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.

Predicate Logic

http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/25dJYR/www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLgp1pcMLDk/

Youtube segment introducing the field of predicate Logic
Jasoncampbell.org

Points:

theoretical constructions of predicate logic, but eliminating symbol discussions
first to view the actual propositions being presented, how to read it
start with definitions
1.  individual constant................a subject term....always lower case with subscripts modified with variants
2. property or predicate term................upper case
3. proposition..............predicated term put with the subject term

Rumsfield has knowledge.  
 Rumsfield is the individual constant
 knowledge is the property


Kr

The knowledge can remain the same and many different different individual constants can occur
can have two individuals

Kr, Ka, Kp    add Alice and Patrick

Now use x in the place of the individual constant to indicate that various potential individuals can have this property.

Kx

This discussion goes a long way in explaining how name calling goes south in a hurry.  For example:

All liberals are stupid.

Sl       all?   Sc, Slib, Sdem. Srep,  etc.  The argument is destroyed by the "all."

The Art of Deception p 27

The Art of Deception Capaldi and Smith, 2007

page 27

3 rules for examining logic:

1.  We do not identify premises and conclusions by content.
2.  We do not identify premises and conclusions by position or location within  a paragraph.  For stylistic or other reasons, the premises and conclusions can appear anywhere.
3. The appearance of the following word or words at the beginning of a sentence or clause signifies that the sentence of clause is a conclusion:  therefore, thus, so, hence, consequently, accordingly, it follows that, as a result, I conclude, and other synonymous terms.

This leads a read to use a little wariness when listening to or reading the statements of other people.  The actual meaningful concepts can very easily be hid in a portion of the text or speech where one usually does not pay so much attention.  This explains the potential danger of a statement "why are you still beating your wife?".

A single word can have enough underlying flavor as to cloud the end conclusion, making it far more powerful or dangerous than the end statement.

Divergent Thinking

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tnOnaKHZ3_k#!


Thomas Tallis

How many uses can you find for a paper clip?

The numbers go down as a person ages.  Why?

Assertion:  it's the schools because they teach there is only one answer.

Sounds like a beat up on schools concept.    Use a little divergent thinking.

Critics condemn this particular argument, despite its common sense perspective.  It sounds simple enough because people stop actively imaginative as they age, partly because of the imposition of reality upon their thought process, but the correlation to prove the accountability of the American education system is simply bizarre.  Throwing sand into the air is not the cause of the wind.

What I particularly see:

If we can come up with hundreds of alternative uses for a paper clip, how does this make the world better?  Divergent thinking, as valuable as it is, does not necessarily have enough direction to it to make it the primary learning method for the school system.  Adults have a strong ability to dismiss useless mind trips.

The positive thing that I see in the argument is that men can let go of timeworn traditions followed only because they have never really been questioned.

Daryl Metcalfe on challenges to Voter Supression

http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2012/09/art-voter-turnout

The art of voter turnout

If America had compulsory voting, would Democrats win every election?

Article in The Economist, Sept 28, 2012

Quote:  

It's not even debatable that certain individuals in society have an entitlement mentality, and think they should be allowed to enjoy the fruits of their neighbours' labours. If they are too lazy to do what they have to do to secure that ID, that is not the state's responsibility. The state can't fix lazy.

Context:  

Daryl Metcalfe serves as the prime sponsor of a bill in Pennsylvania to require certain types of ID in order to vote.  I do not know why the article is using British spellings.

The quote came in response to a question during a television interview.

Assertion:  not debatable that individuals have entitlement mentality.

Is it debatable?  What is debatable is his definition of the word entitlement.  Does he claim all social security and medicare payments as entitlements?  Are those elderly people and those who are sidelined for physical or mental disabilities guilty of wanting freebies?  The statement is clearly in need of a little qualification.  It goes after the ethics of the assertion he is making.  Is unemployment an entitlement?  What about other government programs?  By isolating some programs, maybe the public would agree with him.  Is a government subsidy to a business and entitlement?  The word is so problematic, that his assertion becomes meaningless because it is black and white fallacy in a ad hominem attack.

Assertion:  They (want) to enjoy the fruits of their neighbour's labours.  

This assertion is tied to the first assertion.  It drives the ad hominem even deeper.  So the elderly nursing home patient is enjoying her stay, especially since the neighbors are paying for it.  False cause and effect.  

Assertion:  They are to lazy to get ID.

Has name calling added to his use of ad hominem.  There are more reasons for a lack of an ID than laziness, although laziness could certainly be one of the reasons.  It could be elderly people born at home without a birth certificate, for instance.  It could be someone who doesn't know about rule changes because of a break down in educating the populace.  Are there already laws dealing with acceptable voter ID?  The allegation in the assertion is simplistic and does not spell out how it works.  It may be true, but it may be false.  It needs evidence.  Opinion over fact--needs fact checker.  

Assertion:  Not the state's responsibility.

I want to know what the state's responsibility is, according to Metcalfe.  

Assertion:  State can't fix lazy.

Has his argument really strayed this far?  He goes along a rambling path and ends up here?  

My Conclusions:

I doubt anyone would challenge the notion of someone misusing taxes by giving the revenue to lazy people.  The concept is definitely repugnant and reprehensible.  Mr. Metcalfe has done nothing to really prove his point that this is occuring--with voting.  He does not convince that the voter too lazy to get an ID.  Evidently that same lazy guy is motivated to vote, however.

I have no problem with presenting picture ID to vote, or to get on voting rolls.  The laws need to be fair and just, allowing for voters who have every right to vote.      Because of the complexity, legislators must demonstrate the need for certain requirements, and the appearance of trying to target certain voters is wrong, unless it is proven that they should not be there--for example, voter fraud.  This allegation against laziness stinks and does not belong in the discussion.

I think a careful reading and analysis of this kind of argument might actually help states, if they want to improve voter laws to discard the types of reforms that harm rather than fix the potential voter problems.