The process of winning elections involves making arguments and being persuasive.  Ideally, these activities would be conducted using the principles of good reason and available evidence.  But, since these are not always persuasive, politicians often resort to fallacies of reasoning.  While these are not sound ways of arguing from a logical perspective they are often very effective from a psychological perspective.  Here are a few of the more common fallacies.  Can you find examples where politicians have used them?

Straw man:  This fallacy occurs when someone distorts another person’s argument, refutes the distorted version, and then claims that the original argument has been refuted.  The success of the fallacy hinges on the similarity in the two arguments; the original one and the distorted version.  Skilled politicians can blur these two arguments so effectively that people will be persuaded. 

Here’s a good example from a logic textbook: Senator Barrow advocates increased Social Security benefits for the poor. It is regrettable that the senator finds it necessary to advocate socialism. Socialism defeats initiative, takes away promised rewards, and leads directly to inefficiency and big government. It was tried for years in Eastern Europe and it failed miserably. Clearly Socialism is no good. 

Red herring: A closely related fallacy is the fallacy of red herring.  Here the arguer subtly changes the subject without distorting the original argument.  The hope is that by changing the subject you will forget the original argument and agree to whatever conclusion is drawn even though it has little to do with the subject at hand. 

Here’s an example: Some civil libertarians argue that the right of free speech guaranteed by our Constitution is more important than the possible desecration of the American flag. But just think of the history of Old Glory in battlefields all over the world! it is such a beautiful symbol of American freedom. Why would anyone ever want to burn it?

Equivocation:  In this fallacy, the arguer subtly changes the meaning of a critical word thus allow a conclusion to be drawn which is not in fact warranted by the original meaning of the word in question.  This is an especially effective technique if an argument rests on an abstract word or a word which already has a disputed meaning. 

Here is a simple example from a logic text: A crust of bread is better than nothing. Nothing is better than true love. Therefore, a crust of bread is better than true love.

Begging the question:  This is another especially effective fallacy for skilled politicians.  It is committed when an arguer leaves out a questionable premise hoping that by leaving it out the audience will not detect it and be persuaded of the argument in spite of the absence of this important but questionable premise. 

Here’s an example: God exists because it says so in the Bible. Furthermore, we know the Bible is true because it is the revealed word of God.

Slippery Slope:  This is a favorite among politicians who wish to attack their opponents’ ideas or plans for the future.  The fallacy occurs when it is claimed that an innocent first step or action will lead to increasingly catastrophic results in a chain reaction.  While the chain reaction is, in fact, unlikely, the fallacy is effective because it raises the possibility of disaster and this is often enough to put people off a new idea. 

Here’s a textbook example: It's not a good idea to put your child in a day care center. Separation from parents causes isolation and alienation. Soon the child becomes incapable of relating to other children, and this inability to relate causes depression. As the child gets older, the depression leads to psychosis. The final result is either suicide or a life wasted in an institution.

Knowing these fallacious techniques can be very helpful in evaluating the claims of politicians who are seeking the highest office in the land.  How many can you identify?  I invite you to leave examples in the comment box of this blog post.

 


Comments




Leave a Reply