Again Diverting Attention Away From the Argument at Hand
five.half dozen.2: Diverting Attention from the Outcome
- Page ID
- 36165
As well shouldering one's share of the burden of proof, an equally of import duty for a logical reasoner is to stick to the issue during an statement. The event in a piece of reasoning is what the reasoning is specifically most; it's the central question under discussion equally opposed to the more general topic or bailiwick. In the case of the neighbour accusing Jeff of slitting the bicycle'due south tires, suppose another neighbour says, "Quit picking on Jeff. You've hassled him before, and now you are doing it again. Y'all never liked the fact that your son got beat upwardly when he started that fight with Jeff." Now the second neighbour is raising a different issue. The issue was whether Jeff did it, only the new neighbor is trying to divert attending from this to a new event, whether the accuser of Jeff has a hidden agenda. Even if you settle that second issue and find that the neighbour does have a subconscious agenda, that does not settle the issue of whether Jeff did slight the bicycle tires.
The goal is to pursue the truth nigh the effect, not to sidetrack, misfile, or con one's opponent. Logical reasoners fence in good faith. The purpose is not to win, but to find the truth. Even so, political debaters usually don't pursue such a high platonic. Similarly, lawyers fight for their client; they don't attempt to convince the jury their customer is guilty, even when they believe that the client is indeed guilty.
It is possible to learn a lot about good reasoning past examining the major errors in faulty reasoning. Errors in reasoning are chosen fallacies, and this chapter explores some of the major fallacies having to do with getting off the issue. These are oftentimes called the fallacies of irrelevance, because when you devious off the result you make irrelevant remarks.
When trying to spot the issue in an statement, 1 technique you lot can use is to search for some decision that is beingness defended. And so try to see if the reasoner is promoting the conclusion as their way of settling a controversy. That controversy will be the result. Figuratively, the technique works like this. Imagine that y'all are walking along the top of a fence, and someone is giving you reasons to come downwards on i side. The issue in the statement is whether to come down on one side or on the other. The arguer is not arguing in good faith if he is pulling you off the fence onto his side by some means other than giving good reasons.
Exercise \(\PageIndex{one}\)
Identify the result in the following discussion.
Jennifer: You are worrying as well much. You should spend less fourth dimension thinking about the consequences for police officers and more than almost the consequences for the mayor's office. If the mayor or vice mayor were injured, there would exist an outpouring of grief throughout the metropolis.
James: Police put their lives on the line for us every twenty-four hours. Each police officeholder's life is valuable, as valuable every bit the life of the mayor. Our police deserve our respect.
Jennifer: You lot are thinking of Television receiver shows. Being a farmer is a lot more dangerous than being a cop, but that's a side issue. Look, if some of the police force guarding the mayor and her staff become shot during the event nosotros are planning, well, that's life. They know the hazard. That'south why we politicians pay them so much money.
James: That sounds pretty callous to me. I don't recollect you should write off police lives the mode you write off the latest 2 per centum upkeep cut.
Jennifer: Wake up to the realities. I'thou talking political power, and you're just talking sentiment and morality.
The issue is:
a. that police lives are valuable.
b. whether political power is more important than morality.
c. that Jennifer is beingness callous about police lives and James is existence sensitive and showing respect for them.
d. whether the lives of the police are as valuable as those of the mayor and vice mayor.
e. that if the mayor or vice mayor were injured, there would be an outpouring of grief all through the urban center.
- Respond
-
Answer (d). (a) is not the reply because information technology makes a statement on James's side of the upshot, (b) is not the answer because, although information technology does give an judge statement of the topic, the more specific issue is better stated by answer (d). Answer (c) states James'southward position on the event, but it does not state the result itself, (e) states something that James and Jennifer might agree to, but it is not the specific bailiwick of their controversy.
The normal goal of an arguer is to provide convincing reasons for a conclusion that takes a position on the issue at hand. Arguments that do not achieve that goal are said to exist bad, illogical, or beguiling. If the issue is whether a item Toyota volition starting time in the forenoon, the post-obit argument doesn't speak to the effect:
The Toyota is owned by Barack, who is a citizen of the land of Hawaii, and aren't Hawaiians Americans? So, the car is owned by an American denizen.
The argument is beguiling, given the content. Withal the same argument would exist on target in another context where the issue is the nationality of the motorcar's possessor, merely it's non relevant to the issue of whether the car will start. Intentionally diverting someone's attention from 1 issue to another is called the Red Herring Fallacy and the irrelevant outcome is called the red herring. The proper name comes from a prison break in which the prisoners are being chased by prison guards using dogs. The prisoner throws a red herring fish in some management to divert the dogs in that direction. (Dogs presumably volition be attracted more by the scent of the herring than the smell of the prisoners.) The bottom line here is that knowing the upshot is key to deciding whether an argument is whatsoever good.
One extremely common technique of providing a ruby-red herring works like in this example. It is the 1950s and yous are manufacturing cigarettes. Your opponent is complaining that statistics show cigarette smoking causes several kinds of health problems. To throw the discussion off track you comment, "Tin can you be certain? Surely the link betwixt cigarettes and health problems isn't definitive, is it?" Raising doubt is what you lot are selling now, and information technology is the all-time ways of competing with the torso of facts. The current debate around climatic change is a similar scenario.
Scientists are some of our society'due south best examples of disquisitional thinkers, and it is their professional responsibleness to pay careful attention to the evidence and to apply the best methods of acquiring that prove carefully. It is true that at that place are many examples of scientists who have not acted as disquisitional thinkers; but pointing out these examples is not a expert reason to conclude that scientists cannot exist trusted any more than anyone else on scientific issues. This sub-issue of whether scientists are always totally reliable is a red herring.
Practise \(\PageIndex{ane}\)
What is the specific effect about minority politics referred to in the headline of the following newspaper article? The commodity's author isn't taking a position on either side of the event.
Minority Politics at Event in Merger
If Johnson Canton voters approve the merger of urban center and county governments into one mega-government in the November election, how minorities exercise political power could be dramatically transformed.
At least 2 electric current elected officials—both minorities—contend that the transformation ways that minority communities will lose what little influence they at present have.
Those minorities who helped write the proposal insist, however, that the local community councils formed nether the merger volition offer an unprecedented opportunity for minorities to hold office and to sway the debates on bug vital to their communities. There will be no loss of acceptable representation, they argue.2
a. The consequence is the ballot in Johnson Canton.
b. The event is minority politics in Johnson Canton.
c. The outcome is that the local community councils formed under the merger will offer an unprecedented opportunity for minorities to concord office and to sway the debates on problems vital to their communities.
d. The outcome is whether the merger in Johnson County will weaken minority influence in regime.
e. The issue is whether the result of the ballot for a merger in Johnson County will injure minorities.
- Answer
-
Answer (d). The issue is whether the merger of the city and canton governments of Johnson County will result in loss of acceptable political representation for minorities. Answer (e) is not equally good considering it doesn't say what minorities might lose. Answers (a) and (b) are too imprecise, though they say naught false. Answer (c) is the worst respond considering information technology comes downward on i side of the real issue by using the word that instead of whether.
A discussion is easier to follow if everybody stays on the topic and doesn't stray off on tangents. The duty of the logical reasoner is to avert getting lost and diverting the attention of others from the topic at hand. Stacey doesn't do her duty in the following conversation:
Macey: Would the Oakland A's be in first place if they were to win tomorrow'southward baseball game game?
Stacey: What makes yous think they'll ever win tomorrow'southward game?
Stacey has committed the fallacy of avoiding the question. Her respond does not answer the question; information technology avoids it. This fallacy (error) is one kind of fallacy of fugitive the event, considering answering the question is the upshot here. Answering a question with a question is a mutual way of avoiding an issue.
Like magicians, most politicians are experts at steering our attention away from the real effect. A politico was one time asked, "Exercise y'all think either the U.S. National Security Council or the Pentagon is actively involved in covert activities in this region of Cardinal America?" The politician responded with, "I retrieve the fact that the president has sent troops into Central America in the by is not necessarily a reason to expect that he will do so now in this region of the earth. There has been a lot of pressure by the U.S. banking community to upset the economic situation, but I seriously doubt that we tin can expect anything as overt as the sending of U.S. troops into the region. On the other hand, neighboring countries may be upset, so there is always a threat of invasion from that direction."
The consequence was whether the government was involved in covert (secret) activities in Key America. The political leader avoided that consequence by directing attention toward overt (public) activities. The politician cleverly and intentionally committed the fallacy of avoiding the issue. Considering politicians are so probable to apply this avoidance technique, reporters at press conferences are ofttimes permitted a follow-up question. A practiced follow-up here would be, "Cheers, sir, but I asked about the likelihood of covert operations, not overt ones. Can yous speak to that result?"
Exercise \(\PageIndex{1}\)
In the following interview, does Pee-Wee Herman reply the question put to him, or does he avoid it?2
Interviewer: Did you include the romance in your picture equally a response to people labeling you as asexual or of indeterminate gender?
Pee-Wee: It's only something I wanted to do. I never understand why people say that, though. A lot of the reviews of the show mentioned stuff like "His gender is confusing to children." To me it'southward clearly male on my TV show. I don't see the confusion. I don't habiliment wigs or cross-dress. My proper noun is Pee-Wee. In that location aren't a lot of women named Pee-Wee. Probably from this interview a lot of them will write to me, [gruffly] "Mah name is Pee-Wee and ah'm a woman."
- Answer
-
Pee-Wee's comments practise answer the question that was asked; they don't sidestep it. When asked whether he included the romance in order to overcome accusations about his sexuality, he directly answered the question by saying he included it just considering he wanted to and not because he wanted to overcome accusations about his sexuality. He then went on to accost the accusations about his sexuality. You may believe he has a weak answer, or you may believe he didn't say plenty. Nevertheless, a weak answer is still an answer, so Pee-Wee did non commit the fallacy of avoiding the question.
A final note virtually the fallacy of fugitive the question. If somebody asks yous a question, yous wouldn't automatically be committing the fallacy by refusing to answer the question. Merely if y'all should answer but don't do you commit the fallacy.
An arguer might propose several issues while addressing another result. The distinction is of import in this chat:
Sanderson: These Korean video cassettes are a lot cheaper than the ones Sony makes.
Tamanaka: Yeah, it's a shame. It's time Congress quit contemplating its bellybutton and created tariffs against Korean electronic imports.
Sanderson: I don't see any reason for tariffs. Tariffs only restrict free trade.
Tamanaka: In that location should be more U.S. tariffs against Korean electronic imports because Koreans are getting unfair assistance from their authorities to subsidize their electronics manufacturing and because Koreans already accept too much influence in the American economic system.
The effect in the conversation is whether in that location should be more than tariffs against Korean electronic imports. The argument in Tamanaka's terminal remarks addresses this issue. However, his remarks likewise suggest other issues, such as: Is there annihilation wrong with having Korean influence on the American economy? If it being right or wrong depends on how much Korean influence, and then how much is as well much? Are Korean electronics manufacturers really getting a government subsidy? If so, is that unfair? These side issues get suggested, just they don't get addressed in Tamanaka's argument. An argument will ordinarily address i consequence at a time. If you create an statement, your reasoning will be easier to follow if you take the issues one at a fourth dimension and non try to handle everything at in one case.
one Liberally adapted from an article by Eric Mattson in The Sacramento Bee, September 17,1990
ii From Interview, July 1987. p. 46
Source: https://human.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Philosophy/Book%3A_Logical_Reasoning_(Dowden)/05%3A_Obstacles_to_Better_Communication/5.06%3A_Not_Sticking_to_the_Issue_and_Not_Treating_It_Fairly/5.6.02%3A_Diverting_Attention_from_the_Issue
0 Response to "Again Diverting Attention Away From the Argument at Hand"
Post a Comment