Art of Deception

Art of Deception (continued)
"Refutation of Statistics" p 128


Evidence may be false
Use of statistics means that you cannot get at something directly.

For statistics to mean anything they must be representative and random.  One of the worst polls ever done was the presidential election of 1936, when a sampling from Oshkosh predicted that FDR would lose massively.  This was absolutely wrong because of the way the poll occurred.

Declare the other guy's stats wrong.
Question the methods and strategies used to get the information.
Use other statistics that conflict.
Do they measure what the speaker says?
Use the stats with an ad hominem attack.
Attack stats altogether.
Can't predict the unique from the general.
Extrapolationis too risky to make conclusions
Gambler's fallacy.

The thinking skews the math.
Who is more likely to win?

Statistics are too easily twisted.  They begin to collect all kinds of emotional elements that do not believe, and they are too easily applied to unique cases.  In fact their usefulness is hooked to science.  Because there is a 50% chance of something will happen does not equate to the possibility of its occurring in real life.

Art of Deception--Refutation of Ad Populum

Art of Deception--Refutation of Ad Populum

a continuation of previous readings
p 125

This is an overt appeal to the majority within the audience, done to squelch the voice of any minority or dissenting opinion.
By maintain the majority view, ideas like factionalism are minimized, thus bringing stability to the nation (attributed to James Madison in the Federalist Papers).
Another twist:  expose something in the majority opinion that is just wrong.
This method is important when dealing with intellectuals and experts in the field because they are more likely to dissent.

I find this discussion fairly fascinating.  I think that a group like the Republican minority leadership (very likely could come from either party, so I am not attacking only one side) have employed this strategy.  They make a comment about President Obama being a socialist or communist.  Parsing this we have ad hominem of name calling which is based on the ad populum bias toward capitalism.  The allegation would require that the speakers would illustrate the capitalist value and ideal to counter-argue against the equality values of the dissenting view.  To soften the blow they can concede to certain amount of social legislation as not to appear too Randian.

I can see how this strategy can appear both ethical and how it can fall into a fallacy.  The approach, in order to work must promote a majority appeal.  I see how both parties have employed the approach and how each has been targeted by it.

What I find even more interesting is the usage of visual arguments.  The Republicans show the president playing golf while the country burns.  The Democrats show the Republican courting the most selfish of capitalists.  Devious and effective.

Art of Deception--Refutation of Authority

Capaldi and Smith, The Art of Deception

"Refutation of Authority", p 122

2 ways to refute:  ad hominem attack or provide counter-authorities

6 types of ad hominem:
1.  show the speaker as inconsistent
2.  expose the speakers group where he aligned himself
3.  discrepancies between theory and practice, as stated by the speaker
4.  expose extreme abstractions as out of touch with reality
5.  general attack against the expert concerning his expertise
6.  your own experts.  Any expert that disagrees with the speaker, even if they are not in line with your own

This discussion is quite instructive about the use of creative fallacy.  These things are generally hostile towards a real argument, but rather undermine the message, any message, coming from an opponent.

It doesn't take much time to see this as a universal condition in the public discourse today.  Take any public official.