Baloney Detection

[dandylife]

Carl Sagan provided these guidelines in his book, The Demon Haunted World

Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric
o   Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.
o   Argument from "authority".
o   Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavourable" decision).
o   Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).
o   Special pleading (typically referring to god's will).
o   Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased).
o   Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).
o   Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes).
o   Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!)
o   Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because they are not "proved").
o   Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down.
o   Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by" - confusion of cause and effect.
o   Meaningless question ("what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?).
o   Excluded middle - considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is).
o   Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?").
o   Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle - unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile).
o   Confusion of correlation and causation.
o   Straw man - caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack..
o   Suppressed evidence or half-truths.
o   Weasel words - for example, use of euphemisms for war such as "police action" to get around limitations on Presidential powers. "An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public"

for more: http://www.sonoma.edu/cthink/ (Critical Thinkiing Community)

“Forewarned, forearmed; to be prepared is half the victory.” Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra


Dandylife

[Leah]

Hi Dandy,

Thank you, for such a marvelous insightful article, truly very much appreciated.

Yesterday, I engaged in a study of the power of words at http://www.aniota.com/~jwhite/words.html

I shall now enjoy a study of the above - common fallacies of logic and rhetoric.

Hope all is well with you.

Love, Leah

[lighter]

I'm going to read this several more times.... then again.

Lighter

[Certain Hope]

Thank you, Dandylife!

Wish I could remember all of these... but copied and pasted them for reference.

Sent the link to one of my daughters, too. She could argue the calf out of a cow!

Carolyn

[CB123]

I am enjoying your two threads on logic, Dandy. 

This is something that I worked with kids on when I was schooling them, and we enjoyed it a lot.  Understanding these ideas illuminates newspaper articles, campaign speeches, TV news magazines.  And it has taught us to be critical thinkers about even our own pet ideas.

Used to be, these things were taught in secondary schools.  I don't think they do that any more. 

Thanks for sharing these.

CB

[gjazz]

I think on this board almost limitless energy could be spent addressing #1 alone.  Recently there was a thread on that old kid's chant: "sticks and stones"...etc. 

People here know that words can be weapons.  We've lived it, for many that's why we're here.  Weapons are instruments of violence.  I've seen words used that way on this board many times.  Intentional instruments of control, bullying, violence...anger aimed scattershot, against anyone who dares cross the wrong path.

The thing about this sort of victory won through violence is: it's always fleeting.  And often not a victory at all, just an empty sense of "yeah, I got 'em!" while everyone else shrugs, crosses the abuser off their list, and walks away.

To be clear, I'm in total favor of walking away.  I believe in boycott, rather than barricade, as a tool for change.  Worked for Gandhi, and he's no small potatoes.  It won't change the abuser, but I don't care about that any more than he did.  I don't owe anyone my attention, any more than they owe me theirs.  I know what good I can do.  I know what good I'm looking for from others, and sometimes find.  But any relationship is a privilege earned, not a right.  And every action we take, and every comment we make, is a choice.

[sea storm]

Wow,

This is the wake up posting. I wish I knew these ideas when I was growing up. How to sort the bear shit from the rhubarb.

Sea

[Leah]

Thank you, Dandy, much appreciated.


Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.

Ad hominem consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem - which consists of criticizing or attacking the person who proposed the argument (personal attack) in an attempt to discredit the argument.

It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it.



Straw Man / Woman - caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack


Suppressed evidence or half truths-


Poisoning the Well - eg:

              "Before you listen to my opponent, may I remind you that he has been in jail."
             
               "Don't listen to what he says, he's a lawyer."
             
      In the examples above, unfavorable information (which may be true or false) is given about the target individual or subject in order to discredit the target and his/her arguments and statements.



Guilt by association as an ad hominem fallacy

      Guilt by association can sometimes also be a type of ad hominem fallacy, if the argument attacks a person because of the similarity between the views of someone making an argument and other proponents of the argument.

      This form of the argument is as follows:

            A makes claim P.
            Bs also make claim P.
            Therefore, A is a B.

Hence, Assumption and Presumption -- deadly!

All of the above function well in any setting:    "Relational Aggression"   and   "Cyber Bullying"  and/or  "Cyber Ousting"               (as in any political setting!)

Leah x

[Leah]

Doublespeak

The term doublespeak was coined in the early 1950s. It is often incorrectly attributed to George Orwell and his 1949 dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. The term does not appear in that novel, although Orwell did coin newspeak, oldspeak, and doublethink, and his novel made fashionable composite nouns with speak as the second element, which were previously unknown in English. Doublespeak may be considered, in Orwell's lexicography, as the vocabulary of Newspeak, words "deliberately constructed for political purposes: words, that is to say, which not only had in every case a political implication, but were intended to impose a desirable mental attitude upon the person using them." The term double talk (with a similar meaning) dates back to at least 1936.


Forked Tongue

The image has given rise to the expression "to speak with a forked tongue," meaning to say one thing  and mean another, or, in more general terms, to act in a duplicitous manner.


Quote:    "Nothing more completely baffles one who is full of trick and duplicity, than straightforward and simple integrity in another."        Charles Caleb Colton


The Pot

The phrase "Pot calling the kettle black" is an idiom, used to accuse another speaker of hypocrisy, in that the speaker disparages the subject for a fault or negative behavior that could equally be applied to him or her. In former times cast iron pots and kettles were quickly blackened from the soot of the fire. If personified into animate objects, the pot would then be hypocritical to insult the kettle's colour.

When used in debate, the "pot calling the kettle black"  - it is a form of the argument ad hominem.

[Leah]

Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts                     

I can honestly say that I have, I do, apply this, generally.   In particular, with applied research.

Brilliant thread, Dandy

"thank you"

Love, Leah

[dandylife]

As always, real life depictions are great examples.

One thing my partner tends to do is minimize whatever my complaint is, and MAXIMIZE his discomfort. One time he had a newspaper in front of him and he tore out one tiny piece of the newspaper and held it up saying, "Here's your problem." Pointing at the rest of the newspaper he said, "And here's MINE."

He also uses the, "Please don't yell," tactic when I'm beginning to get upset and raise my voice slightly. Makes him appear so much more calm.

The one I truly hate, though, is the ambiguous tactic. "I wish some people around here would do what they're supposed to do....." ETC. without directly confronting who he's talking about.

I also hate the money/thrown in the face trick. "I work so hard around here..." Implying he deserves some kind of special consideration (to be mean) because he's a good provider.

People tend to fall back on the same tactics/tricks over and over again - they are their defaults. Once you penetrate them, and expose them for what they are, they will be easier to make go away forever..... it comes to feel like you've pulled their pants down.

Dandylife

[Certain Hope]

Thanks for the true-life examples, Dandy.

The ambiguous accusatory statement was always one of the most troublesome to me, too... because it usually involved him picking at one of my kids.
Any time he'd start that, I'd always know that there was something which to which HE should have tended, but didn't. Of course, he'd never admit it... so I'd go scuffling around looking for signs of something which might be about to fall apart.
Now I think it was just a game he played... because he like to see me scurry.
Glad I boxed up those scurrying shoes... once and for all!


Dandy, I tried to remain calm and even take a more light-hearted approach to addressing these old techniques... but that would only stir up more anger and attempts to retaliate. Maybe the reaction just depends on the degree of NPD involved... but I'm convinced that there is no making this stuff go away in some cases.

Love,
Carolyn

[Leah]

As always, real life depictions are great examples.

One thing my partner tends to do is minimize whatever my complaint is, and MAXIMIZE his discomfort. One time he had a newspaper in front of him and he tore out one tiny piece of the newspaper and held it up saying, "Here's your problem." Pointing at the rest of the newspaper he said, "And here's MINE."

He also uses the, "Please don't yell," tactic when I'm beginning to get upset and raise my voice slightly. Makes him appear so much more calm.

The one I truly hate, though, is the ambiguous tactic. "I wish some people around here would do what they're supposed to do....." ETC. without directly confronting who he's talking about.

I also hate the money/thrown in the face trick. "I work so hard around here..." Implying he deserves some kind of special consideration (to be mean) because he's a good provider.

People tend to fall back on the same tactics/tricks over and over again - they are their defaults. Once you penetrate them, and expose them for what they are, they will be easier to make go away forever..... it comes to feel like you've pulled their pants down.

Dandylife

Grateful thanks to you, Dandy.

for all your threads, containing much wisdom.

Leah x

[gratitude28]

Wow, that covered my NMs entire art of conversing. Unbelievable to see it in black and white. Funny that she "adores" Carl Sagan (she thinks she understands all of his ideas).
Love, Beth

Dandy, your descriptions of your partner make me cringe. Are you doing OK?

[dandylife]

Leah,

Regarding "the power of words" I will take that as a heads up for something I must check out, too. Thanks!

Lighter, sometimes the simplest things make us go, "huh". I had never questioned when someone said something such as, "Would you like X, or Y?" without even realizing I could have also chosen Z. Hah! The world opens up. We are not prisoners to anyone else's communication challenges! Glad you found the posting interesting.

Carolyn, you sent it to your daughter? Excellent! The younger people learn that others might not have our interests in mind when communicating, the better!  Also - I understand when you say that nothing might work with certain people - and that is Ohsotrue. Sometimes the clearest logic and the most earnest heart won't make a dent in a N-istic person in the throes of their disorder. Thanks for pointing that out. I think we all have experienced that situation. It really hurts.

CB123, I'm so glad that you have the open communication with your kids and that you discuss critical thinking! That so impresses me! I am fortunate to have a son who is a critical thinker and we discuss things on an almost adult level, although he's only 10. I will resolve to put some of these item in my original post into a discussion with him and see what he thinks! I can't wait to try that out. Thanks !

Gjazz, turning the other cheek. Yes, can be a very effective tactic, even when you're not intending it to be a tactic. I admire you for having such a great internal compass and high self-esteem. Thank you for the reminder that we don't always have to have a certain strategy up OUR sleeve to counteract the abuse. Sometimes, walking away can be the most important thing we can do.

Sea Storm,
Hah! LOVE your post. Yes! And sometimes what they are saying is so very hard to decipher as "sh*t". A honed BS detector is important in so many areas of life.

Leah - thanks for the additional examples. They will go in the arsenal. It so helps me to hear the actual words someone might use as opposed to an "idea." Thanks again.

And, Carolyn, oh my I hate it when the kids get dragged into it. That just makes my heart sink. That was ultimately, one of the reasons we broke up to begin with - our daughter was too often the one in between. I know how that felt.

Beth, ah, thanks for asking about me. I am doing well with all this, actually. I feel like someone armed heavily with extensive....research, psychological background, experience, ideas, support...you name it. I don't feel so alone in this anymore - the Board has been a big help, actually. I'm sorry you have this to deal with...with your NM.  I'm glad to see you posting. I value your input and ideas.

And, in all fairness - Beth - thanks for reminding me - I am not lily white in my argumentation techniques. If I were to critique myself as an argument partner, I'd have to say that I tend to clam up at times. I sometimes don't know how to say what needs to be said, so I don't say anything at all. This leads to resentment buildup on my part. AND I also have a very strong streak inside me that values privacy so at times I'll shop or do something I don't think my partner NEEDS to know and not tell him. He will sense something's up and maybe let his brain go to...maybe she's cheating on me or whatever....when really I'm just protecting my privacy. Also I get flooded very easily. I also find myself at times telling my daughter things I probably shouldn't - which would be boundary violations - such as "oh my god your dad is so stressed out right now. I really wish he'd mellow out." I FEEL bad after I tell her, and I think that tells me I shouldn't have said it. But it feels kind of good to have someone who understands just to hear me. I know she's not the right person - a therapist is. I've got to stop that. And that's got to make my partner feel or sense ganged up on.

So..... just presenting the other side. Yes, his tactics are hurtful, but he's doing it under stress when the reptilian part of the brain takes over and does the "default" thing it does. I understand that and I now know to demand a time out and become calm before trying to discuss things further. Thanks, Beth, or prompting me to think further on this!

Much love and thanks to all who read and responded on this thread,
Dandylife