Misuse of Critical Thinking --

¶ … Misuse of Critical Thinking -- a Classification and Discussion of Three Logical Fallacies

"It's all your fault!" cries the Chief Executive at the Board Meeting.

"Well, why shouldn't we get a raise -- the higher-ups are making even more money that they don't deserve than we are!" cries the union representative. "Our workers should get some of that company money, too!"

"It's the anti-American media that is to blame! It's not our shoddy marketing policies abroad!" cries the marketing executive. "They hate all American companies over there!"

All of these individuals are, respectively engaged in fallacious thinking. The Chief Executive is committing a personal attack against an individual, without assessing what went wrong. The executive is merely pointing fingers and assigning blame in an unhelpful and unproductive fashion. The union representative is assuming that two wrongs make a right, namely that of the CEO is overpaid, then union workers should be overpaid as well, to correct the organizational bias in favor of executives rather than creating a more level pay scale overall. The marketing executive is creating a straw man of anti-American bias in the country he or she is marketing to, rather than addressing more complex issues of why a marketing campaign may fail to resound with a particular public or the unique imagination of the public, located in a different country.

Sloppy use of fallacious logic thus leads to sloppy thinking and poor organizational policies. People are blamed and fired, instead of poor polices being remedied. Pay goes up and profits for shareholders go down, even if such high pay and so many benefits may be unjustified or not financially tenable. False reasons are found or created to justify failure, rather than the problems being corrected.

Of course, one's emotional feelings for a person, for example, can often lead one to distrust that individual's logic. But this does not mean the use of such personal attacks is logically correct. The logician Steven Downes has called the use of personal attack or arguing against the person (ad hominem) as a form of 'changing the subject.' Even if the arguer does not intentionally mean to change the subject, the critical reasons to make a decision are diverted from the subject of argument to the person who is making the argument.

This form of fallacious argumentation may take many forms. Firstly, "the person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked." (Downes, 2005) This may be the most obvious attack, such as when Presidential contender John Kerry's Vietnam War record was used to question his patriotism and policies, even though they had little bearing on his stance about contemporary issues. "Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to gain from a favorable outcome." (Downes, 2005) This is a more relevant issue, although still it is not enough to discredit a valid argument -- a teacher may have a vested interest in arguing for better teacher's pay, but that does not mean that teachers should nor receive higher salaries. "Or, finally, a person may be attacked by association, or by the company he keeps." (Downes, "Attacking the Person," 2005 http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/attack.htm)

The straw man, in contrast, is an example of personal attack upon a person who is not even really 'present' in the argument -- what Downes classifies as a 'missing the point' fallacy. "The author attacks an argument which is different from, and usually weaker than, the opposition's best argument." (Downes, 2005) To refute such arguments as "we should have conscription. People don't want to enter the military because they find it an inconvenience. But they should realize that there are more important things than convenience! Why do young people today only care about what is convenient" one must discuss the military -- the issue of convenience is the straw man argument. (Downes, 2005) Thus, to refute the straw man one must demonstrate the opposition's argument has been misrepresented and show one has stronger argument, and describe the real, stronger argument that is pertinent to the issue at stake. (Downes, "Straw Man," 2005 http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/straw.htm)

"Two wrongs don't make a right,' -- yet another fallacy people often make, assuming, for example, well, if everyone steals/cheats/insider trades, then therefore it must be okay. Downes considers this argument a species of slothful induction, whereby the proper conclusion of an inductive argument is denied despite the evidence to the contrary. In other words, one knows it is wrong, it is quote obvious that both items are wrong to do ... yet if the two are paired together they seem 'less wrong.' (Downes, 2005, "Slothful Induction," http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/sloth.htm)

A reader might apt say that in a logic textbook, all of these fallacies are very easy to spot. But what about real life -- do people really think/talk like that in the real world? Surely politicians, chief executives and other speakers are not so loose-lipped when under close public scrutiny to make such rhetorical and critical fallacies! But think back to the 1998 vice-presidential debates, however, for a famous example of both a straw man and a personal attack fused into one. Politics provides one of the most rich sources of examples of the straw man fallacy, some of which are fairly subtle, such as the following: "In the 1988 vice-presidential debate between Dan Quayle and Lloyd Bentsen, Quayle made the mistake of deflecting questions about his youth and inexperience with the observation that John F. Kennedy was even younger when he ran for president. Then Bentsen, in a famous retort that was the most telling moment of the debate, said to Quayle, 'I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. And, Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy.' This proved to be an effective and memorable remark -- but did Quayle ever say he was a 'Jack Kennedy'? Did he really intend to compare himself to Kennedy, or was he using Kennedy merely as an example that one's age doesn't necessarily determine one's qualifications? Bentsen, obviously a consummate debater, was able to create a false image of his opponent's remarks with the man still standing there in front of a national television audience," and made an effective and diverting straw man argument -- drawing the question of whether Quayle was like Jack Kennedy into the debate. Bentsen also made an effective personal attack by critiquing Quayle's Republican platform, simply because Quayle did not have the military and academic record of Kennedy -- even if this were true, this did not mean that Quayle's political positions, as advanced in the debate, were invalid. (Mission: Critical 'Burden of Proof,'2005)

However, lest one think that only Democrats make use of the logical fallacy of personal attacks in debates, during the 1996 Presidential debates, Bill Clinton stated: "No, I don't think Bob Dole is too old to be President. But I think his ideas are old." Clinton called both Dole and his ideas old in a clear personal attack -- but so what, one might be provoked to ask, if Dole has old ideas and is old? Democracy, after all, is also an old idea. True, oldness does not confer validity, but nor does it mean ideas are invalid, either. Then again, during the same debate, Dole stated, "Bill Clinton is liberal, liberal, liberal," another clear example of a personal attack without defining why liberal is bad. . (Mission: Critical 'Burden of Proof,'2005)

Of course, all of us engage in such name calling in our own, daily sloppy use logic -- and bring in the straw person when arguing with our spouses or roommates, skillfully diverting issues about cleaning the garage or common room to arguments about dirty dishes. But simply because one's roommate plays loud music does not excuse one's leaving half-eaten pizza on his or her bed -- two wrongs do not make a right. Even the logic of two wrongs don't make a right can sound economically appealing, in a flagrantly illegal fashion: after leaving a store, a consumer notices that the cashier has given him or her too much change, but he or she decides not to return the money to the store because once, at that same store, he or she was were overcharged and didn't notice until arriving home. It all balances out in the end? ("Fallacy: Straw man," 2005)