make things as easy as possible, I'm starting with the easiest parts of the material, and moving on to stuff that's progressively a little bit more difficult, on the theory that once you've mastered an easy bit, you'll be better able to master a bit that's slightly less easy, and so on through the course. Deep logical principles, and other arcane matters are held until the end of the course, for when you will be well-used to the practice of logical analysis, and thus you will find those topics much, much easier to understand than if I dropped them on you right away.
I'm also trying to make my readings as short as possible, which makes reading easier, but might not be good for students who need a bit more explanation on certain topics. To make up for this, I'm adding links to optional further reading, marked "optional reading", which you can follow for further explanation of certain topics. (Optional reading.) I'm also making important terms into hyperlinks to Wikipedia and other sources, so you can easily get further explanation of those terms if you need it.
Remember, the optional readings and other links are NOT
REQUIRED. All that is required
for this week's reading is in this main page.
This chapter will cover the following topics:
More bluff
There's no proof either way
I'm done arguing.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
After reading this chapter you should know the technical meanings of the following words
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Remember that this discussion is written to be quick and easy to read, so there no extended discussions in the main reading. If there's any bit of it you don't understand, please click on the "optional reading" link for further reading. Remember that there will be an in-class quiz (which will be like the practice quiz at the end of this chapter), so it's best to understand as much as you can before class.
A "claim" (or "proposition") is just something someone says that can be true or false. An "argument" is a claim that comes along with one or more other claims that are supposed to give us reason to believe the first claim. (Optional reading.) "Standardizing" an argument means adding in things assumed or implied by what is explicitly stated ("suppressed premises" and "suppressed conclusions"), and organizing all the claims so that the thing the arguer wants you to believe (the "conclusion") is below a line, and all the arguers reasons ("premises"), stated or suppressed, appear above that line, like so:
| Source | Argument Text | Standardized Argument |
 |
"Getting your news
from Jon Stewart is like learning about WWII from Hogan's Heroes." |
1. Getting news from Jon Stewart is like learning WWII from
Hogan's Heroes.
2. Hogan's Heroes is a very bad source for WWII information----------------------------------------------------------------------------- C: Jon Stewart is a very bad source for news |
Notice that the argument as stated in the meme is only a partial
argument (technically, this is an "enthymeme"), and that I had to fill in
a suppressed premise and a suppressed conclusion. To reiterate
the important definitions:
"Analysis" means to look closely at something to figure out how all its bits fit together to do stuff. In logic, we analyze arguments in order to be able to figure out if they're good arguments (which can prove stuff), or bad arguments (which can't). There are two parts to argument analysis, "evidence" and "implication". "Evidence" is things that can be seen, heard, touched, or otherwise observe that might tend to prove that something is true or untrue. "Implication" is about the meaning of any given piece of evidence for whether something else is true or false. The kind of evidence that really counts is called "facts". For our purposes, a fact is a claim that is not currently in dispute. Thus a fact is either something everyone agrees is true, or it is something that is so obviously true, that no-one can plausibly dispute it.
Here's an example of evidence.
The above image was created during WWII by inspecting aircraft that had returned to their home airfields after combat, and marking down the specific places various aircraft had been damaged by the enemy. Thus, each red spot represents a place that some particular plane had been hit during combat. This is evidence for something. What it's evidence for remains to be seen.
Figuring out what is implied by a given set of facts is sometimes difficult. Consider the aircraft battle damage diagram given above. It was created to help aircraft designers decide where to install armor on new aircraft. The idea was that if they put the armor in the right places, the armor would prevent enemy bullets from damaging the aircraft at those points, and the aircraft would be more likely to survive the battle. The question is, based on the diagram, where to put the armor? There are two possible answers: 1. Put the armor where the red dots are, and 2. Put the armor where the red dots are not. A fellow called Abraham Wald figured out that the armor should go where there were no red dots in the diagram. His reasoning was that all the aircraft known to have damage in the red dot areas had made it safely back to base, while no aircraft with damage in the other areas had made it back. Thus, he reasoned that any aircraft that had been hit in those areas had been shot down by those hits, and so those were the places to put the armor. (Optional reading.)
Aaaaand, I'll just leave this out here:
This is the process of understanding an argument well enough to figure out whether or not the actual available evidence actually provides compelling support to the given conclusion. It involves looking at all the claims of fact to try to figure out which of the claims actually are facts, and then looking at the actual facts, whatever they turn out to be, and then figuring out what is actually implied by those actual facts. Sometimes this is easy, other times it can be quite difficult.
Many, perhaps most, speakers and writers use analogies merely as a communication tool. An analogy allows a speaker to clarify a new idea by invoking some similarity it has to some idea with which we are already familiar. Sometimes, however, people offer analogies in attempts to change minds. In such a case, the analogy is offered not just to explain, but also to persuade. It is thus then an argument by analogy.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here are my definitions of the technical terms you are supposed to know
at this point. Memorizing these definitions is okay, but you don't
really understand a term until you are able to put it into your own words,
so practice that too.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here are links to videos and other online resources that might help if, after following the relevant links, you're still having trouble with some part of the material. I did not create these materials, so some of it may be off-topic, and some may even be wrong! (If anything linked here disagrees with what I say, assume I'm right, or at least remember that I will be the one grading your exam, and notify me of the issue by email, if you can.)
Once you've watched a video, get back here by using your browser's "back" button.
What is a Claim,
Statement, or Proposition?
Identifying
Premises and Conclusions
Propositions, premises and conclusions
Evidence: How Do We Know What We Know? | Exploratorium
Epistemology:
Argument and Evidence
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is a quiz that you take on your own to prepare for the in-class quiz
you will take before we cover this material in
class. I strongly suggest you take this quiz (several times if
needed) well before class time. You will not be turning
in your answers to this particular quiz. (If there is a BlackBoard or
Canvas site for your class, there may also be an online
quiz in your coursesite. No promises.) Take this quiz closed-book, closed
notes, so you will know what topics you need to study more for the
in-class quiz.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Even though there's no given answers for these exercises, it's still a
good idea to work through them to improve your skills and better prepare
for all the tests. Check your answers by comparing them to the
examples worked above, and the answers to the previous exercises.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
These don't have answers either. However, the more exercises you work
though on your own, the better prepared you will be for the quizzes,
exams, and writing assignments.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Don't look at these answers until you've done the practice quiz.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Finally, if there's anything at all in this reading that you don't think you fully understand, please follow an associated hyperlink to get more information on that particular topic, or email me and I will try to find a way to make the relevant reading easier to understand..
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Copyright ©
2019 by Martin C. Young
CRSRC-SESOD
collect reflect suspect reject correct CRSRC
state explain support oppose defend SESOD
"see 'ere, Circe, Sea sod!"
Do as second lecture
introduce basics
standardization
arg form
strategy
defn of fact
A is like B
using "analogy sense" to identify strategies
If you print this page, you can also
download and print the practice/makeup
exercises. (Make sure the document margins are set to 0.5 inches
or narrower.)
Analogies are a vitally important and very powerful communication tool,
but from a purely logical view, they can be an enormous pain
in the fundament. Because analogies are so powerful they can often
convince us of things we have absolutely no rational reason to
believe. So, before we start, I want to make two things perfectly clear:
1. Analogies are an enormously useful communications tool. If you can
work an appropriate analogy into whatever you're writing, that will
really help you get your point across. Yea! Go for it!
2. Although there are some good analogy arguments out there,
most analogies you see will be horribly misleading. Horribly, horribly
misleading. This is because they have an insidious power to make us
believe things that have absolutely no basis in fact. (Curse them!)
So, don't be fooled!
Imagine you are a scientist living
in the middle of the twentieth century. Imagine that you have just heard
that it has been proved that cigarette smoking causes cancer. You
understand that cigarette smoking involves burning tobacco so that the
smoke may be drawn into the smoker's mouth and lungs. You are aware that
cigar and pipe smoking also involves the inhalation of tobacco smoke.
From this, you might conclude that there is a strong possibility that
cigar and pipe smoking also cause cancer, and that this possibility is
strong enough that cigar and pipe smokers should be warned about it, and
responsible parties should conduct specific studies to investigate this
possibility. If you argue that cigar and pipe smoking probably causes
cancer of the basis of the similarity to cigarette smoking, you will be
making what is called an "analogy" argument because your whole argument
will be based on the similarity between cigarette smoking and cigar and
pipe smoking.
Empirical arguments
by analogy work the way that stereotyping works. We see something that,
in all the ways we can see, is very much like something we've seen
before, so we assume that it's like the thing we've seen before in other
ways as well. Stereotyping exists because it's worked very well as a
survival tool. A neanderthal who'd never seen a sabretooth before might
just stand there and be eaten. But if he notices that the sabretooth
looks a lot like a weasel (only much bigger) he might assume
that it will behave like a weasel, which is to say it will attack
anything smaller than it is that looks tasty.
The main reason to use an empirical argument by analogy is that we can't
look at the conclusion thingy (the thing the conclusion is
about) directly. If we could examine the conclusion thingy all by itself
to see if it had the property or not, or if we had any other kind of
evidence, we wouldn't bother with an argument by analogy. Thus even the
best argument by analogy is fairly weak, and we usually wouldn't use one
unless we have no other kind of argument availible.
Empirical arguments by analogy generally have conclusions of the form
"object O has feature F " or, less formally, "ferrets are cunning,"
"pineapples are citrus fruits," "dolphins have gills" or "bats can't
fly."
These arguments are inductive because their main premises are
basically reports, or summaries of reports, of experiences various
people have had. They compare one thing that is known to exist with
another thing that is known to exist in an attempt to show that the one
has some property that the other is known to have. They deal with
physical similarities between objects and situations. They don't deal
with imaginary situations. They don't deal with the issue of whether or
not some state of a world is logically possible, and they are never
deductively valid. Thus, at their very best, they can only give their
conclusions a probability of being true, which is what makes them
inductive arguments.
Analogy arguments only work when both sides of the analogy are things
that are actually known to exist. Imaginary objects, and objects whose
existance is in dispute won't work here. You can't ever make a
successful empirical analogy argument comparing anything to an object
that isn't known to exist. For instance, none of the following
arguments could ever work:
A
horse is like a hippogriff. Hippogriffs can fly, so horses can fly.
A unicorn is like a horse. Horses have no magical powers, so unicorns
have no magical powers.
If you take the time to examine any goblin, you will find that it is
very, very similar to you average kobold. And, you have to admit, all
kobolds are avid delvers. Kobolds like nothing better than to delve
deep into the living rock under the great hall of the mountain king,
so clearly goblins must delve like the very devil too!
Vampires are like werewolves. Werewolves don't sparkle, so
vampires . . don't . . bloody . . sparkle!
Dammit!
The reason is simple. when you're comparing two real things you're
comparing things that are both subject to the laws of nature, like
physics, chemistry, biology and so on. When a physical analogy
argument works, (if any of them ever do), it works because the natural
forces forming one object also formed the other one, and if they formed
in similar circumstances, then they're likely to be similar in a lot of
ways. (For instance, sharks are descended from fish, dolphins are
descended from land-living quadrupeds, but the fact that both live by
swimming fast means that both need to have the same streamlined,
hydrodynamic shape.) When we're talking about things, (like basilisks,
mermaids, angels, dragons and so on), whose existance hasn't been
documented by science, and which are only really known as hypothetical
entities, anlogies to existing physical objects aren't much use.
Unlike real entities, whose properties are known by primarily through
observation, the properties of hypothetical entities are specified in
their definitions. These definitions may specify an entity that is
physically possible, like a unicorn. They may specify an entity that is
physically unlikely, like a mermaid, or even an entity that is
physically impossible, like the basilisk,
which can kill you with a single glance. Again, analogies are not much
use in such cases.
Standardizing Analogy
Arguments
The basic motor of any analogy argument is a comparison, a
claim that one thing is like another thing. (For convenience,
and to serve my own bizarre sense of humor, I will refer to these two
things as the "premise thingy" and the "conclusion thingy." The
"conclusion thingy" is my name for the thing that is mentioned in the conclusion
of the argument. The "premise thingy" is the thing that is not
mentioned in the conclusion. I call it the "premise thingy" because it
is only mentioned in the premises.) The way an analogy
argument is supposed to work is that the two things are supposed to be
so much alike that if one of them has a certain property (call it "the
property,") then the other must have that same property.
Analogy arguments tend to have the following basic logical form:
1. The Premise Thingy is like The Conclusion Thingy
2. The Premise Thingy has The
Property
C. The Conclusion Thingy has The Property
Example 1. The war on drugs is like any war. We will
not begin to win until we begin to shoot drug dealers on sight.
Since this argument is obviously intended to change our minds about the
drug war, the drug war must be the conclusion thingy. The
thing it's compared to is a real live shootin' war, so that's the
premise thingy. The property is the thing that is known to
belong to the premise thingy, and which the arguer wants to convince us
also belongs to the conclusion thingy.
Premise Thingy:........Real live war
Conclusion Thingy....The "war" on
drugs
Property ..................Can't be
won without shooting at somebody
Why is the drug war the conclusion thingy? Because it's the
thingy ... er, thing ... that the conclusion is about. another way to
look at is, if there's two things being compared, and one of them most
definitely has the property in question, then that one is the
premise thingy. Real wars can only be one by blood, toil, tears ... I
mean shooting. Lots of shooting. With really big guns! Here's how the
argument looks when it's all put together.
1.
The government campaign against illegal drug use is like a literal war
with shooting and bombing and napalm and cool uniforms and so on.
(2. You can't win a real war without shooting at the enemy.)
C. The government won't win the drug war without a "shoot on sight"
order against drug dealers.
Notice the comparison is clarified in the first premise.
Here are some exercises. Click on the correct premise
thingy, conclusion thingy and property (Or, go to the end of the
chapter for the answers.)
1.
Dogpatch Community College should not require a freshman writing
course. For god's sake, Harvard doesn't require freshman writing!
Premise Thingy: Dogpatch
college....Needs freshman writing....Doesn't
need freshman writing....Harvard
Conclusion Thingy: Dogpatch college....Needs freshman writing....Doesn't
need freshman writing....Harvard
Property Dogpatch college....Needs
freshman writing....Doesn't need freshman
writing....Harvard
2.
I cannot believe they teach socialism in the University. It's like
teaching arson in a fireworks factory.
Premise Thingy: Teaching
socialism in university....Teaching arson
around fireworks....Good idea....Bad
idea
Conclusion Thingy: Teaching socialism
in university....Teaching arson around
fireworks....Good idea....Bad
idea
Property:
Teaching socialism in university....Teaching arson around fireworks....Good
idea....Bad idea
3.
Drug use is a matter of behavior control. It's like overeating or
gambling. It would be ridiculous to declare war on overeating, so it's
ridiculous to declare war on drugs.
Premise Thingy: Drug
use....Overeating or gambling....Matter
of behavior control....Ridiculous to declare
war on it
Conclusion Thingy: Drug use....Overeating or gambling....Matter
of behavior control....Ridiculous to declare
war on it
Property:
Drug use....Overeating
or gambling....Matter of behavior control....Ridiculous to declare war on it
4.
Saddam Hussein was a lot like Stalin. Both were vicious dictators with
their hands on weapons of mass destruction. Both were self-important
megalomaniacs. Both were extremely cruel to anyone who comes in their
power. And both had absolutely butt-ugly mustaches! Deterrence kept
Stalin bottled up behind the iron curtain until he died. We have
absolutely no reason to think that deterrence would not have kept
Saddam similarly bottled up. Thus we had no reason to go to war when
we did.
Premise Thingy: Hussein....Stalin....Dictator....Had nasty weapons....Megalomaniac....Ugly Mustache....Controllable
by deterrence
Conclusion Thingy: Hussein....Stalin....Dictator....Had nasty weapons....Megalomaniac....Ugly Mustache....Controllable by deterrence
Property:
Hussein....Stalin....Dictator....Had nasty weapons....Megalomaniac....Ugly Mustache....Controllable by deterrence
5.
Just as the state has the right to decide who may or may not drive a
car, it has the right to decide who may or may not have a baby.
Premise Thingy: Right
to drive....Driving a car....Right
to have children....Having children....State has the right to decide
Conclusion Thingy: Right to drive....Driving a car....Right to
have children....Having children....State
has the right to decide
Property:
Right to drive....Driving
a car....Right to have children....Having
children....State has the right to decide
6.
Even though God is omniscient, he doesn't know who will repent and who
will not because, for him, it's just like tossing a coin.
Premise Thingy: God....God predicting repentance....Repentance....Predicting a coin toss....Can't
be done
Conclusion Thingy: God....God
predicting repentance....Repentance....Predicting a coin toss....Can't
be done
Property:
God....God
predicting repentance....Repentance....Predicting a coin toss....Can't
be done
Vivid vs. Apt Analogies
I'd like to make a distinction here between what I'm calling "vivid"
analogies, which have emotional force because they evoke powerful images
and ideas in our minds without necessarily referenceing any established
real similarities, and "apt " analogies that refer to already
established real physical or logical similarities between
two objects. (A good rule would be to ask whether a reasonable would
think that the analogy made sense even if she did not already
believe in the conclusion.) apt analogies can make logically
compelling arguments, whether or not they're vivid. But analogies that
are merely vivid, without being apt can never make
logically compelling arguments.
Just so you know, an argument that uses an analogy that is vivid without
being apt commits the fallacy of false analogy.
More Exercises
7. Only one of the following statements is true. Which one is it?
A. Analogies are powerful arguments. The most
vivid analogies are very convincing and give good logical reasons to
believe the conclusion.
B. The most vivid analogies can also be
the most deceptive. An analogy that is vivid without being apt
is always a bad analogy.
C. From a logical standpoint, an analogy's
ability to grip the imagination is the most important factor.
When we are analyzing an argument
we should be
prepared to discount the aptness of an analogy whenever that
analogy fails to evoke any powerful image in the reader's
mind.
For the following arguments, try to determine whether the analogy used
is vivid or apt or neither
or both. (Answers at end of chapter.)
I would suggest that you start each exercise by thinking about how the
image makes you feel. Then give yourself a couple of seconds for the
immediate reaction to fade, and then set that feeling aside and think
about whether a reasonable person who does not accept the
argument's conclusion would accept that the premise thingy and the
conclusion thingy really are physically or logically
similar.
8. Dogpatch community college should not require a
freshman writing course. For god's sake, Harvard doesn't require
freshman writing!
9. I cannot believe they teach socialism in the
University. It's like teaching arson in a fireworks factory.
10. Drug use is a matter of behavior control. It's
like overeating or gambling. It would be ridiculous to declare war on
overeating, so it's ridiculous to declare war on drugs.
11. Saddam Hussein was a lot like Stalin. Both were
vicious dictators with their hands on weapons of mass destruction.
Both were self-important megalomaniacs. Both were extremely cruel to
anyone who comes in their power. Deterrence kept Stalin bottled up
behind the iron curtain until he died. We have absolutely no reason to
think that deterrence would not have kept Saddam similarly bottled up.
Thus we had no reason to go to war when we did.
12. Just as the state has the right to decide who
may or may not drive a car, it has the right to decide who may or may
not have a baby.
13. Even though God is omniscient, he doesn't know
who will repent and who will not because, for him, it's just like
tossing a coin.
Good and Bad Analogy
Arguments
What is special about empirical analogy arguments is that they only work
if the similarity between the two objects being compared is extremely
strong in areas that are relevant to the issue being settled. Irrelevant
similarities don't count. Irrelevant differences don't count either.
Relevant similarities make the argument stronger. Relevant differences
make the argument weaker. So the thing to do when evaluating an analogy
argument is to pay attention to relevant similarities and differences,
and ignore irrelevant ones.
Unfortunately, analogies are also a powerful instrument of persuasion,
even in instances where they actually carry no weight. Our beliefs about
the premise thingy are often so strong that merely associating it with
the conclusion thingy can be enough to convince us that the analogy is
correct even if the two things actually have nothing to do with each
other.
As I've said before, an argument only succeeds if it is clear to you, as
a reasonable person, that it presents a clear and compelling logical
reason for you to change your mind and agree with the conclusion. If it
doesn't seem clear to you that the argument has presented such a reason,
then the argument has failed. Since it is usually possible for two
things to be very similar in a lot of ways and yet be different in
precisely the right way to kill an analogy argument, empirical analogies
usually don't present a logically compelling reason to change one's
mind, and thus are often not very logically compelling arguments.
To my mind, analogies nicely encapsulate the basic problem of cutting
through rhetoric. They often have a powerful effect on our imaginations,
but they are also often complete rubbish. Usually, but not always. Once
in a while, an analogy argument is actually convincing. So your problem,
as a critical thinker, is to ignore the vividness of the image presented
by the analogy, and concentrate on whether the facts presented actually
comprise a logically compelling argument for the arguers
conclusion. Just like critical thinking in general, evaluating
analogy arguments requires you to ignore the powerful effect that images
can have on your emotions and imagination, and to carefully and
impersonally trace out the implications of whatever facts are actually
present.
Before you even get into the analogy part of the argument there's a
question you should ask. (Remember that the premise thingy is the thing
that is known to have the property, and the conclusion thingy
is the thing that the arguer wants you to believe
has the property.)
1. Does the premise thingy really have the property? If it doesn't, then
no amount of similarity between the two things can make the conclusion
thingy have the property.
If we're sure that the premise thingy really has the property, then we
should next evaluate the strength of the analogy between the two things.
The basic way to assess the strength of an analogy is to think about how
the conclusion thingy is similar to the premise thingy. If the two
things are only similar in a way that has nothing to do with the
property, then the analogy is no good. If the two things are similar in
a relevant way, but also have some important differences that are
relevant to the property, then the analogy is no good. If the two things
are relatively similar, and have no relevant differences, you still have
to think about whether they are similar enough to make the analogy work.
If they aren't, it doesn't. This kind of reasoning is basically a series
of judgment calls, and the only way to get good at it is to
practice.
Criticizing An Analogy
Argument
The most obvious response to an anlogy argument is to try to break
the analogy. You succeed in doing so if you can show that the two
things compared in the analogy are not similar enough to make the
argument work. Here are some examples in which the second arguer offers
an anlogy breaker. (Such attempts don't always work, of course, so I'd
like you to think a little bit about whether these counter
arguments succeed in breaking their respective analogies.)
1. You can't say that letting George
W. Bush be commander in chief during a war is like letting a bum off
the street coach a Super Bowl team. The U.S. commander in chief makes
general policy decisions based on the advice of highly trained and
experienced professionals. A Super Bowl coach has to make split-second
tactical decisions based entirely on his own judgment.
2.
Mountaineering is not like driving. You don't have to climb
mountains to get to the grocery store.
Notice that these are both counter arguments because
both of them attack parts of other arguments. Okay, I haven't
given you those other arguments, but these two above only make
sense as attacks on other arguments.
The other way to attack an analogy argument is to argue that the premise
thingy doesn't actually have the property, as in this dialog.
A. Tobacco
smoking is just like marijuana smoking. Both have heath risks, both
can become habitual, and both impose discomfort and risk on the people
around the smoker. We know that marijuana should be illegal, and
because of this similarity, so should tobacco.
B. But we don't have good reason to think that marijuana should be
illegal! The idea that it should be is at least highly controversial,
and many health and law enforcement professionals strongly advocate
the legalization of marijuana.
Later on, we will worry about which argument is weaker. For now, I
just want you to notice that the first argument relies upon the
claim that marijuana should be illegal. If this is
uncontroversially true, then his argument works. You should also note
that he does not support this claim, so if it turns out to be
controversial, then his argument will fail. The second arguer is trying
to take advantage of this by trying to provide reasons to think
that it is not yet proved that marijuana should be illegal.
Now, it should not surprise you to learn that any time an argument has
one of these flaws, it is a bad argument, or a "fallacy."
The fallacy of false analogy occurs when an arguer offers an
analogy in which the model and the analog are only similar in ways that
are not relevant to the property, or in which the
model and the analog are clearly different in a way that is very
relevant to the property.
Here are some examples of False Analogy. (With reasons why they're false
analogies.)
Iraq
is a lot like Afghanistan, so the war there will go the same way.
(Iraq and Afganistan both have muslim populations, but that's about it.
Terrain, population distribution, social structure, form of government
and military organization are all different. Since the course of war
depends on things like these rather than religion, the analogy is
terrible.)
The national debt is like a
metastasizing cancer that threatens to destroy our economy from
within. (The big difference
that I see here is that an economy can recover from just about any
kind of "injury," while a living body can be killed by relatively
small injuries. The deficit may indeed be dangerous to our economy,
but our economy is not enough like an animal body to make the
comparison meaningful.)
Just as rain wears down mountains, human problems always yield to
perseverance. (Mountains are made of rocks and minerals that
have a strictly limited ability to resist water erosion, while human
problems are made of things like death, anger, hatred, injury, disease
and lots of things that don't get better.)
We
should have interventions for coffee drinkers, because they're just
like alcoholics. (Yeah, sure, coffee drinkers go on three week
binges and wake up in stolen cars on the edge of the Vegas strip unable
to remember their own names and the names of the oddly dressed farm
animals who are currently singing Christmas carols in the back seat of
the car. Yeah, coffee drinkers are juuuuuuuust like alcoholics.)
Finally, follow this link (HGH) to a graphic comparing animal rights activists to Galileo, Frederick Douglass, and women's sufferage activists, on the basis that they were all called fools, blasphemers, troublemakers and lunatics. It may be that animals do indeed have strong moral rights, but this comparison does not logically support that conclusion because the overwheming majority of people who have been called called fools, troublemakers and lunatics were in fact complete fools, unscrupulous troublemakers or raving lunatics.
For each of the following false analogies, see if you can figure out why
it's a false analogy.
14. The 40 hour week works very well in
modern corporations, so we should use it in farms as well.
15. Just as it is absurd to criminalize the removal of a tumor, it is
absurd to criminalize abortion.
16.
There's no point in adult literacy programs because there's no point
in crying over spilled milk.
17.
Coffee and cigarettes should not be illegal, so marijuana should not
be illegal.
Begging the Question
The fallacy of begging the question occurs when an
arguer offers any argument, of any kind, that relies on a major factual
claim that is itself controversial and which is not presently supported
by another argument of its own.
Attempts to make analogy arguments can beg the question also. This
happens when an arguer offers an analogy in which the premise thingy
has not been proved to have the property that is being ascribed to
the conclusion thingy. If the arguer just assumes that the premise
thingy has the property without good reason to think that it does, then
he certainly begs the question, and therefore fails to even get his
analogy argument started.
Just
like a business, government must first, last and always look to the
bottom line. (Nobody has proved that businesses have a moral
duty to increase profits above all else. All established moral theories
agree that there are some things that businesses shouldn't do,
no matter what the profit, so even if government was exactly
like business, that analogy wouldn't be enough to prove that government
should look to the bottom line.)
Exercise 18. The
following argument begs the question. Can you explain exactly how
it does so?
Marijuana should
be illegal,
so coffee and cigarettes, which are at least as unhealthy and
addictive, should also be illegal.
Red Herring
The fallacy of red herring occurs when an arguer
offers a reason that is not relevant to his conclusion. In terms of
analogy arguments, trying to criticize an analogy argument on the basis
of an irrelevant difference would be a red herring. In
the following examples, the second, red, argument is always a red
herring.:
A. Even though
God is omniscient, he doesn't know who will repent and who will not
because, for him, it's just like tossing a coin.
B. That doesn't make any sense! Deciding whether or not to repent is a
process that takes place in a human brain, which sits in a container
filled with blood, but coin tosses take place in the open air, with no
blood anywhere about!
A. Just as the state has the right to decide who may or may not drive
a car, it has the right to decide who may or may not have a baby.
B. Dude, cars are made of steel and plastic, while babies are made of
drool and squishy pink stuff. There's no comparison, so your analogy
fails!
A. 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.
B. But what about the fact that bank robbers wear thos black-and-white
banded jerseys, berets and domino masks? And rich people always wear
top hats, frock coats and Prince Albert beards?
Exercises . Each of the
following argument groups contains one red herring (either A or
B). Identify the red herring fallacy and explain why it is a red
herring.
19. Promoting a Baha'i society is like promoting Communism. It
sounds good until it's achieved, but then it turns into hell on earth.
A. You forget that Baha'i is a doctrine that came out of the middle
east, whereas communism originated in France and Germany, so your
analogy totally fails!
B. If the only similarity beetween the two is that they both sound
good in theory, might I point out that both Christianity and indoor
plumbing also sound good in theory.
20. Dogpatch
community college should not require a freshman writing course. For
god's sake, Harvard doesn't require a freshman writing course!
A. Can you be sure that these two institutions both draw from the same
kind of incoming freshman pool? Isn't it possible that Harvard's
incoming freshmen are much better prepared than Dogpatch's incomung
class?
B. It is abundantly clear that this comparison is logically unsound.
It is easy to prove that what goes for Harvard has absolutely no
relevance to what goes for Dogpatch, beacuse, ans any educated person
knows, the walls of Harvard are covered in the noble and beautiful
ivy, while the walls of Dogpatch Community College are covered in base
and unsightly Kudzu, which is a completely different kind of plant.
Note for Logic Nerds
If you think about it, false analogy is kind of like red herring because
it makes an argument based on irrelevant similarities.
However, bad analogies are so common that it's best to have a seperate
fallacy name for that kind of failure.
Here's a rule.
If it's a direct analogy argument based on irrelevant similarities,
it's false analogy s
If it's a non-analogy counter argument based on irrelevant differences,
it's one way of committing red herring.
Fallacy Identification Exercises.
Each of the red arguments in the following dialogs commits a different
fallacy. Identify each bad argument as false analogy,
begging the question or red herring.
21. A. Drug use
is a matter of behavior control. It's like overeating or gambling. It
would be ridiculous to declare war on overeating, so it's ridiculous
to declare war on drugs.
Don't be an idiot! Drugs enter the body through the mouth, nose and a
needle into a vein. Except for some very rare circumstances, food
only enters the body through the mouth! Don't you realize what a
huge difference that is? It's an enormous differentce, and it means
your analogy cannot possibly work!
22. A. Look dude, your dream of forming a hamster precision flying
aerobatic team is just not going to work. I've told you a thousand
times, hamsters don't fly, and that's it!
Don't be a fool, old man. Don't you
know that hamsters are almost exactly like lemmings, and it is well
known that the lemming can fly with the agility, grace and power of
a F15 Tomcat jet fighter. Since lemmings can fly, it follows that
tight formations of hamsters can fly well enough to give aerobatic
displays of stunning complexity and precision.
23. A. Is that a Sherman tank you're driving? I thought you
were trying to save money. That thing must get terrible gas mileage.
Oh
no, it will get great gas mileage, because I got a blue one. My
old Pacer got great gas mileage, and it was blue too.
Tactics and Analogy
Arguments
Okay, let's say you've got to analyze a set of arguments in which at
least one of them is an analogy argument. How do the opposing arguments
stand to that analogy argument. The rule is simple. If the opposing
argument tries to break the analogy, then it's a counter
argument. If it doesn't offer any specific reasons to doubt the analogy,
then it's a direct argument.
Salience
"Salience" is the property of "stick-outness" something is salient
if it it really grabs out attention. Explosions, people who
look like movie stars and giant, world-destroying spaceships are
really salient. Cars that happen not to be exploding, people who look
like everybody else, and small, innoffensive pieces of gravel
are not salient. Now, there is a great deal of
difference between salience and logical
force. This is very like the difference between vividness and
congruence. Salient features can catch our imaginations and move us
to belief without providing even the beginnings of a logical reason to
believe. And salience can, sometimes fatally, distract us from the
purely logical features of an issue. Consider the following dialog:
A.
Dolphins and sharks have many similarities. They are both shaped very
much the same, and are optimized for fast swimming. They are also both
built for manuverability in that they both have strong dorsal,
ventral and caudal fins. Finally, they both live the same
way, by chasing down and eating smaller fish. So the fact that
sharks have gills leads inevitably to the conclusion that dolphins
must also have gills..
B.
Dude, dolphins are mammals, not fish! Mammals have lungs, not
gills!
Before you begin a serious analysis, take a moment to think
through your own reactions to these arguments. Did you laugh? Did
something strike you as especially stupid? Did anything strike you as
right on the money? Take a careful inventory of your initial reactions
and ideas about this dialog, and write down as much as you can of what
you thought.
Then look at the second argument, and ask yourself if it is a counter
argument. It's true that the first argument is ludicrous, but that's not
the issue here. The question here is whether or not the second argument
refers explicitly to the facts and logic that the first
argument uses. The second argument is only a counter argument
if it actually gets into the nuts and bolts of the first.
Finally, look at the second argument, and ask yourself if it represents
good logic. I'm not asking you if it's true,
I'm asking if it's good logic. The way to think
about this kind of issue is to ask youself if a person who
did not already believe the conclusion would rationally have her
mind changed by the argument. Here, the issue is whether
dolphins have lungs or gills, so I want you to think about whether
someone who did not already think dolphins have
lungs would get a rational reason to change
his mind, and believe that dolphins did have lungs, or to at least
believe that the first argument was no good, based on this second
argument.
If I've handled this example correctly, you will have been at least
mildly surprised by your own responses to these two questions. Because
the conclusion of the first argument is so absurd, I expect many people
will instinctively tend to feel that the second argument must
be either a counter argument or good logic, or both. In fact neither is
the case. The second argument is not a counter argument,
because it does not refer in any way to the analogy between dolphins and
sharks. Furthermore, it is bad logic, committing the fallacy of
begging the question. The statements "dolphins are mammals" and
"dolphins have lungs, not gills" are pretty much synonymous in this
context. If someone believes that dolphins are mammals, he will
automatically believe they have believe that they have lungs. If someone
doesn't believe that dolphins have lungs, he automatically won't believe
that they're mammals, and so the premise "dolphins are mammals" will not
be uncontroversial as far as he is conceerned.
Here are some more examples of false analogy, with
opposing direct and counter
arguments. The counter arguments give reasons why these are
false analogies. The opposing direct arguments ignore the
analogies.
Iraq
is a lot like Afghanistan, so the war there will be a cakewalk, just
like Afghanistan.
Direct: The
Iraqi resistance is highly motivated and well-funded. They're not
going to allow a cakewalk!
Counter: Iraq
and Afganistan both have muslim populations, but that's about it.
Terrain, population distribution, social structure, form of government
and military organization are all different. Since the course of war
depends on things like these rather than religion, the analogy is
terrible.
We
should have interventions for coffee drinkers, because they're just
like alcoholics.
Direct: Are
you crazy? Coffee drinkers need that black elixir, that steaming java,
that jittering caffeine high!
Counter: Yeah,
sure, coffee drinkers go on three week binges and wake up in stolen
cars on the edge of the Vegas strip unable to remember their own names
and the names of the oddly dressed farm animals who are currently
singing Christmas carols in the back seat of the car. Yeah, coffee
drinkers are juuuuuuuust like alcoholics.
Just
as it is absurd to criminalize the removal of a tumor, it is absurd to
criminalize abortion.
Direct: Abortion
allows women to control their own bodies! We can't have that.
Counter: Tumors
don't ever turn into people. Well, except for Glenn Beck.
There's
no point in adult literacy programs because there's no point in crying
over spilled milk.
Direct: Adult
illiteracy is a tragedy for millions of people who would like to read
the articles in playboy, but can't.
Counter: Milk
can't be unspilled, but illiterate adults can learn to read.
The
national debt is like a metastasizing cancer that threatens to destroy
our economy from within.
Direct: Rubbish,
debt is good for an economy. Debt is what makes this country
great!
Counter: An
economy can recover from just about any kind of "injury," while a
living body can be killed by relatively small
injuries. The deficit may indeed be dangerous to our economy, but our
economy is not enough like an animal body to make the comparison
meaningful.
If I've done this right, you'll be able to look at the examples above
and see that the counter arguments all point out differences
between the two objects being compared in the analogy argument, while
the direct arguments all ignore the analogies.
Exercises
For each of the following groups of arguments, identify the argument
that is a counter argument to the first argument,
24.
I'm tired of those crazy drivers on the 405, so I got myself an old
army tank! And I know it will get great gas mileage, because I got a
blue one. My old Pacer got great gas mileage, and it was blue too.
A: Pshaw!
As if color has anything to do with gas mileage!
B: Um, tanks
are lots heavier than cars, so your tank will get lousy mileage!
25.
The 40 hour week works very well in modern corporations, so we should
use it in farms as well.
A The
40 hour week means weekends off, and crops and animals don't do well
when left alone.
B: Corporations
usually deal with non-living things, like papers and widgets. Farms
deal in living things, like plants and animals.
26.
Just as rain wears down mountains, human problems always yield to
perseverance.
A: Mountains
are made of rocks and minerals that have a strictly limited ability to
resist water erosion, while human problems are made of things like
death, anger, hatred, injury and disease.
B: Actually
no, lots of human problems totally fail to get better, no matter how
long and hard people try.
27. Coffee and cigarettes should not be
illegal, so marijuana should not be illegal.
A Marijuana
makes people happy at low cost. Our corporate overlords cannot
profit from that, so it should be illegal.
B: Coffee
and cigarettes are way more addictive than marijuana. Neither of
them is a serious intoxicant compared to marijuana, so the analogy
doesn't work..
28. Given what we know about logic, can you figure out
a good counter argument to the "dolphins have gills"
argument above?
29. Given what we know about science, can you figure out a
good direct argument for the conclusion that dolphins don't
have gills?
SCAEFOD
"SCAEFOD" stands for "Standardize, Context, Analyze, Evaluate, Fist Of
Death!" It refers to a process in which an effort is made to clarify
arguments and the logical relationships between arguments before
any decisions are made about the strength or weakness of any argument.
Here's example of how to "scaefod" (analyze) an analogy argument.
William
Bennett holds up an
egg. "This is your brain," he says. He cracks the egg, dropping the
contents into a hot skillet. The egg cooks. "This is your brain on
drugs." Bennett turns to the Emmett, looking very grim. "Any
questions?" He asks.
Emmett.Yes Bill, can I have my brain on drugs with bacon and
toast?
William
Bennett 1. An egg that is cracked open and dropped into a hot skillet
will become coagulated and tasty.
(2.
It
is an extremely bad thing, from the egg's point of view, to become
coagulated and tasty.)
(3.
The
human brain exposed to drugs is like an egg cracked and dropped in a
hot skillet.)
C.
All
drugs are extremely bad.
DIRECT
Emmett. No
argument, just a sarcastic comment.
William Bennett bears the burden of proof here. Although many people
believe drugs are bad, and some recreational drugs have been shown to
have some bad effects under some circumstances, all the evidence so far
shows that drugs are not seriously damaging for the majority of people
who take them.
William Bennett Analogy Argument
Emmett.
No argument
Analog:
brain
on drugs
Model:
egg
on skillet
Property:
becomes
coagulated and tasty, (and is perhaps served with bacon and toast, and
maybe coffee.)
William Bennett: Analogy between brain on drugs and egg on skillet
Most relevant similarities. None.
Most relevant differences. There is no known drug experience that is
remotely like hitting oneself in the head with a hard heavy object and
then laying one's exposed brain in a hot skillet.
Fist of Death:
Based on the conversation between William and Emmett, drugs are not
seriously dangerous. Emmett gives no argument, but since he defends the
null hypothesis, he doesn't really have to. William gives the analogy
between taking drugs and banging oneself in the head, cracking one's
head open and dumping one's brains into a skillet. There is no known
drug that has this effect, so William's analogy is completely false.
Given that we have no anti-drug arguments left here, the proposition
that drugs are not seriously damaging carries the day.
(Again, one's pre-existing beliefs about the level of danger attendant
on taking illegal drugs cannot be relevant here.)
One last example before the exercises.
Shakira. Marijuana has been proved to cause at
least some brain damage, so I think marijuana should be illegal, at
least until we can establish exactly how dangerous it is.
Jameson. Rubbish, Red Bull and other "energy drinks" are not
illegal, so marijuana should not be illegal.
Shakira.
1.
Marijuana causes some brain damage.
2.
We're
not sure exactly how
much.
C.
Marijuana
should be illegal, at least for the present. DIRECT
Jameson. 1. Red
Bull and other "energy drinks" are not illegal.
2.
Marijuana
is similar in its properties to these energy drinks.
C.
Marijuana
should not be illegal.
DIRECT
Shakira makes a direct argument.
Jameson doesn't talk about the logic of Shakira's argument, so his is
also a direct argument.
Shakira is the one arguing that something could be illegal, so she
bears the burden of proof.
Shakira. Explanation argument
Jameson.
Analogy
argument.
Based
on
harm caused by marijuana.
Analog:
marijuana.
Model:
"energy
drinks"
Property:
should
be legal
Jameson. Analogy between marijuana and energy drinks.
Most relevant similarities: Both marijuana and "energy drinks" contain
naturally occurring psychoactive chemicals.
Most relevant differences: None that I can think of.
Fist of Death: By
the reasoning given above, marijuana should be illegal. I don't think
that Shakira's argument is particularly strong, but it doesn't commit
any obvious fallacies. The analogy between marijuana and Red Bull-type
drinks seems very strong, so if it is the case that these drinks
should be legal, it follows that marijuana also should be legal.
However, the fact that something is legal doesn't mean it should be
legal, so even if marijuana was exactly like these currently legal
"energy drinks," that analogy wouldn't be enough to prove that marijuana
should be legal. Jameson commits the fallacy of begging the question,
because his model, energy drinks, doesn't have the property he thinks it
does. So Shakira's argument is the strongest out of these two, and if
these arguments were all we had to go on, we would be led to conclude
that marijuana should be illegal.
Exercises 30-31. Analyze the following
Arguments
Carli. Drug use is a matter of addiction and
behavior control. It's like overeating or gambling. It would be
ridiculous to declare war on overeating, so it's ridiculous to declare
war on drugs.
Syed. The war on drugs is like any war. We will not begin to
win until we begin to shoot drug dealers on sight.
Thesis
Based on the discussion between Carli and Syed, it is ridiculous to
declare war on drugs.
Support
As Carli says, drug use is like overeating or gambling. (At least,
problem drug use is like problem overeating or problem gambling.) These
three things are especially similar in terms of addiction, which we can
define as the fact that they all involve cravings and involuntary
impulses to indulge in the problem behavior. Thus it makes sense that
they should be handled in terms of helping individuals gain greater
control over their behavior. It would be ridiculous, or at least very
counterproductive to try to combat overeating by declaring war on food,
and so it is ridiculous to try to combat problem drug use by declaring
war on drugs.
Opposition
Exercise 30. Pick
out the best description of Syed's stupid argument.
A. "Syed draws an analogy between the war on drugs and regular wars such
as the War of 1812 and World War II. Such wars can only be won by
undertaking offensive actions against the enemy, which includes shooting
at the enemy on sight. Syed implicitly argues that, since fighting a
regular war requires shooting the enemy on sight, fighting the war on
drugs requires shooting drug dealers on sight." (Answer)
B. "Syed draws an analogy between the metaphorical "war" on drugs, and
the literal meaning of the word "war." He claims that the "war" on drugs
is exactly the same as wars such as the War of 1812 and World War II.
Syed implicitly assumes that "wars" in the literal sense can only be won
by undertaking offensive actions against the enemy, which obviously
includes shooting at them whenever such shooting is to our advantage. He
also implicitly identifies drug dealers as the "enemy" in the "war" on
drugs. Since he says "shoot drug dealers on sight," he is literally
advocating that police or anyone else should open fire as soon as they
catch sight of anyone they believe to be a drug dealer." (Answer)
C. "Syed draws an analogy between the metaphorical "war" on drugs, and
the literal meaning of the word "war." He claims that the "war" on drugs
is exactly the same as wars such as the War of 1812 and World War II, at
least in terms of how they can be won. Syed implicitly assumes that
"wars" in the literal sense can only be won by undertaking offensive
actions against the enemy, which obviously includes shooting at them
whenever such shooting is to our advantage. He also implicitly
identifies drug dealers as the "enemy" in the "war" on drugs. He is
saying that the police should undertake offensive operations against
drug dealers in the same way as a well-run army undertakes operations
against an opposing army. This would presumably include intelligence
efforts to correctly identify and locate genuine drug dealers, and
careful consideration of when and how to open fire in order to minimize
the probability that innocent people would be caught in the crossfire."
(Answer)
D. "Syed draws an analogy between the metaphorical "war" on drugs, and
the literal meaning of the word "war." He claims that the "war" on drugs
is exactly the same as wars such as the War of 1812 and World War II, at
least in terms of how they can be won. Syed implicitly assumes that
"wars" in the literal sense can only be won by undertaking offensive
actions against the enemy, which obviously includes shooting at them
whenever such shooting is to our advantage. He also implicitly
identifies drug dealers as the "enemy" in the "war" on drugs. Although
he says "shoot drug dealers on sight," we don't need to read him as
literally advocating that police or anyone else should open fire as soon
as they catch sight of anyone they believe to be a drug dealer. Rather
we can interpret him as saying that the police should undertake
offensive operations against drug dealers in the same way as a well-run
army undertakes operations against an opposing army. This would
presumably include intelligence efforts to correctly identify and locate
genuine drug dealers, and careful consideration of when and how to open
fire in order to minimize the probability that innocent people would be
caught in the crossfire." (Answer)
Possible Clinchers
Exercise 31. Pick
out the best critique of Syed's stupid argument.
A. "Syed's argument does not address the analogy offered by Carli. Since
Syed fails to offer a counter argument to Carli's argument, Syed cannot
defeat that argument, and it stands. Since Carli's argument stands
uncontested, it carries the day, and Syed loses the argument." (Answer)
B. "Syed's argument commits two fallacies. First, he commits the fallacy
of assuming that, if the war on drugs really is like a real war, it
automatically follows that shooting the "enemy" would be justified. This
is an illegitimate assumption because it is simply not the case that all
wars are justified. Second, he commits the fallacy of false analogy in
that the war on drugs and real warfare are not sufficiently similar to
carry his argument. Enemy soldiers are dedicated to shooting us and
blowing up our stuff. Drug dealers are dedicated to selling their stuff
to people who want to buy it. They only shoot or blow up people who
threaten them. Otherwise, they leave us alone. The only justification
for shooting at enemy soldiers is that it can prevent them from shooting
at us. When shooting them isn't needed to stop them shooting at us, like
when they surrender, we stop shooting at them, eventually. Since this
difference sits right on the point that Syed needs in order to make his
argument work, it kills his argument stone dead." (Answer)
C. "The problem with Syed's argument is that it requires literal warfare
against drug dealers. This means attacking them with the most effective
weapons in our arsenals. Can you imagine the carnage if your local
corner drug dealer suddenly found himself attacked by an armored
division operating with air support. Sure, a single hit from the main
gun of a modern main battle tank would vaporize the guy, but it would
also bring down every nearby building. Cluster bombs and napalm would
only make things worse. Undertaking modern warfare in an urban
environment would cause untold destruction, so is ridiculous to apply
modern warfare to drugs." (Answer)
D. "Syed's argument is a false analogy. There is no way that the war on
drugs is anything like a regular war, so things that apply to a regular
war do not necessarily apply to the war on drugs." (Answer)
An argument cannot be a bad argument merely because it fails
to address some other argument. An arguer can fail because he fails to
address some other argument, but that by itself doesn't make his own
arguments bad. Taking an uncharitable interpretation of somebody's
argument, and then refuting, or ridiculing, that uncharitable
interpretation, always fails to refute an argument. In order to really
defeat an argument you have to criticize it in its strongest form, and
show that even its strongest form cannot stand. Finally, even if your
judgment of an argument is exactly right, your clincher will still fail
if you do not include the details necessary to allow your readers to
understand exactly why the opposition argument fails.
Exercises
Try to analyze all of the arguments found in each of the following
dialogs. Especially figure out which arguments are direct arguments
and which are counter arguments. Say which side has the stronger
argument(s) and which is weaker. If you can, identify the key
fact that unlocks the issue.
32.
Kory. I'm taking a political science class at the university.
We just started studying socialism, and the professor says that
socialism has actually worked in every country where it's been given a
fair chance.
Noelia. I cannot believe they teach socialism in the
University. It's like teaching arson in a fireworks factory. (Answer)
33. Carli. Drug use is a matter of addiction and behavior
control. It's like overeating or gambling. It would be ridiculous to
declare war on overeating, so it's ridiculous to declare war on drugs.
Syed. The war on drugs is like any war. We will not begin to
win until we begin to shoot drug dealers on sight. (Answer)
34. Catalina. I think it must be pretty boring to be God.
After all, he's omniscient, so he already knows how things are going
to come out. He can't even make bets on which sinners are going to
repent and which are going to burn, because he already knows who is
and isn't going to repent.
Jaiden. Even though God is omniscient, he doesn't know who will
repent and who will not because, for him, it's just like tossing a
coin. (Answer)
35. Clifton. I wish we could stop irresponsible people from
having children. It would prevent an enormous amount of suffering, but
control over one's own body is a basic human right, and that includes
reproduction, so the state will never have the right to control who
has children.
Annette. You've got all wrong. Just as the state has the right
to decide who may or may not drive a car, it has the right to decide
who may or may not have a baby. (Answer)
36. 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)
37. Grady. I just spent the last six months researching the
Baha'i faith. The Baha'i faith preaches kindness, tolerance and
nonviolent social action. I traveled all over the country visiting
Baha'i congregations and seeing them in action. I found them all to be
composed of gentle and kind people, all doing good work in their
communities, and all getting along fabulously with anyone who was
willing to get along with them. I think it would be great if we had a
Baha'i society!
Kristine Promoting a Baha'i society is like promoting
Communism. It sounds good until it's achieved, but then it turns into
hell on earth. (Answer)
38. Dimitri.
Here at Dogpatch community college we get a lot of incoming freshmen
who don't know how to write college-level papers, so we need to have a
freshman writing course, and we have to require incoming freshmen to
take that course.
Maura. Dogpatch community college should not require a freshman
writing course. For god's sake, Harvard doesn't require a freshman
writing course! (Answer)
39. Augustus.
I really think that the government should put more money into
discouraging cellphone use. Cellphones produce microwave radiation, so
using a cellphone is literally holding a radiation source right next
to your brain. Radiation causes cancer, so it is insane to routinely
expose the most important organ in your body to a known carcinogen
several times a day. Millions and millions of people use cellphones on
a daily basis, so if cellphones cause cancer these people are at a
serious risk. We cannot wait for research because waiting could
potentially allow thousands of people to contract deadly brain
cancers.
Fred. Wait a
moment. Cellphones have been around for years and years, so if they
caused cancer we would already see a rise in the cancer rates, and
this rise would include a correlation between cancer and cellphone
use. This is exactly how we found out that cellphone use causes car
accidents. There is no rise in the cancer rates, and cancers are not
correlated with cellphone use, so cellphone use is not a significant
cause of cancer.
Possible Quiz Questions
(These you will have to check by looking up the answers in the chapter
above!.)
i. Explain the fallacy of false analogy in your own words
vi. Explain the fallacy of begging the question in your own words
vii.
viii. In your own words, explain how to argue against an
analogy argument.
ix. What do you call an argument that tries to point out a logical
problem with someone else's argument?
x. Which kind of argument that doesn't refer to any logical
problems in any other argument?
xi. How good is an analogy argument in which the premise thingy bears no
useful similarities to the conclusion thingy?
xii. It it's bad, what fallacy does it commit?
xiii. How good is an argument in which the main premise is just the
conclusion stated in different words?
xiv. It it's bad, what fallacy does it commit?
xv. How big an idiot is someone who says an argument is bad merely
because he thinks the conclusion is false?
xvi. What fallacy is comitted by this kind of idiot?
xvii. How good is an analogy argument in which the premise thingy
doesn't even have the property that the arguer is trying to attribute to
the conclusion thingy?
xviii. It it's bad, what fallacy does it commit?
xix. Is it good reasoning to try to support one of your premises
by citing the conclusion that that premise is supposed to
support?
Short
Online
Analogy Quiz (This is an outlink, so enter a fake name, just in
case.)
Here are some analogical arguments I'd like to go over in class.
The basic argument given for animal rights is the same as the basic
argument given for the rights of women and black people, and the
counter arguments against this basic argument are all the same as the
arguments against the basic argument for giving rights to women and
the basic argument for giving rights to black people. These basic
arguments for human rights were eventually (and rightfully) accepted
by a majority of the population, and eventually the basic argument for
animal rights will be (rightfully) accepted by a majority of the
population.
When those two high school students entered the words "big boobs" into
an internet search engine and then viewed pornography on the computer,
they were doing something that was just as bad as arson and murder.
These are very serious crimes, so these students should recieve very
serious punishment.
Making alcohol illegal was a social disaster, and that disaster was
greatly relieved by legalizing alcohol. Making marijuana illegal has
been just about as much of a social disaster, and this disaster can be
alleviated by legalizing marijuana.
Allowing gay marriage is like allowing a marriage between a immature
pachyderm and a piece of heavy machinery. We would not give legal
sanction and protection to a liason between a baby elephant and a
steamroller, and so we should not allow a human being to legal
sanction and protection to a liason between a fully consenting adult
human being and another fully consenting adult human being of the same
gender!
More Practice:Identify
the weaker argument in each dialog and describe the problem with that
argument, including the fallacy name if any. Make sure you include all
necessary details, including the "crucial fact," and the precise way the
argument goes wrong.
Dexter.
I think it's a bad sign when a country is continually starting
wars. It's like having a guy in your neighborhood who you have to
avoid because he's continually getting into fights with his neighbors.
Kelsi. You don't know what you're talking about. A great
nation is like a well-developed human body. The strength and power of
human body depends on regular exercise in the form of hard physical
activity, so the strength and power of a great nation depends on
regular exercise in the form of war.
Pangloss. No, I'm not going to assign The Ominous Parallels
in my political science class. I've skimmed through the book and
randomly read a few dozen pages. Every page I've looked at, every
argument I've looked at, has been just plain silly. Based on this
sample of his writing, I would say that the author of this book
obviously does not understand political philosophy and obviously has
little knowledge of political history. Certainly, I have not seen
anything in the book that indicates it would be even the slightest use
to a student of political science.
Lemming. Well, but you would happily use the book A Theory
of Justice, wouldn't you?
Pangloss. Yes of course. A Theory of Justice is an
extremely significant work of political philosophy.
Lemming. Aha, here's where I've got you. Both The Ominous
Parallels and A Theory of Justice are hardbound in
high-quality paper with rich leather covers. Both weigh about a pound,
and both use a 12-point Helvetica typeface. A Theory of Justice is a
significant work of political philosophy, so therefore The Ominous
Parallels is also a significant work of political philosophy. So you
have a very good reason to assign it in your political science class.
More Quiz Preparation
Be able to identify Analogy arguments, and be able to tell when an
argument is based on a comparison, and when it is't
Be able to tell when two things are relevantly different, and
when they aren't.
Be able to tell when an argument commits false analogy, even if you
can't quite explain why.
Be able to tell when an analogy argument commits begging the question,
even if you can't quite explain why.
Advanced Topics (These
probably won't be on the quiz, though we might talk about them in
class.)
Know the difference between false analogy and begging the question.
Be able to standardize analogy arguments. (You can practice on the
arguments given above.)
Be able to remember, figure out, or pick out the correct general form
for analogy arguments.
1. The Premise Thingy is like The Conclusion
Thingy
2. The Premise Thingy has The Property
C. The Conclusion Thingy has The Property
Be able to tell whether an argument is attacking an analogy or not. (A counter
argument to an analogy argument will attack the analogy. If an anlogy
argument is opposed by an argument that doesn't attack the
analogy, then that opposing argument isn't a counter
argument.)
Answers
1. Premise Thingy:
Harvard
Conclusion
Thingy: Dogpatch
college Property
Doesn't
need freshman writing
2. Premise Thingy: Teaching arson around
fireworks Conclusion Thingy: Teaching
socialism in university Property: Bad
idea
3. Premise Thingy: Overeating or
gambling
Conclusion
Thingy: Drug
use
Property:
Ridiculous to declare war on it
4. Premise
Thingy: Stalin
Conclusion
Thingy:
Hussein Property: Controllable
by
deterrence
5. Premise Thingy: Right to
drive
Conclusion
Thingy: Right to have
children
Property: State
has the right to decide
6. Premise Thingy: Predicting a coin
toss Conclusion
Thingy: God
predicting
repentance
Property:
Can't be done
7. "The most vivid analogies can also be the most deceptive.
An analogy that is vivid without being apt
is always a bad analogy." is true
8. I don't think this is either vivid or apt. It's certainly not apt!
Harvard University has many substantial dissimilarities with any
community college.
9. Vivid, but not apt. Someone who already
thinks socialism is bad might agree with the conclusion, but there are
no significant similarities between the two cases mentioned.
10. Maybe not vivid, but certainly apt. The science
of addiction show that people stay on drugs for mostly the same
reasons they overeat or gamble.
11. Again apt. The similarities between Saddam and
Stalin are well documented, as is the fact that Saddam admired
and modelled himself on Stalin! Successful
dictators tend to have a lot of features in common.
12. This might be vivid, especially when we think of all the
horrible parents out there, but driving is a priviledge while having
children is a basic human right, and control of fertility has much
more potential for abuse than control of driving licenses, so I think
it's not apt.
13. Maybe vivid, but certainly not apt. A
human who flips a coin neither controls it's course not has the
ability to see it's end, whereas God, if he flipped coins, would be
able to do both.
14. Memos won't rot in the fields over a weekend, but crops and
animals don't do well when left alone.)
15. Tumors don't ever turn into people. Well, except for Glenn Beck.
16. Milk can't be unspilled, illiterate adults can learn to
read.)
17. Coffee and cigarettes are way more addictive than marijuana.
Neither of them is a serious intoxicant compared to marijuana.)
18. Has anyone has proved that marijuana
should be illegal? This claim is disputed by many reasonable people,
and he completely fails to support it himself. It is certainly true
that tobacco, coffee and marijuana have many features in common
(although marijuana is healthier and less addictive than tobacco), but
this similarity, however close it is, doesn't matter when the feature
is not uncontroversially associated with the premise thingy.
19. A " . . . Baha'i is a doctrine that came out of the middle east .
. ." is the red herring.
20. B " . . . the walls of Harvard are covered . . ." is the red
herring.
21. B " . . . Drugs enter the body through the mouth . . . " is a red
herring.
22. B " . . . lemmings can fly . . . " begs the
question.
23. B " . . . because I got a blue one . . . " is a false
analogy
24. A. "Pshaw! As if color has anything to do with
gas mileage!" is the counter argument.
25. B. "Corporations usually deal with non-living
things, ....." is the counter argument.
26. A. "Mountains are made of rocks and
minerals ....." is the counter argument.
27. B: Coffee and cigarettes are way more
addictive ....." is the counter argument.
28. Any counter argument here would have to point
out a difference between the shape and behavior of
an animal and its physiology. If you
can figure out a way to show or explain that there's no necessary connection
between
how and animal looks and behaves, and how it's organized internally,
you can show how the analogy fails.
29. Dolphins have been extensively studied, so there should be plenty
of reference books with descriptions of dolphin anatomy, which dont
include gills. And if you point out that dolphins are mammals, which
don't have gills, that can work too.
30. D. This last and most elaborate description od
Syed's argument makes it a strong as it reasonably can be made. Notice
that this description bends over backwards to as much as possible
avoid portraying Syed as saying anything stupid.
31. For my money. B is the best critique because it contains the most
purely logical analysis, and it explicitly discusses what
drug dealing us really like, what wars are really like, and the
morally importand differences between them.
32. Kory. 1. Kory's political science professor says
that socialism works.
(2.
Systems
that work are good systems.)
(C.
Socialism
is good)
Noelia. 1. Teaching socialism in
the University is like teaching arson in a fireworks factory.
(2.
Teaching
arson in a fireworks factory would have bad consequences that look
cool when viewed from a distance.)
(C.
Socialism
is bad.)
If someone here was arguing that socialism is okay, or that we don't
know whether socialism is good or bad, that person would not bear
burden of proof. However, we have one person arguing that socialism is
good, and another arguing that it is bad, so both sides bear the
burden of proof against the null hypothesis.
Both are making direct arguments.
Kory's argument is based on the historical record of
socialism. He points out that socialism has worked in all the
countries where it's been given a fair chance to succeed or fail on
it's own merits, which implies that it's a good thing, since political
systems that work are good systems.
Noelia's argument is based on an analogy between
socialism lessons in a university and arson lessions in a fireworks
factory. It relies on the fact that teaching arson in a fireworks
factory would be a very dangerous thing to do, given that fireworks
will be very likely to go off if someone is setting fires very close
to them. Noelia's argument says that teaching teaching socialism in a
university is so similar to teaching arson in a fireworks
factory that teaching socialism in a university is just as
dangerous as teaching arson in a fireworks factory. Noelia probably
doesn't mean that socialism lessons are likely to actually set fire to
the univesity. More likely she means that they will result in some
kind of unacceptable social cost.
33. Carli. 1. Drug use is a matter of addiction and behavior control.
2.
Drug
use is like overeating or gambling.
3.
It
would be ridiculous to declare war on overeating.
C.
It's
ridiculous to declare war on drugs.
Syed. 1. The war on drugs is like
any war.
(2.
Wars
are only won by shooting people.)
C.
We
will only win the war on drugs if we shoot drug dealers on sight.
Since we should only ever use violence when we have a clear and
compelling reason to do so, Syed bears the burden of proof
here because he is the one advocating violence.
Both are making direct arguments.
Evaluation:
Carli. Analogy Argument
Syed.
Analogy Argument
Analog: dealing
with the drug problem
Conclusion
Thingy:
dealing with the drug problem (the "drug war")
Premise Thingy:
dealing with overeating
Premise
Thingy:
an actual war
Property: should
not be prosecuted with unlimited violence. Property:
should be prosecuted with unlimited violence.
Carli. Analogy between overeating and taking illegal drugs.
Important similarities: as Carli says, both are matters of addiction
and behavior control. Neither intrinsically involves shooting at other
people.
Important differences: overeating is always unhealthy, but illegal
drug use is not always unhealthy in itself. 35 percent of the American
people are obese, but only 6 percent of Americans even use illegal
drugs.
Syed. Analogy between making war on America and taking illegal drugs.
Important similarities: none that I can see.
Important differences: people making war on America actively try to
destroy American lives and property. People who take drugs don't
necessarily destroy anything.
Carli gives a reasonable argument, given the clear similarities
between overeating and drug use. Syed seems to think that use of the
slogan "war on drugs" means that there is an actual war going on. The
problem with this is that it's not clear whether the war on drugs is a
real war or a war in name only. After all, we had a "war on poverty,"
and that didn't require us to shoot anybody. So this argument at least
begs the question of whether the drug war is a case of us being
attacked by enemies who intend to conquer or dominate us, and who
cannot be handled by the normal operations of the police forces. In a
real war, we generally encounter the enemy in the form of soldiers who
shoot at us or at least try to force us to work for them or give them
our stuff. Generally, we have to shoot these guys in order to get them
to stop. In the drug war, we generally encounter the "enemy" in the
form of people who try to sell us things, or give us things in the
hope that we will become hooked and have to buy them later. So if this
analogy is good, I will not be able to avoid Jehovah's Witnesses until
I start shooting them. Certainly, there are no similarities between
the drug war and a real war. Furthermore, the fact that American
soldiers shoot people during a real war doesn't mean that such
shooting is justified! Syed actually commits three fallacies here. He
equivocates on the word "war," he begs the question of whether the
shooting in an actual war is justified, and he draws a false analogy
between the war on drugs and a real war.
34. Catalina. 1. God already knows how everything is
going to come out.
(2.
Life
is boring if you already know how everything is going to come out.)
C.
God's
life is boring.
Jaiden. 1. God knowing who will
repent is like you knowing how a coin toss will come out.
(2.
You
cannot predict how a coin toss will come out.)
(3.
If
there is something god cannot predict, then god will not necessarily
be bored.)
(C.
God's
life is not necessarily boring.)
Catalina bears the burden of proof because he is
ascribing a property to God. Jaiden is merely defending the null
hypothesis that God's life isn't necessarily boring or non boring.
Both are making direct arguments.
Evaluation:
Catalina. Argument
Jaiden. Analogy argument
Cites
lack
of interesting events.
Conclusion
Thingy:
God knowing how repentance will turn out.
Based
on
perfect
predictability Premise
Thingy:
Someone knowing how a coin toss will come out.
Property:
Unpredictability.
Catalina gives a fairly reasonable argument. Lots of things (like
movies and sporting events) would be boring if we knew every little
detail before it happened. On the other hand, I don't know if that
covers everything. Would our friends amuse us if we knew exactly what
they were going to do ahead of time? And maybe God has a high
tolerance for predictability. Many TV shows are excruciatingly
predictable, and plenty of people watch them. Jaiden's argument relies
on a supposed similarity between predicting who will repent and
predicting how a coin toss will come out. Actually, I just realized
that I misinterpreted Jaiden's argument. I've been talking about it as
though it says that god knowing about repentance is like you knowing
about a coin toss, but that's not what she said. She said "for him,
it's just like tossing a coin," which means that the analogy is really
between God predicting repentance and God calling a coin toss. But, if
God exists and is omniscient, then he always knows how a coin toss is
going to come out! So if that's the analogy, it proves that God will
know who will repent and who will not, and Jaiden's argument fails. So
Jaiden's argument will be stronger if we take it to rest on a
comparison between God calling repentance and you calling a coin toss.
Here, the argument is stronger because you, (unless you're God, or
some other supernatural being), cannot reliably predict how a coin
toss will come out. Furthermore, there is a significant similarity
between the two cases in that the outcome of the coin toss is out of
your control and, because of free will, the outcome of repentance is
out of God's control. However, there is a fatal difference. Humans are
not omniscient. They don't know how coin tosses will turn out because
they can't see the future. God is supposed to be omniscient. If he or
she is omniscient, then he or she can see into the future, and will
see how a coin toss will turn out. So even if a repentance decision is
like a coin toss, in that God cannot control how it turns out, his or
her ability to know everything means that he or she can know how it's
going to turn out. The problem with this analogy is that while
repentance for God might be analogous to a coin toss for God, God's
purported omniscience means that it cannot be analogous to a coin toss
for a human. God calling repentance is unlike you calling a coin toss
precisely because God is omniscient and you're not. Since omniscience
is about predictability, and predictability is precisely what is in
question here, Jaiden's argument is a false analogy,
so it fails. Big-time.
35. Clifton. 1. Control over one's own body is a basic human
right, and that includes reproduction.
2.
Control
over one's own body includes reproduction.
C.
The
state does not have the right to control who has children.
Annette. 1. The state has the right to decide who
may or may not drive a car.
(2.
Driving
a car is like having children.)
C.
The
state does have the right to control who has children.
Clifton is basically saying that the state should leave people alone
when it comes to reproduction, while Annette is saying that the state
has the right to interfere. Since state interference in people's lives
is never allowable without a clear justification, Annette has
the burden of proof.
Both are making direct arguments.
Evaluation:
Clifton: Argument Annette:
Analogy Argument.
Based
on
control of one's own body.
Conclusion
Thingy:
state control over who has and who doesn't have children.
Premise
Thingy:
state control over who drives and who doesn't.
Property:
state
has the right to do it.
Clifton's argument is based on the human right to control what is done
with one's body. Reproduction is done with one's body, so it seems to
follow that there is a human right to control one's own reproduction,
which means that the state doesn't have a right to interfere with
one's reproduction. Annette's argument is based on a purported
similarity between being allowed to drive a car and being allowed to
reproduce. The crucial similarity here is that some people can be
identified as very likely to be bad parents just as some people can be
identified as very likely to be bad driv ers. The state has a duty to
keep bad drivers off the road because bad drivers are a serious, and
often deadly threat to other innocent people. If a risk was the only
consideration, it would follow that the state has a duty to keep bad
parents from reproducing because bad parents are a serious, and often
deadly threat to other innocent people, to wit, their children.
Indeed, such considerations would imply that the state has more duty
to regulate parenting, because most people threatened by bad drivers
are drivers themselves, and have some ability to avoid the effect of
the bad driving. Children have no ability to avoid the effects of bad
parenting.
[Now, if you said that Annette's argument was stronger because of the
compelling state interest in preventing harm to children, I would mark
that right. If you said that Clifton's argument was stronger because
control of one's body is a fundamental right that overrides the
state's duty to prevent harm to children, I would mark that right. And
if you said that you couldn't tell which argument was stronger because
you couldn't decide whether or not individual rights were more
important than state duties, I would mark that right also. In fact,
any answer that was based on the logical structure of both
arguments would be right The important thing here is identifying and
clearly stating the logical elements of the issue. Since neither side
commits a clear fallacy, and (in my view) it is actually difficult to
decide who is right, it is actually possible to do everything you
really need to do for this exercise without coming to any particular
conclusion. Remember the class is more about understanding and clearly
explicating the logical structures of issues than it is about coming
to conclusions. When the arguments genuinely add up to logical
uncertainty, the most rational thing you can do is say that you are
uncertain, and explain why.]
36. Donavan. 1. Forbes Magazine and the Wall Street Journal say an
enormous tax break for the rich is a good idea.
C.
Giving
an enormous tax break to the rich is a good idea.
Clifford. 1. Refunding taxes to the rich is like
returning stolen money to robbers.
(2. Giving
recovered stolen money back to the people who stole it is not a good
idea.)
C.
Giving
a tax break to the rich is not a good idea.
Donavan bears the burden of proof because, in the
absence of an argument to the contrary, our most reasonable conclusion
is that everyone is paying the right amount of taxes. If someone
thinks that there is something wrong with the current distribution of
taxes, it's up to him to prove it. Donavan is such a person, so he has
the burden of proof.
Both are making direct arguments.
Evaluation:
Donavan. Authority Argument.
Authorities:
Forbes
Magazine and Wall Street Journal.
Qualifications:
popular
publications.
Clifford. Analogy Argument
Conclusion
Thingy:
giving yet another tax break to the rich.
Premise Thingy: recovering stolen money and giving some of it back to
the robbers.
Property: not a good idea.
Since Donavan bears the burden of proof, we would assume that his
conclusion is wrong if just it turned out that neither argument here
was any good. The playing field is tilted against someone who bears
the burden of proof since he only wins if his argument is good and the
other argument is bad. If both arguments are equally good, or equally
bad, the arguer with the burden of proof loses. As an authority
argument, Donavan's argument relies on his sources being competent and
independent experts. Unfortunately, while they are successful
publications, neither the Wall Street Journal nor Forbes Magazine are
scientific journals, so they don't count as experts in economics.
Furthermore they are owned by rich people, controlled by rich people,
and depend on the patronage of rich people for their existence. That
is a powerful incentive to say whatever they think will please rich
people, so they cannot be assumed to be independent. Clifford's
argument relies on the analogy between rich people and robbers. The
strength or weakness of this analogy depends on how these rich people
got their money. If the vast majority of rich people got their money
under conditions of fair competition, then the analogy does not work.
However, if the vast majority of rich people got their money from
sweetheart deals, favors from government, monopolistic practices,
price-fixing, deceptive advertising, corporate welfare and so on, then
this analogy works very well. While there is considerable evidence
that a large proportion of our rich people got rich through dishonest
means, this conclusion is extremely controversial, so the analogy is
likewise controversial. Clifford cannot just assume that rich people
are like robbers, so his argument is weak also. Given that Donavan
bears the burden of proof, the fact that both arguments fail means
that the most reasonable conclusion is that the tax break is not a
good idea.
37. Grady. 1. Grady spent six months researching the Baha'i
faith.
2.
The
Baha'i faith preaches kindness, tolerance and nonviolent social
action.
3.
Grady
observed Baha'i congregations all over the country.
4.
All
were composed of good people doing good work and getting along well
with others.
(5.
Our
society would be a good society if it was composed of good people
doing good work and getting along well with others.)
C.
It
would be good if our society was a Baha'i society.
Kristine. 1. Promoting a Baha'i society is
like promoting Communism.
2.
Promoting
Communism sounds good until it's achieved, but then it turns into hell
on earth.
(3.
It's
not good if a society turns into hell on earth. Unless you're
SATAN!)
C.
It
would not be good if our society was a Baha'i society.
Generally speaking, it is well-established that societies where people
are nice to each other are good societies, and that creating a good
society is usually best accomplished by getting people to be nice to
each other. The idea that promoting a good set of values will cause
hell on earth is radically counterintuitive and so Kristine
bears a heavy burden of proof here.
Both are making direct arguments.
Evaluation: Although it might be a bit awkward, I'm
going to interpret Grady's argument as an analogy. If this turns out
to make the basic logic of the argument clear, then it's a good idea.
If it doesn't help, then it's not a good idea.
Grady. Analogy Argument.
Kristine.
Analogy Argument.
Conclusion
Thingy:
a Baha'i America.
Conclusion
Thingy:
a Baha'i America.
Premise
Thingy:
an individual Baha'i congregation.
Premise
Thingy:
a Communist society.
Property:
a
good thing.
Property:
hell
on earth.
It might be important to remember that we're not talking just about having
a Baha'i society. We're also talking about promoting a
Baha'i society. Grady says it would be great to have a Baha'i society,
but he can't just wave a magic wand and turn us into a Baha'i society.
Turning America into a Baha'i society would be a long, difficult
process, even if it can be done at all. So Grady's goal is probably
impractical, but that, of course, does not mean it is a bad goal.
Since no one has said anything bad about the Baha'i or their values,
it seems clear that a Baha'i society would be a good place for Baha'i
and non-Baha'i alike. Kristine claims that a Baha'i society would be a
bad society based on a supposed analogy with a Communist society.
However, the only relevant similarity between people who promote
Baha'i and people who promote Communism is that they each promote
systems with ostensibly good values. This makes promoting Communism
equally similar to promoting libertarianism, promoting Christianity
and promoting democracy. So if Kristine has proved that a Baha'i
society would be hell on earth, she has proved the same thing about
libertarianism, Christianity, democracy and any other belief system
with ostensibly good values. If you reject the idea that libertarian
societies, Christian societies and democracies are all hells on earth,
then you should reject the idea that Kristine's argument proves that a
Baha'i society would be hell on earth. Kristine's argument has another
problem however. The claim that a Communist society is hell on earth
is controversial, to say the least. It is certainly not something that
Kristine can assume, so the fact that she does assume it means that
her argument also begs the question. Therefore, if
this discussion was all we had to go on, it would be clear that Grady
is probably right, and Kristine is certainly wrong.
38. Dimitri. 1. Dogpatch community college has a lot of incoming
freshmen who don't know how to write college-level papers.
(2.
Inability
to write college-level papers can really mess up a student's
education.)
C.
Dogpatch
community college should have a required freshman writing course.
Maura. 1. Harvard University doesn't require a
freshman writing course.
(2.
Harvard
University should not require a freshman writing course.)
(3.
Dogpatch
community college is very similar to Harvard University.)
C.
Dogpatch
community college should not require a freshman writing course.
Dimitri bears the burden of proof
because he is arguing for action whereas Maura is merely arguing for
inaction.
Both give direct arguments
Evaluation:
Dimitri. Argument Maura.
Analogy Argument.
Cites
need
for course.
Conclusion
Thingy:
Dogpatch community college.
Premise
Thingy:
Harvard University.
Property:
lack
of need for freshman writing course.
The aptness of Maura's analogy depends on whether Dogpatch is
relevantly similar to Harvard. Size, age, location and prestige are
not necessarily relevant. However, there is enough variation among
colleges that we should be su spicious of any comparison. Furthermore,
Harvard can probably be much more selective than Dogpatch, and thus
can probably rely on its students coming in as accomplished writers
whereas Dogpatch has no such assurance, so Maura commits false
analogy. Since Dimitri gives a concrete reason for
requiring the course, and Maura doesn't address that reason, his
argument is stronger, and we should here conclude that Dogpatch should
have the course.
Clincher: Maura's argument fails because she fails
to consider the potential differences between Dogpatch and Harvard.
Community colleges like Dogpatch cannot screen their applicants the
way prestigious universities like Harvard can, so if Harvard lacks a
freshman writing course, it could easily be because they simply do not
accept anyone who is not proficient in college level writing. Dogpatch
does not have this option, and so very well could have a large infux
of students who need help to reach college-level proficiency in
writing.
39. The first thing to notice that Augustus has not produced evidence
of any correlation between cellphone use and cancer. Instead, his
argument is based on what happens in an only vaguely similar
situation. This is not a correlation based argument and so, although
it is intended to support a causal claim, it is not really a causal
argument. Augustus's argument is based on the solidly proven link
between one kind of radiation and cancer, but he does not discuss the
type of radiation involved in cellphones. This is important
because the damaging kind of radiation is ionizing radiation,
and cell phones don't give off ionizing radiation. (Also
notice that Fred's argument is based on a demonstrable lack
of evidence, and we will discuss this kind of argument later on.)
For more practice, you can
download and do the practice/makeup
exercises. (Make sure the document margins are set to 0.5 inches
or narrower.)
Finally, if there's anything at all in this reading that you don't think you fully understand, please follow an associated hyperlink to get more information on that particular topic.
Copyright © 2019 by Martin C. Young
