“Fallacies areCommon” firstappeared in Informal Logic,XI.2,Spring 1989, pp. 101-106.

Professor Secorrecently hasrepliedtoanarticleofmineinwhichIarguedthatfallaciesarecommon in ordinarydiscourse.[1] 13

Given what I believe is the importance of the specific issue (whether fallacies arecommon)aswellasthemoregeneralissue(howrelevantlogicisasadisciplineforassessingordinarydiscourse),Ifeelthatareplyisinorder.SinceIbelievethatmanyofherspecific

criticismsinvolvesomegeneralconfusionaboutwhatIwasdoing,Iwillbeginbymakingfourgeneral points, andthen turn to the specifics ofherreply.

Tobeginwith,letmeremindthereaderthattoshowthatfallaciesarecommoninstructuredpoliticaldiscourse(debates,newsconferences,positionpapersandothercampaignliterature,interviewsandsoon)isofcoursenottoshowconclusivelythatfallaciesarecommoninallordinarydiscourse.Itismerelytogivesomeevidencetothateffect.Theexaminationofstructuredpoliticaldiscourseshouldbeviewedasonlythefirststepinasmallbutnotuninterestingresearchprogramofexamininglargeareasofordinarydiscoursetoseewhetherfallaciesarecommon.Otherstepsintheprogram(ifImay bepermittedtoforeshadow)mightbetoexaminesalespitches,productguarantees,letterstotheeditor,newspapereditorials,andsuchlike.

Second,weoughttobeclearonwhattheclaimthatsuch-and-suchis"common"means.WhenIclaimthat(say)ravensarecommoninmypartofthecountry,Iamnotclaimingthatallother species of birdsareuncommon,i.e.,that onlyravensare common. Much lessamIclaimingthatthemajorityofbirdsareravens,i.e.,thatravenspredominate.Iammerelyclaimingthatinmyareaofthecountry,oneoftenseesravens.Similarly,whenIclaimthatfallaciesarecommoninstructuredpoliticaldiscourse,Iamnotclaimingthatmostthingspoliticianssayarefallacious,onlythat in such discourseone oftenhearsfallacies.

Third,weoughttodistinguishtwoprincipalsofcharity,theinterpretiveandthemotivational.Roughlyput,theinterpretiveprincipalofcharityisthat,beforeassessingsomeone'sargument,weoughttostateitinitsstrongestform.Underthisprincipleofcharity,weshould tryto fill in omittedpremisesthatwouldmake the argumentstrong,spell out keyterms soastomaketheargumentclear,andsoon.(Specifyingexactlywhatinterpretivecharityamountstois,however,notatrivialmatter).Again,roughlyput,themotivationalprincipleofcharityisthatweoughttoassumethatthepersonputtingforwardanargumentisdoingsoingoodfaith,i.e.,ismotivatedbyasinceredesiretocommunicatewithhisaudiencebylogicallydecentrhetoricalstandards.

Itseemstomethattheinterpretiveprincipalofcharity,foralltheun-clarityaboutitsapplicationinparticularinstances,shouldbeadoptedbythelogician.Butthemotivationalprincipleofcharityshouldnotbeadoptedbythelogician,fortworeasons.First,itisdubious.Peoplearequiteoftenmotivatedbythedesiretomisleadtheiraudiences,anduseanyrhetoricaltechniquefairorfoultoachievetheirgoals(sellaproduct,winanelection,gainconvertstoacult,orwhatever).Second,itisirrelevanttothetaskofthelogician.Thelogicianisinterestedinthelogicalcorrectnessofanargument,notthemotivesofthearguerwhoputsitforward.Thefactthatthearguermaybesincere,orunderpressure,orthathisaudiencemaybesatisfiedwithwhat he says, is irrelevant to the logicalmerits ofwhat he says.

Thelastgeneralpointregardsthedefinitionofafallacy,andthedifferencebetweenthedisciplinesofrhetoricandlogic.Afallacyisalogicallyincorrect(invalidorweak)argument.Whetheragiventypeoffallacyispersuasivetoagivengroupofpeopleisaninterestingrhetoricalquestion,butisnotstrictlyspeakingalogicalone.Veryroughly,logicisthestudyofcorrectargumentation,whilerhetoricisthestudyofpersuasivecommunication.Thetwodisciplinestraditionallyhavehadandcontinuetohavedifferentfoci.Itshouldbekeptinmindthatmyfocus is that ofthe logician.

Now,Secor'sargumentagainstmyviewseemstohavethreeparts.First,thecasesofignoringtheissueIcitedarenotinfactsuch.Second,thecasesoffalsecauseIcitedarefallaciousonlybyunreasonablyhighscholarlystandards.Third,thecasesofadpopulumoradhominemIcitedarenotfallaciesatall,butareinsteadlegitimaterhetoric.Moreglobally,shearguesthatmyoccasionalcharitablenesstowardstheparticipantsunderminesmyconceptofafallacy,andthatIhaveattemptedtoapplyculturallyuniversalidealstopublicargumentationwhere no such ideals trulyapply.

Letmebeginwithignoringtheissue.Let'sbeclearfirstonwhatcountsasansweringaquestion(i.e.,addressinganissue),and what counts as evadingit. Consider anexample:

Haveyoustopped beatingyourwife?

Thisadmitsofanumberofresponsiveanswers:"Idon'tknow"(directdeclarationofignoranceontheissue);"I'veneverbeatenmywife"(acorrectionofafalsepresupposition);"Yes,Ihave,"or"No,Ihaven't"(bothdirectanswers).Butthefollowingarenon-responsiveanswers:"Youknow,Ithinkviolenceisarealproblemintoday'sworld"(ageneraldiscussionofatopic,notaspecificanswertoaquestion);"Well,lookatFred—he'sabigamist,andhebeatsbothhiswives!"(theintroductionofanirrelevantspecificissue);"askmesomeothertime"or"Oh,getlost"(simplydeferringor dismissingthe issue).

Onecanignoreaquestion/issuebytalkingingeneralities,raising"redherrings"(irrelevantissues),orsimplypooh-poohingit(deferringordismissingit).Mycontentionisthat,indebates,newsconferences,interviewsandsuchlike,itiscommonforpoliticianstoignorebythose variousmeans manyofthequestions put to them.

Myexamplesreflectedthatcontention.Forexample,IcitedthecasewhereNixonwasaskedwhethernewlawswereneededtoprotectthepublicagainstexcessiveuseofpowerbythelaborunions(whichhehadindicatedhefavoredearlierinhiscampaign),andwhatthoselawswouldbe.WhatwouldhavebeenalogicallyresponsiveanswerfromNixon?Onanalogywithour earlier simple case, herearea fewexamples:

a)Ihavenotyetthought ofanyspecific laws.

b)Your question is basedon a falsepresuppositionIhaveneversuggestedinmycampaignthatwe needanynew laws.

c)Ihaveissuedapositionpaperoutliningmyproposalsindetail.Letmejustmentiononesuchlaw:inanystrikeshuttingdownaplantvitaltonationalsecurity,givethePresidentpower to ordera30 day"cooling-off"period.

Nixon did not answer in anyofthose ways.Instead, he said:

Mr.Nixon:Mr.McGee,Iamplanningaspeechonthatsubjectnextweek.Also,sothatwecangettheopportunityforthequestionerstoquestionme,itwillbebeforethenexttelevisiondebate.Iwillsaysimply,inadvanceofit,thatIbelievethatinthisarea,thelawswhichshouldbepassed,asfarasthebignationalemergencystrikesareconcerned,are ones that willgive the Presidentmore weapons withwhich to dealwith those strikes.

NowIhaveabigdisagreementwithSenatorKennedy,though,onthispoint.Hehastakentheposition,whenhefirstindicatedonOctober of lastyear,thathewouldevenfavorcompulsoryarbitrationasoneoftheweaponsapresidentmighthavetostopanationalemergencystrike.IunderstandinhislastspeechbeforetheSteelworkersUnion,thathechangedthatpositionandindicatedthathefeltthatgovernmentseizuremightbethebestwaytostopastrikewhichcouldnotbesettledbycollectivebargaining.Idonotbelieveweshouldhaveeithercollectivebargainingorseizure.Ithinkthemomentthatyougivetotheunion,ononeside,andtomanagement,ontheotherside,theescapehatchofeventuallygoingtothegovernmenttogetitsettled,thatmostofthesegreatstrikeswillendupbeingsettledbythegovernment,andthatwillbeintheend,inmyopinion,wagecontrol;itwouldmeanpricecontrol—allthethingsthatwedonotwant.Idobelieve,however,thatwecangivetothePresidentoftheUnitedStatespowers,inadditiontowhathepresentlyhasinthefact-findingarea,whichwouldenablehimtobemore effective thanwe havebeen in handlingthese strikes.

Nixonineffectanswersthequestionby sayinga)askmeagainlater,b)hereareacoupleoflawsIdon'tlike,andc)generallyIreallydothinkweneedthoselaws!Nixon,itisclear,ignoredthequestion.Indeed,evenSecorseemstoseethatsomethingisinadequateaboutthereply. She avers:

InreferringtohisforthcomingspeechNixonmightbecriticizedforbeingunspecificbutnot,Ithink,forbeingirrelevant.Ifthepubliccanbeprotectedfromexcessiveunionpowereitherbydirectlyrestrictingtheunionsorbyincreasingpresidentialpowertointervene,Nixonclearlyadvocatesthelattercourseofaction.Itmay,ofcourse,beinhispoliticalinteresttowithholddetailsuntilafuturespeech,butheisnotreallyguiltyofignoringthe issue.(p. 43)

ButansweringthequestionaboutwhichnewlawsthePresidentshouldhavetodealwithstrikesbysayingheshould have more laws to deal withstrikes is ahopelesslygeneralanswer.

LetmedigressamomenttotalkaboutNixon'smotivationnotalogicalmatter,asIindicatedearlier.ButsincethemotivationallycharitableremarksImadeinmyfirstarticlewereusedagainstme(asIshallexplainshortly),letmemakesomeuncharitableremarksnow.IsuspectthatNixondidnotwanttoadmitthatafterurgingnewlawsagainstlaboractivity,hehadn'tthoughtofany.Thiswouldhavemadehimlookignoranttothevoters.Moreover,hedidnotsupportthemostobviouscandidatesforsuchlaws(vis.,lawsthatwouldallowthePresidenttoseizeplantsoratleastforcethepartiesintoarbitration)becausethatwouldcosthimvotesinorganizedlabor.Sohetalkedaroundthequestion.Butwhetherwearemotivationallycharitableandassume hewas not clear on thequestion hewas asked, or motivationallyuncharitable,andassumethathewasbeingevasivetoavoidlookingstupidoralienatinglabor,isirrelevanttothe assessment ofhis response.

Let'sre-examineanotherexample.ConsidernexttheexampleIcitedinwhichKennedywasaskedwhetherheconsideredtheoildepletionallowanceoftwenty-sevenandahalfpercentinequitable andwhetherhe wouldlower it. Hereplied,

Mr.Kennedy:Mr.McGee,thereareaboutahundredandfourcommoditiesthathavesomekindofdepletionallowance-differentkindsofminerals,includingoil.Ibelieveallofthoseshouldbegoneoverindetailtomakesurethatnooneisgettingataxbreak;tomakesurethatnooneisgettingawayfrompayingthetaxesheoughttopay.Thatincludesoil;itincludesallkindsofminerals;itincludeseverythingwithintherangeoftaxation.Wewanttobesureit'sfairandequitable.Itincludesoilabroad.Perhapsthatoilabroadshouldbetreateddifferentlythantheoilhereathome.Nowtheoilindustryrecentlyhashadhardtimes.Particularlysomeofthesmallerproducers.They'removingabouteight ornine daysinTexas.

ButIcanassureyouthatifI'melectedpresident,thewholespectrumoftaxeswillbegonethroughcarefully,andifthereisanyinequitiesinoiloranyothercommodity,thenIwouldvotetoclosethatloophole.Ihavevotedinthepasttoreducethedepletionallowanceforthelargestproducers;forthosefromfivemilliondollarsdown,tomaintainitattwenty-sevenandahalfpercent.I believeweshouldstudythisandotherallowances;taxexpense,dividendexpensesandalltherest,andmakeadeterminationofhowwecanstimulate growth; howwe can providetherevenues needed to moveourcountryforward.

Secor finds his replyperfectlyfine:

JasoncommentsthatKennedy"neverspecifically answeredthequestions."Iwouldarguethatalthoughhesaysagreatdealbesidesansweringthequestions,hedoesanswerthem.Kennedysaysthatinthepasthevotedtomaintainthetwenty-sevenandahalfpercentallowanceforsmallerproducers;wemustthereforeassumethathethoughttheallowancefairandreasonableatthetime.Politicalwisdombeingsubjecttochangeanddevelopment,hesaysthatwe"shouldcontinuetostudythisandotherallowances."Thatis,hemakesnoguaranteethathewouldcontinuetosupportthisspecifictaxprovisioninthefuture.Theanswermaynotbeequivocal,butitisnotanascenttogeneralitythatignorestheissueathand.Thequestions,inthiscaseandmanyothers,arecomplexandoften loaded, andthecandidates need toanswer them carefully.Itwouldbemisleadingaswellas politicallyimprudent for Kennedyto call the allowance unfair, especiallywhenhevotedfor it, or fair,ifhemightwithdraw his approval in the future.(p. 43)

ButIstickbymyoriginalassertionthatKennedy's replywasevasive.Totheconjunctivequestion"isthedepletionallowanceunfair,andwillyouloweritfromitscurrenttwenty-sevenand a half percent?”the followingrepliesareresponsive:

a)It is not unfair,andIwill not lower it.

b)It is unfair,andIwilllower it.

c)It is not unfair, butIwill lower it.

d)It is unfair, butIwill not lower it.

e)Ihonestlydon'tknow.

f)Youfalselypresupposethattheallowanceistwenty-sevenandahalfpercent;actuallyit is onlyten percent.

Kennedy couldhavegivenoneofthesebasicresponsivereplies,embellishedwithalltherhetoricalbellsandwhistlesSecorcoulddesire.Buthechosenotto.Heinsteadignoredtheissuebysayingaseriesofnonresponsivethings:therearealotofthingsthatalsohavedepletionallowances(Sowhat?maybealldepletionallowancesareunfair);alldepletionallowancesshouldbeexaminedtoseewhethertheyarefair(fine,pal,butistheoildepletionallowance—supportedbyyourownVicePresidential nominee—unfair?); perhaps oil abroad should betreateddifferentlyfromoilhereathome(irrelevant);theoilindustryisgoingthroughtoughtimes(yeah,sowhat—doesthismeantheallowanceisfair?);askmeagainlaterafterI'm Presidentbecause,hey,I'lllookintoit(sure—trustyou,right?);Ivotedtolowerittoitspresentlevel(yes,but is that presentlevel unfair and willyoulowerit?).

Iwillagaindigressintomotivationalinquiry.IsSecorrighttoviewKennedyhereassincerely tryingtoansweraquestionwhichis"complexandloaded"?Ofcoursesheisnot.Firstofall,thequestion,whilebeingcompound,wasnotatallloaded,sinceitspresuppositions—thattheallowanceexistedandwastwenty-sevenandahalfpercent—weretrue.Second,itisclearthatKennedywasdeliberately evasivebecauseitwaspoliticallyexpedienttodoso:ifhesaidhewouldlowertheallowance,hewouldwinsupportamongmany taxpayersbutlosesupportintheoil-producingstates;if he saidhewouldnotlowertheallowance,he wouldlosetaxpayersupport(andlosetheissueofunfairtaxationwithwhichhewastarringNixonandtheRepublicans)althoughhewouldgainsupportintheoil-producingstates.Hechosetheeasywayout,anddid"theoldignoratioshuffle."ButwhetherSecororIamrightaboutKennedy'smotivations,clearlyhe ignored the issue.

Iwon'trehashtheotherexamplesIcited.Timeandagain,thepoliticiansdidnotaddressthegivenissuesquarelybyeitherconcedingignorance,showingthequestiontohaveafalsepresupposition,oransweringitdirectlyandspecifically.Instead,eithertheyroseirrelevantissues,talked in generalities, or deferred/dismissed the question.

Iturnnexttothefallaciesoffalsecause.Icitedanumberofcasesinwhichapoliticianattemptedtoshowthathisopponentwasresponsibleforsomebadsituationthatoccurredwhilehis opponentwas in office merelyon thebasis that it occurredwhile that opponent was in office.

Secordoesn'teventrytoshowmyexamplesfailtofitthetraditionalposthocergopropter hocmold.Instead, she replies

Butonceagain,wemightask"false"or"inadequate"fromwhatpointofview?Weallknowthatmilitarystrategists,economists,andhistoriansmakeveryelaboratecausalarguments,constructingintricatemodelsthattakewholebookstoexplain,workout,andverify. But the voter's perspectiveis not the same as the scholar's.

It isreasonable toexpectthatthere besomedifference betweenarguingforcausesintheforumsofscholarlydisciplines,whereone'scausalmodelmustbeverypreciseandanticipatetheeffortsofotherscholarstorefuteit,andarguingforcausesinthepublicforumsofpresidentialdebate,wherenotionsofresponsibilityaremuchmorediffuse.AsAristotlesays,wecanonlyaskofasubjectthedegreeofprecisionthatisappropriatetoit.Politiciansarenoteconomists,andvotersactoncausalassumptionsdifferentfromthoseofscholars.Thusfallaciesoffalsecausemaybeobviousfromthevantageoftheacademiccritic,whosestandardofevidenceforcausalitymaybeveryhigh,butsuchanalysistellsusverylittleaboutthewayvotersmakeorevenshouldmakedecisions.Perhapsthatisjustanotherway ofsayingthattherhetoricalcontextofpoliticaldiscoursediffers from that ofscholarlydiscourse.(pp.46-7)

Herreplyisveryweak,forseveralreasons.First,itissimplynottruethateventhepoliticiansinvolvedacceptposthocreasoningaslogicalevenin"therhetoricalcontextofpoliticaldiscourse,"muchlessthatthehaplessvotersdo.Thisisobviousfromthefactthatthepoliticiansdonotacceptresponsibilityforeverybadthingwhichoccurswhentheyareinoffice.Andcertainlythevotersdonotacceptresponsibilityforeverybadthingwhichhappensinthecountrywhiletheyresideinit!AsC.S.Peircenoted,theethicsofbeliefrequiresthatanyargumentformIapplytoothersIshouldequally be willing toacceptappliedtome.Noprincipleofcharityshouldstopusfromcallingaspadeaspade:ifapoliticianappliesaformofargumenttohisopponentbutrejectsitforhimself,thenitisclearthatevenhedoesnotthinkitalogicallystrongargumenttechnique.

Second,therearewaysapoliticiancanestablishabetterlogicalcaseforsocial,political,oreconomiccausalclaims.Oneobviouswayistocitefromscholarlyworksthattrulyestablishsuchclaims—somethingthatpoliticiansoftendo,pleasenote.(Remember,mypointisthatpoliticiansoftencommitfalsecausefallacies,notthattheyalwaysoreventypicallycommitthem.)Anotherwayistosketchoutthepremisesofafullargumentforacausalclaim,andtelltheaudiencehowtheymayobtainapositionpaperinwhichthefulldetailsarespelledout.Again,politiciansoftendo this.

Theupshotisthattodemandthatourwould-beleadersdomoretoestablishtheircausalclaimsthanmerelycitetemporalconnections(especiallyinahighlyselectiveandself-servingway!)isnottoimposeimpracticalelitiststandards,but rathertorequestsomethingwhichpoliticianscanandoftendo provide. Wejust needto see more ofit.

Secor'sthirdpointisnotcleartome.Ihadpointedoutthatthepoliticiansinthedebatesengagedinanumberofadpopulumandadhominemappeals.Icharitablyaddedthatinsomecasesadpopulumappealscouldbecondoned,thoughnotsowithadhominemappeals.Secorseems to think that this undercutsmyview that those appealsarefallacies:

…Ifwecondoneratherthancondemntheuseofsuchtactics,whatistheuseoftalkingabouttheadpopulumasafallacy?Iffallaciesarenottheproductofdeceitfulintent,aswesawearlier,andiftheyareusedbyquitedecentpoliticians,andifwecancondonetheirusageinthecontextofdebate,thereseemstobelittlereasontoconsiderthemerrors.Theyareerrorsonlyifweholdpoliticaldiscoursetoapurelyrationalidealaccordingtowhichcandidatesareaskedperfectlystraight-forwardquestionswhichtheyareexpectedtoanswerwithoutanytintofemotionorbiastowardtheirowncandidacy.(p. 47)

Buther lineofargumenthere is muddled.

Tocondoneistoforgive,notapprove.Wecancondoneanactofpettyjealousywithoutapprovingpettyjealousyasagenerallifestyle.Mypointisasimpleone:afallacyisalogicallybadargument.Apersonmaycommitafallacy (i.e.,putforwardalogicallybadargument)outofsincereignorance,ordeliberateandunpardonabledeceit,orevendeliberateyetpardonabledeceit,butafallacyisstillcommitted.Whetherwecondemnthepersonisquiteadifferentquestionfromwhetherwecondemntheargumentform.Oneisaquestionofmotivational(notinterpretive)charity, theother of logic.

Letmeconcludewithanoteonthequestionwhetherthoseofuswhoteachlogicwiththebeliefthatwecanatleasttoasmalldegreeimprovethelevelofintellectualtasteifnotthereasoningabilityofourstudentsaremerelyelitistswithan"unrealisticallysuperiorandjudgmentalattitudetowardordinarydiscourse."Really,theamountofillogicwhichpervadesourpublicandprivatelivesisconsiderable.Thiswouldnotbesobad,Isuppose,ifallpublicandprivatedecisionsconcerningourlivesweremadebygovernmentalorotherinstitutions,andtheleadersofthoseinstitutionsreasonedwell—i.e.,ifweweretotallyruledbyphilosopher-kings.Buttruephilosopher-kingsarenotasplentifulasblackberries,and,inanycase,theglobaltrendseemstobetowardincreasingdemocratization.Itseemsimperative,then,thatallstudentsneedtheirreasoningskillsimproved.Weteacherscannotimprovethoseskillsunlesswepointtorigorousstandardsofargumentation,anddemandthat our studentsadhere to those standards,andcreateinourstudentsanexpectationthatthosewhoseektogovernalsoadhereto thesestandards.

Gary James Jason

Department of Philosophy

San Diego State University

[1] See my“AreFallaciesCommon?ALookatTwoDebates,"Informal Logic,vol. 8(1986), pp.81-92; andMarieJ.Secor “HowCommonareFallacies?"InformalLogic,vol.9,(1987)pp.41-48.AllpagereferencesinthepresentreplyaretoSecor'spaper.