William K. Wolfrum Chronicles

I’ve recently posted a page outlining the Top-20 Logical Fallacies, which I nicked off the Web site of excellent podcast, The Skeptics Guide to The Universe. As it’s more or less their charter to get folks to think more critically, I figured they’d be cool with it.

And it is important for Americans to start thinking more critically, because more or less, the entire political discourse in the U.S. is one logical fallacy after another. Let’s take a look at some recent examples.

First of, here’s deposed Speaker of the House Tom DeLay discussing redeploying American troops currently in Iraq with Congressman Joe Sestak, retired vice admiral of the U.S. Navy on Meet the Press:

DeLay: Where are going to deploy to? Answer the question. Where are you…

Sestak: Oman, Bahrain, at home to get our…

DeLay: They haven’t accepted that.

Sestak: Yes, sir, we have bases there.

DeLay: They have not accepted this redeployment.

Here’s another example of a logical fallacy from DeLay during the show:

DeLay: But surrender does not bring security.

Sestak: Tom, it’s a different strategy.

DeLay: No, it’s surrender.

Sestak: That brings about a more–no. Tom, we’ve learned so much in the military that…

DeLay: “This is hard, so I want to surrender.”

Sestak: Absolutely not.

DeLay: That’s exactly what it is.

This one is called “Argumentum Ad Nauseum.” This is where a person just keeps repeating the same thing over and over, hoping that repetition will make it true. Currently it appears the Bush Administration is using this technique in the debate over the occupation of Iraq, as many of them use the word “micromanage” repeatedly, bringing to mind the bleating sheep in George Orwell’s “Animal Farm”.

Now, DeLay has used two logical fallacies. First an “argument from ignorance,” followed by “moving the goalposts.” DeLay assumes Bahrain and Oman wouldn’t accept a U.S. redeployment, then when told the U.S. actually has bases there, he tries to correct his misstatement by talking about “this” redeployment, which has even taken place or been negotiated in any form.

In an example from today, U.S. News and World Report columnist Michael Barone writes this:

“In their assessment of what is going on in the world, they seem to start off with a default assumption that we are in the wrong. The “we” can take different forms: the United States government, the vast mass of middle-class Americans, white people, affluent people, churchgoing people or the advanced English-speaking countries. Such people are seen as privileged and selfish, greedy and bigoted, rash and violent. If something bad happens, the default assumption is that it’s their fault. They always blame America — or the parts of America they don’t like — first.”

Notice the firm use of the words “they” and “their” without actually naming anyone specific. This is a classic Straw man argument.

Finally, let’s look at Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this year:

“I think I would never, ever, make a change in a United States Attorney position for political reasons or if it would in any way jeopardize an ongoing, serious investigation.”

Now, which logical fallacy is Gonzales committing? If you answered “none” you’d be correct. You see, Gonzales is just lying here. And lying is another large part of U.S. political discourse, though apparently lying has legal ramifications when done under oath, as Gonzales, the nation’s top lawyer, did.

So remember folks, brush up on your logical fallacies, and pay attention when statements are outright lies. First of all, the mainstream media won’t do it for you, and secondly because from the Bush Administration and its admirers like Barone and DeLay, logical fallacies and lies are about all they think U.S. citizens deserve.

–WKW

This entry was posted on Tuesday, March 20th, 2007 at 7:17 am and is filed under Politics, media. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.