This is part 12 of a 12 week series where I explore the tactics of verbal cheap shot artists – people who can’t, or won’t use valid arguments to present their case, but instead resort to verbal cheap shots. To make sure you don’t miss a single article, be sure and sign up for my RSS feed or subscribe by email (both are free!) so you can get the freshest new articles! Check out my other posts in the Verbal Cheap Shots category.

The true number of verbal fallacies is much larger than 12 but I’ve focused on some of the more common ones over the last 12 weeks, and this last one, the appeal to statistics, is potentially one of the most devious.

“Figures never lie, but liars figure.” –long forgotten statistics professor at The University of Alabama

While watching a television program recently, the narrator mentioned that six people die in a motor vehicle crash in the US every minute. The average person just accepts those type of statistics and believes that “something must be done!” But just doing a little math, yields that 3,150,600 people die each year in motor vehicle accidents … except that statistic isn’t true. The real number is closer to 42,000. Not anything to discount because each death is a tragedy, but a far smaller number than originally claimed.

With a shrug and a “wow,” people tend to accept most statistics as facts, after all, they sound SO scientific! But statistics are created by people, and many, if not most, of those people have agendas. When statistics about social problems (such as health care or teen pregnancy) are quoted as fact, many times the statistics come from activists who embellish the problem in order to increase funding or drum up concern. When not produced by activists, statistics are often created by a governmental agency, which may be motivated to play down or play up a problem … depending on which direction gives the politician the most power or television “face time”. Lastly, those statistics may be produced by corporations that have their own agenda, whether to increase sales or influence legislation.

How to dissect statistics

There are three questions that should be asked about any statistic:

1. Who created it?
2. Why was it created?
3. How was it created?

If the source has a motive for exaggerating or downplaying the statistic or if it was created to advance a particular cause, influence legislation, or to sell a product, the answers to questions 1 and 2 may give plenty of reasons to doubt the statistic’s accuracy. If you can answer the first two questions, you may be able to see through any bias embedded in the statistic. That just leaves question 3.

How flawed statistics are produced

1. Poor samples
   • The sample size is too small. Four out of five third graders haven’t taken a shower today really only means something if you check with more than five kids.
   • The sample isn’t representative of the population. Political pollsters regularly use this one by “poisoning the well” and using a sample that already meets their ideology.
2. Inaccurate measurements. Improperly worded questions, vague definitions, decisions to include borderline cases, generalizations, and misinterpretations can all lead to inaccurate measurements and flawed statistics.
3. Guessing. Believe it or not, many governmental statistics are outright guesses. Statistics on unemployment, unreported crime, or other unreported issues are next to impossible to accurately predict, yet policy is made on their basis. Doesn’t make sense, does it?

Statistics sound credible, authoritative, and scientific, but in the wrong hands, they can lead to wrong conclusions. They can help point out where advertising needs to focus, where management needs to staff more people, and where employee theft is an overwhelming problem, but they can also waste resources and get the wrong people fired.

The next time you’re presented with a statistic, take a moment and examine it. Does it make sense? How and why was it created? Who created it?

The accurate answers to these questions may lead you in an entirely different direction.

Links to products or services may be affiliate links. See my disclosure policy in the footer of the site or on my About page.

This is part nine of a 12 week series where I explore the tactics of verbal cheap shot artists – people who can’t, or won’t use valid arguments to present their case, but instead resort to verbal cheap shots. To make sure you don’t miss a single article, be sure and sign up for my RSS feed or subscribe by email (both are free!) so you can get the freshest new articles! Check out my other posts in the Verbal Cheap Shots category.

The False Dilemma is also known as “Black and White” reasoning. It states that there are only two options available and both can’t be right. Figure out which one isn’t and, according to False Dilemma “reasoning,” the other choice is automatically correct.

In some cases, it’s okay to use this line of reasoning, but only in isolated cases. For example:

• My dog is either alive or dead.
• My dog isn’t dead.
• Therefore, my dog is alive (thank goodness!)

In cases where the only two options are the ONLY two options, this reasoning works. Where it goes wrong is when there are more than two options but all the alternatives aren’t mentioned or the original options are wrong.

Example of lack of alternatives:

• To make a decent return, I have to invest in either stocks or gold.
• I’m not going to invest in gold.
• Therefore, to make a decent return, I must invest in stocks.

What about real estate, other commodities, ETF’s, mutual funds, CD’s or any one of a host of other potential investments?

Examples of wrong original options:

• 2 + 2 = 5 or 2 + 2 = 6
• 2 + 2 doesn’t equal 6
• Therefore, 2 + 2 = 5

Or something a little less obvious:

• Your friend is either lazy or a liar.
• Your friend isn’t a liar.
• Therefore, your friend must be lazy.

Could there be another alternative?

• Jack: We need to raise taxes across the board.
• Jill: Why would we do THAT?
• Jack: We have to either raise taxes or this deficit will destroy our economy

Why don’t we cut spending or identify what our true priorities may be?

The biggest problem with the False Dilemma is that you’re left with only two choices and any decision is only as good as the choices available. Avoid creating false dilemmas in your own reasoning and learn to recognize them when they’re used.

Links to products or services may be affiliate links. See my disclosure policy in the footer of the site or on my About page.

This is part 10 of a 12 week series where I explore the tactics of verbal cheap shot artists – people who can’t, or won’t use valid arguments to present their case, but instead resort to verbal cheap shots. To make sure you don’t miss a single article, be sure and sign up for my RSS feed or subscribe by email (both are free!) so you can get the freshest new articles! Check out my other posts in the Verbal Cheap Shots category.

Once upon a time, a Bedouin was making his way across the desert with his camel. Night was fast approaching and he began putting up his tent to provide shelter from the bitter cold of the nighttime desert. His camel asked, “Master, can I please come inside the tent to stay warm?” The Bedouin said no and went inside to sleep.

All night long the Bedouin heard the camel shivering and loudly complaining about the cold night. The camel asked again, “Master, can I just put my nose into the tent to warm up?” Frustrated the master said yes and rolled over to go back to sleep. The Camel asked again, “Master, can I just put my forelegs into the tent? They’re freezing!” Again the master acquiesced. Then the camel said, “I have to put my back legs in as well, otherwise they will freeze and we won’t be able to travel in the morning.” The Bedouin agreed, but by now the tent was overcrowded and though he was very uncomfortable, he fell asleep.

The Bedouin awoke in the middle of the night, outside the tent and realized that the camel now had the tent completely to himself.

It’s a funny story, but it’s also the basis that many verbal cheap shot artists use to justify their position. The Camel’s Nose is a fallacy in which a person claims that some event must inevitably follow another with no argument for the inevitability of the event in question. Just like in the story, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why any intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed.

The Camel’s Nose is known by many different names:

• Slippery slope
• The “foot in the door”
• The Domino effect
• The boiling frog
• “Give someone an inch and they’ll take a mile.”
• Fairness policy

There may truly BE a series of steps that inevitably follow each other, but the fallacy portion of the argument comes into play when there is no evidence given that those steps are indeed inevitable. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another.

Examples:

We have to stop these tax cuts. Next thing you know, NO ONE will be paying their fair share.

We can’t let Competitor ABC get a grip on our customers or we will go out of business.

Don’t give anything to the homeless people begging at intersections. That just encourages more people to do that sort of thing.

We have to stop the board of education from banning those books on [pick a subject]. If we don’t, they will ban every book they don’t like.

We can’t let people carry handguns. What do you want, a bunch of old West shootouts in the streets?

We can’t let store manager A have two assistants. We would have to do that for every manager in the chain if we did.

The Camel’s Nose fallacy is considered a fallacy because it isn’t supported by facts. It may actually be true, but the argument itself usually requires a leap, and ironically, the larger the leap, the more easily it’s believed.  Certain events DO follow other events, but to thwart illogical thinking, always include proof.

Links to products or services may be affiliate links. See my disclosure policy in the footer of the site or on my About page.

This is part nine of a 12 week series where I explore the tactics of verbal cheap shot artists – people who can’t, or won’t use valid arguments to present their case, but instead resort to verbal cheap shots. To make sure you don’t miss a single article, be sure and sign up for my RSS feed or subscribe by email (both are free!) so you can get the freshest new articles! Check out my other posts in the Verbal Cheap Shots category.

The red herring is much like other verbal fallacies – it relies on distraction as its main strength. The phrase “red herring” is thought to have originated from the use of smoked herring fish to distract dogs following a scent trail. The herring’s strong smell could obscure the real trail and lay a false one.

Using an ad hominem attacks could be considered a red herring since it tries to deflect attention away from the real issue and focus it on a person. The straw man argument could also be considered another form of a red herring.

Examples of red herrings

• The governor’s tax policies may not be good for the state, but he’s getting a free pass with all his marital “indiscretions” that are being ignored by the media. Real issue – tax policy, red herring – marital indiscretions.
• You really should consider investing in my favorite mutual fund. The return isn’t that great but they use their profits in such great ways to benefit mankind. Real issue – poor returns, red herring – how they invest profits.
• Insurance fraud isn’t really much of a crime. Insurance companies make billions and my client shouldn’t be subjected to such a lengthy trial over a minor offense. Real issue – insurance fraud, red herring – insurance company profits.
• My chemistry professor deserves to win the Nobel prize for his work in medicine. After all, he has donated so much of his time to helping people. Real issue – does the professor deserve the Nobel prize for his work in medicine, red herring – his work in helping people.

How to respond to the red herring

The best way is “what does THAT have to do with the real issue?” What does the governor’s marital indiscretions have to do with his tax policy? What does how a mutual fund use their profits have to do with their ability to generate a return I want? What do insurance company profits have to do with your client breaking the law? Why does a professor deserve a Nobel prize in chemistry or medicine because of his work in helping others? Answer to all of these? Nothing.

If none of these have anything to do with the real issue, why use them other than to distract from the real issue? Chances are, the real issue is relatively weak, otherwise the speaker wouldn’t have to resort to verbal cheap shots.

Red herrings pop up all over the place

• Politicians use them to deflect attention away from unpopular policies.
• Mystery writers use them to make you think someone is the bad guy when it’s actually someone else.
• Football coaches use them to trick an opposing defense.
• In Guatemala, I witnessed my host family using a red herring in bargaining sessions in the local market with shopkeepers. These folks were professionals!

Learn to recognize the red herring and avoid using it yourself, that is unless you’re trying to use the Chewbacca Defense.

Links to products or services may be affiliate links. See my disclosure policy in the footer of the site or on my About page.

This is part eight of a 12 week series where, on Mondays, I explore the tactics of verbal cheap shot artists – people who can’t, or won’t use valid arguments to present their case, but instead resort to verbal cheap shots. To make sure you don’t miss a single article, be sure and sign up for my RSS feed or subscribe by email (both are free!) so you can get a new article each day! Check out my other articles in the Verbal Cheap Shots category.

The Straw Man is perhaps one of the best named of the fallacies simply because it instantly brings to mind a vision of a fight where one of the contenders sets up a scarecrow, attacks it, then declares victory. Meanwhile, the real opponents escapes unscathed.

The straw man argument explained

In an conversation with a friend, she presents a point with certain key points that you disagree with. As a way to show your disagreement with those points, you bring up an alternate point. You then attack this alternate point and believe you have shown the original point to be flawed on the basis of your attack. You just set up and attacked a straw man!

Some examples of the straw man argument:

• Jack: I’m hungry. Let’s go out to that new restaurant.
• Jill: We went out last weekend. We don’t have the money in the budget.
• Jack: What – can we never go out to eat again? You are so CHEAP!

Senator: All these disagreements with my position on healthcare are rooted in [fear, anger, racism, egalitarianism, any ism will do here].

Congressman: Could they be rooted in people’s sincere, honest disagreement with your point of view?

Senator: Don’t cloud the issue with facts, man!

• Jack: Free market capitalists are pigs! They only care about profit.
• Jill: Oh, I’m sure they care about other things too, Jack.
• Jack: No they don’t. They should either care about profits or people. They can’t have it both ways.

Boss: That new project isn’t working out so well. Sales are down. Gross profit is down. Net profit is down. Sigh …

Employee: But sir, we’re in a recession, remember? And we’re also seeing the effects of a weakened dollar with the material we’re buying from overseas. And when we built that plant we didn’t know our top manager was in talks with our competitor and that those new regulations would actually kick in. Plus, the steel we used in those custom CNC machines was softer than we thought.

Boss: All I know is we’re not performing. I may have to replace some people working on that project.

How do people use straw man arguments?

1. Taking words out of context. By choosing words or phrases that an opponent has used in one context and using them in another. Sometimes called “quote mining,” taking words out of context is a favorite past-time of political campaigns.

2. Using causal oversimplification of an opponents position. Later, the verbal cheap shot artist will attack the opponent’s supposed oversimplification.

3. Completely distorting the opponent’s position. This is the classic straw man argument. It’s easy to attack and be victorious over an imagined argument.

4. Inventing a person with characteristics that are then criticized. Later, the verbal cheap shot artist (VCSA) will imply that this person is representative of a group holding views that the VCSA also criticizes.

5. Present a weak debater as “the” defender of  position. Then, after soundly defeating him or her, announce that the debate has been settled once and for all.

All kinds of groups use the straw man argument

• Creationists and evolutionists
• Republicans and Democrats
• Protestants and Catholics
• Plaintiffs and defendants
• Parents and teenagers

It doesn’t matter which view you hold to, you’ve probably found yourself on one or both sides of the straw man argument.

Although the misrepresentations characteristic of straw men can be intentional, many times they are simply indicative of the pathetic effort people make to understand another point of view. We think the straw man is inadequate, but what’s really inadequate is our measly attempts at understanding someone else.

The world isn’t black or white

Too often, we demand that our world to be clear cut and simple, made up only of black and white. If we attribute hopelessly false, inadequate, unsubstantiated, or repugnant views to others, the blissful virtue of our own position seems obvious. But if we cede that our opponents have an arguable case, then our own views suddenly don’t seem so perfect, lofty, and unworthy of scrutiny, and our opponents don’t seem to be so clearly wrong.

Don’t fall victim to straw man arguments. Learn to recognize them and steer the conversation back on track. Don’t attack a straw man in your own arguments because from this point on, you’ll know only an empty victory.

photo credit: Jar0d

Links to products or services may be affiliate links. See my disclosure policy in the footer of the site or on my About page.

This is part seven of a 12 week series where, on Mondays, I  explore the tactics of verbal cheap shot artists – people who can’t, or won’t use valid arguments to present their case, but instead resort to verbal cheap shots. To make sure you don’t miss a single article, be sure and sign up for my RSS feed or subscribe by email (both are free!). Check out my other articles in the Verbal Cheap Shots category.

Sometimes knows as causal oversimplification, the fallacy of the single cause is a logical fallacy of causation occurring when the verbal cheap shot artist assumes that there is one, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.

Causal oversimplification is a specific kind of false dilemma where conjoined possibilities are ignored. In other words, the possible causes are assumed to be “A or B or C or D” when “A and B and C but not D” or “A and B and D but not C” are not taken into consideration.

A singular outcome can be dependent on a multitude of inputs

Inputs cause outcomes and there are many inputs into even the simplest of outcomes.

Often after a tragedy people ask, “What was the cause of this?” Whether referring to a train derailment, an airline crash, a divorce, a bankruptcy, a project failure, a terrorist attack, or getting fired, using such language implies that there is one cause, when instead there were a large number of contributing factors.

For example, after a school shooting, pundits debate whether it was caused by:

• The shooter’s parents
• Too much homework
• Not enough homework
• TV violence
• Violent video games
• Stress on students
• Hollywood
• The accessibility of guns
• Plastic water drinking bottles
• Electromagnetic radiation
• Metal tooth fillings
• A poor self image

In fact many different causes (including some of those and many more) may all have necessarily contributed to the tragedy.

Another example”: the near collapse of our economy in the fall of 2008. Some attribute the myriad of financial transactions that made up the near tragedy to a single emotion: greed. Yeah, that really helps clear things up doesn’t it? The real reasons for the economic meltdown are as numerous as the number of bank collapses from 2007 through 2009. Greed was just one of hundreds of reasons.

One of our country’s most recent large scale tragedies, the September 11, 2001 attacks is another topic the regularly invokes this fallacy. Anyone who attributes those well-planned attacks to a single issue or cause is guilty of causal oversimplification. And anyone who attributes the collapse of the Twin Towers to a single cause is also guilty.

The world is too complex for a single cause

We live in a very complex world and different forces are always at work, trying to oversimplify things. While there may be a single cause for a car crash (driving under the influence, text messaging, fog), rarely is just one factor by itself the singular cause. Airlines have discovered that the average crash involves SEVEN different small events that, on their own, would have caused no harm, but taken together, cause the crash.

Don’t fall for the single cause fallacy. Always ask, “What else is there to this?” and you’ll be well on your way to discovering the real reasons behind the outcome.

Links to products or services may be affiliate links. See my disclosure policy in the footer of the site or on my About page.

This is part six of a 12 week series where, on Mondays, I plan to explore the tactics of verbal cheap shot artists – people who can’t, or won’t use valid arguments to present their case, but instead resort to verbal cheap shots. To make sure you don’t miss a single article, be sure and sign up for my RSS feed or subscribe by email (both are free!) so you can get a new article each day! Check out my other articles in the Verbal Cheap Shots category.

Don’t know what Jedi Mind Tricks are?

Elan: “You wanna buy some death sticks?”
Obi-Wan: “You don’t want to sell me death sticks.”
Elan: “Uh, I don’t wanna sell you death sticks.”
Obi-Wan: “You want to go home and rethink your life.”
Elan: “I wanna go home and rethink my life”
— Elan Sel’Sabagno and Obi-Wan Kenobi

In Star Wars mythology, Jedi’s were able to impose thoughts into the weak minded. Today’s verbal cheap shot artist tries to do the same thing, but in a different way. By using words that redirect the conversation, the verbal cheap shot artist buys time to think, or to alter the conversation entirely.

For example, instead of dealing with a comment or question directly, the verbal cheap shot artist will try to focus on some insignificant detail to evade the issue or buy time to think.

• “Are you qualified to even be asking that question?”
• “Can you define just exactly what you mean by [fill in the blank]?”
• “Your sentence ended with a preposition. Do you even understand English?”
• “Tell me what you mean because what you said makes no sense.”

The essence of Jedi Mind Tricks is to nit-pick (as in the above examples), throw you off balance, label you as a “feeler” rather than a “thinker,” or to outright deny a valid conclusion.

The Off Balance Attack:

• “Didn’t we have this same argument just before your fifth boyfriend in a row dumped you?”
• “You DO care about your family don’t you?”
• “Why are you so unhappy all the time?”

The “Keep your emotions in check – or not” Attack:

• “Your cold, analytical approach doesn’t take into account the need for compassion.”
• “Your emotional involvement prevents you from seeing things objectively.”
• “You keep saying ‘feel’ instead of ‘think’. If you are feeling instead of thinking, I won’t be able to convince you with reason.”

The Outright Denial Attack:

• “I have noticed that those who disagree with me tend to be [rabble rousers, trouble-makers, unsophisticated, rednecks, etc]and those who quickly recognize the truth of what I’m saying are more [informed, educated, enlightened].”
• “How can you POSSIBLY question such an obvious point?”
• “You can’t REALLY expect me to believe that, can you?”
• “Honestly, how can you know what you know beyond a shadow of a doubt?”

All of these tactics have the same effect: they divert attention from your valid point and away from the argument. Your response, either internally to yourself or verbally is, “That isn’t the point! Can we stay on track here?”

Don’t let yourself fall for the Jedi Mind Tricks that verbal cheap shot artists employ. Their tactics are to throw you off balance and alter the conversation or argument to suite their needs.

Stay on track and force them to stay on track!

What other tactics have you experienced?

Links to products or services may be affiliate links. See my disclosure policy in the footer of the site or on my About page.

This is part five of a 12 week series where, on Mondays, I plan to explore the tactics of verbal cheap shot artists – people who can’t, or won’t use valid arguments to present their case, but instead resort to verbal cheap shots. To make sure you don’t miss a single article, be sure and sign up for my RSS feed or subscribe by email (both are free!) so you can get a new article each day! Check out my other articles in the Verbal Cheap Shots category.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Correlation and causation are commonly held fallacies. That correlation implies causation is a logical fallacy where two events occurring together are claimed to be cause and effect. The formal Latin phrase is cum hoc ergo propter hoc (“with this, therefore because of this”) and can be structured like this:

A is related to B
A is also related to C
Therefore, B causes C

Some examples:

My financial adviser sells only loaded funds.
Loaded mutual funds produce superior returns.
My financial adviser will produce superior returns.

Police officers eat lots of fast food.
Police officers have a high divorce rate.
Therefore, fast food cause divorce.

This arguments are examples of a false categorical syllogism. It ignores the possibility that the correlation is coincidence. If fast food and divorce were strongly correlated across cultures and large populations, and double blind studies could provide proof, it probably isn’t a coincidence. In that case, the fallacy may ignore the possibility that there is a common cause of fast food consumption and divorce.

Another important factor we should consider is the presence or absence of a known mechanism which may explain how one event causes the other. Could the consumption of too much fast food indicate a person’s disregard for their health which could stem from a poor self image? Could a poor self image be a contributor to divorce?

Another example:

Ice-cream sales are strongly correlated with crime rates.
Therefore, ice-cream causes crime.

Could the explanation be that high temperatures increase crime rates (presumably by making people irritable) as well as ice-cream sales? Clearly, we can’t conclude that ice-cream causes criminal tendencies (or that criminals prefer ice-cream to other treats). Our natural tendency is to expect the correlation to point us towards a causal structure and though correlations may imply some sort of causal story, the real cause could be something more complicated or entirely different. Perhaps committing a crime make you crave ice cream? Nah. That doesn’t make sense either.

Sometimes the direction of the causation is wrong and should be reversed.

For example:
Gun ownership is correlated with crime.
Therefore, gun ownership leads to crime.

The facts could easily be the other way round: an increase in crime could lead to more gun ownership by concerned citizens.

Just because items happen together, or even occur in a linear or chronological pattern, doesn’t mean they’re causal.

Don’t fall for the correlation implies causation fallacy!

Links to products or services may be affiliate links. See my disclosure policy in the footer of the site or on my About page.

This is part four of a 12 week series where, on Mondays, I plan to explore the tactics of verbal cheap shot artists – people who can’t, or won’t use valid arguments to present their case, but instead resort to verbal cheap shots. To make sure you don’t miss a single article, be sure and sign up for my RSS feed or subscribe by email (both are free!) so you can get a new article each day! Check out my other articles in the Verbal Cheap Shots category.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Non-sequitur is Latin for “it does not follow.” In formal logic, an argument is a non-sequitur if the conclusion does not follow from the premise. I should stress that in a non-sequitur, the conclusion can be either true or false, but the argument is a fallacy because the conclusion does not follow from the premise. All logical fallacies are actually just specific types of non-sequiturs when you examine them!

The basic non-sequitur follows this pattern:

• If X, then Y
• X is true
• Therefore, Y must also be true

Two classic examples are:

• If I am a cat, I am a mammal
• I am a mammal
• Therefore, I am a cat

Even if the premises and conclusion are both true, the conclusion is not a necessary consequence of the premise. This sort of non-sequitur is also called affirming the consequent.

Another, a reverse non-sequitur is:

• If I am in Montreal, I am in Quebec
• I am not in Montreal
• I am not in Quebec

I could be in another city in Quebec! This type of non-sequitur is called denying the antecedent.

Non-sequiturs are implied in all sorts of advertising.

• Take these vitamin supplements and you’ll get in great shape. You take them, but for some reason, the 6 pack you were promised still resembles a 3 liter.
• Drive this car and you’ll get a supermodel girlfriend. You buy the car, but the girlfriend isn’t included — and doesn’t appear to be in sight.
• If you use this shampoo, your hair will be perfect. You use the shampoo, but your hair doesn’t seem to appreciate it.
• If you remodel your kitchen, your home will increase in value. You go for the remodel, but the home increases in value less than the amount you spent on the remodel.
• If you invest in this brand of mutual fund, your retirement is guaranteed. You invest only to realize that nothing is guaranteed.
• If you bake this brand of cake, your family will love you. If a cake is all it takes, you really have a different sort of problem.
• If you drink this beer, you’ll live life to the fullest. Personally, I’m not sure it’s life these advertisers are full of.

The problem with most logical fallacies is that they all contain some small element of truth. To contest the non-sequitur, ask if the conclusion is always true, given the premises. If it isn’t, that doesn’t necessarily mean the entire argument is faulty, it simply means you need to more closely examine the entire argument. It may be true that you’re NOT in Quebec!

Links to products or services may be affiliate links. See my disclosure policy in the footer of the site or on my About page.

This is part three of a 12 week series where, on Mondays, I plan to explore the tactics of verbal cheap shot artists – people who can’t, or won’t use valid arguments to present their case, but instead resort to verbal cheap shots. To make sure you don’t miss a single article, be sure and sign up for my RSS feed or subscribe by email (both are free!) so you can get a new article each day!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In today’s modern usage, “begging the question” has been distorted to mean “raising the question,” or to mean that a certain question should be addressed. For the purpose of this article, however, I’m referring to the classic “begging the question” first identified in Aristotle’s Prior Analytics II. Later when his work was translated into Latin, it was called Petitio Principii (petitio: petition, request; principii, genitive of principium: beginning, basis, premise of an argument), literally meaning "a request for the beginning or premise." That is, the premise depends on the truth of the very matter in question.

Begging the question is a type of fallacy stemming from deductive reasoning where the argument to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises. It’s like an optical illusion because it uses its own argument to prove its own argument! For example: "Corporations can’t be trusted. Only an untrustworthy group of people would organize itself as a corporation; the fact that corporations are untrustworthy is proof. Therefore corporations cannot be trusted." This argument is worthless because it relies on its own assumption (in this case, "corporations are untrustworthy") to support its central premise. Essentially, the argument assumes that its central point is already proven, and uses this in support of itself.

Another example here is an attempt to prove that my financial advisor is telling the truth:

• Suppose my financial advisor is not lying when she speaks.
• My financial advisor is speaking.
• Therefore, my financial advisor is telling the truth.

These statements are logical, but they do nothing to convince one of the truthfulness of the speaker. The problem is that in seeking to prove my financial advisor’s truthfulness, the speaker asks his audience to assume that she is telling the truth, so this actually proves "If my financial advisor is not lying, then my financial advisor is telling the truth."

In mathematics, when A equals B and B equals C then A equals C, but we’re not dealing with math. We’re dealing with reasoning and we need to throw our biases and suppositions out the window in favor of unbiased evidence.

• “Shakespeare’s plays are known around the world because he is so famous.”
• “He cheated on the chemistry test because he is unscrupulous.”
• “Passing a tax cut is just welfare for the rich.”
• “No one eats there anymore because it’s too crowded.”

Formally speaking, the fallacy of Petitio Principii has the following structure. For some proposition X,

• X implies Y,
• suppose X,
• therefore, Y.

The verbal presentation of the fallacy is rarely this easy to spot, but is usually cloaked in synonyms and sensible sounding assumptions like the argument trying to prove my financial advisor is telling the truth.

When you’re faced with a begging the question fallacy, realize that the person making the argument probably believes that X does imply Y. Your job is to critically evaluate whether it does or not and whether the final argument actually makes sense.

Links to products or services may be affiliate links. See my disclosure policy in the footer of the site or on my About page.