"I expect and hope to be judged not by words, not by promises I've made, but by promises that my administration keeps." – Pres. Obama speaking on Monday to gay men & lesbians gathered at the White House to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Rebellion. (The Stonewall Rebellion marked the rise of the modern gay rights movement.)
Obama said the above because he had made promises to the gay community that he has not kept. As a result they don’t really trust him thus his odd “assurance” to them. The interesting thing is that the President has made many promises during his campaign and in the early days of his Presidency that he has not kept. Or sort of kept, maybe halfway. Not only the gays are wary of his promises but other special interest groups and regular citizens feel that way as well.
As I listen to the President, read transcripts of his speeches, watch press briefings with Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, I realize how many tricks of logic that they use. Of course, these aren’t used just by the current administration. Both sides of the aisle are quite adept at whipping out a logical fallacy when needed.
To help you recognize some of these, I dug out my teaching notes on Critical Thinking to show you a few of the more common devices used to throw your opponent or audience off track.
red herring: when the arguer diverts the attention by changing the subject.
slippery slope: a change in procedure, law, or action, will result in adverse consequences. (e.g., If we allow doctor assisted suicide, then eventually the government will control how we die.) It does not necessarily follow that just because we make changes that a slippery slope will occur.
straw man: creating a false scenario and then attacking it.
excluded middle (or false dichotomy): considering only the extremes.
bandwagon fallacy: concluding that an idea has merit simply because many people believe it or practice it.
ad hominem: Latin for "to the man." An arguer who uses ad hominems attacks the person instead of the argument.
appeal to ignorance: appealing to ignorance as evidence for something. (e.g., We have no evidence that God doesn't exist, therefore, he must exist. Or: Because we have no knowledge of alien visitors, that means they do not exist).
appeal to numbers: this fallacy is the attempt to prove something by showing how many people think that it's true. But no matter how many people believe something, that doesn't necessarily make it true or right.
Harold & I are competing with each other to see who spots the false argument first. Who needs board games when you have politicians?
Wow. :)
Posted by: Eleanor | July 03, 2009 at 03:53 PM