Politicians and pundits and a host of others understand that we all have a tendency to hear what we want to hear and believe what we want to believe, and they use that to their advantage. These people are experts at constructing arguments that dodge the real question; they have a toolbox of linguistic tricks at their disposal and they know how to use them.
In his book Straight and Crooked Thinking, Robert H. Thouless documented thirty-eight tricks that are commonly used in argument along with the methods to think through them. Twelve of these tricks are documented below. Reflect on these the next time you hear a gasbag trying to sell some snake oil.
- The use of emotionally toned words
Dealt with by translating the statement into words emotionally neutral
- Making a statement in which “all” is implied but “some” is true
Dealt with by putting the word “all” into the statement and showing that it is then false.
- Proof by selected instances
Dealt with dishonestly by selecting instances opposing your opponent’s contention or honestly by pointing out the true form of the proof (as a statistical problem in association) and either supplying the required numerical facts or pointing out that your opponent has not got them.
- Extension of an opponent’s proposition by contradiction or by misrepresentation of it
Dealt with by stating again the more moderate position which is being defended.
- Evasion of a sound refutation of an argument by the use of a sophistical formula
Dealt with by analysis of the formula and demonstration of its unsoundness.
- Diversion to another question, to a side issue, or by irrelevant objection
Dealt with by refusing to be diverted from the original question, but stating again the real question at issue.
- Proof by inconsequent argument
Dealt with by asking that the connection between the proposition and the alleged proof may be explained, even though the request for explanation may be attributed to ignorance or lack of logical insight on the part of the person making it.
- The recommendation of a position because it is a mean between two extremes
Dealt with by denying the usefulness of the principle as a method of discovering the truth. In practice, this can most easily be done by showing that our own view also can be represented as a mean between two extremes.
- Discussing a verbal proposition as if it were a factual one, or failing to disentangle the verbal and factual elements in a proposition that is partly both
This is really an incompetent rather than a dishonest way of arguing. The remedy is to point out how much of the question at issue is a difference in the use of words and how much (if at all) it is a difference as to fact or values.
- Putting forward a tautology (such as that too much of the thing attacked is bad) as if it were a factual judgement
Dealt with by pointing out that the statement is necessarily true from its verbal form.
- Suggestion by repeated affirmation, by use of a confident manner or by prestige
The best safeguard against all three of these tricks of suggestion is a theoretical knowledge of suggestion, so that their use may be detected. All three devices lose much of their effect if the audience see how the effect is being obtained, so merely pointing out the fact that the speaker is trying to create conviction by repeated assertion in a confident manner may be enough to make this device ineffective. Ridicule is often used to undermine the confident manner, or any kind of criticism which makes the speaker begin to grow angry or plaintive.
- Argument by attributing prejudices or motives to one’s opponent
Best dealt with by pointing out that other prejudices may equally well determine the opposite view, and that, in any case, the question of why a person holds an opinion is an entirely different question from that of whether the opinion is or is not true.
Unfortunately for anyone who cares about honest intellectual discourse, there are many different wants to win debates through sleight of hand and outright lies. Check out Straight and Crooked Thinking or any of these websites for more:
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I am the author of UNITED WE STAND, available at