The advertisers hope that we will make a subliminal or unconscious connection between Lux soap and our secret desire to be famous, perhaps to be a movie star. Such a connection is false for several reasons, the bulk of which will be presented in other chapters. The psychological principle exploited here for the benefit of the advertiser is that once two items are associated in the human consciousness, each item tends to recall the other. This psychological principle is called tied association because the two items are mentally tied together. When we think of black, if we have previously associated black with white, we will think of white and vice versa. For the same reason, cats will make most people recall dogs and Lucky Strike will mean fine tobacco.
The Lux ad wanted you to associate Lux soap with the glamour of p. 74 movie stars. When you saw Lux in the store, the advertiser wanted you to buy the soap and did not care why you bought the soap—even if you bought the soap for the wrong reasons. As far as the advertiser was concerned, it was enough that you bought the soap. The skeptic in me might even claim that the advertiser wanted you to irrationally generalize the message that perhaps a soap that was good enough for a movie star would be good enough for you. More than that, the advertiser wanted you to get the idea, however preposterous, that using Lux could make you famous.
OK, all is well and good. We now know that the endorsement of one star is not a good reason to buy soap. But what about the people who have written to the company and have given their own testimony about Lux? Isn’t that a reason to pause and consider buying Lux? Or anything else?
Remember those old Camel cigarette ads? Is the fact that nine of ten doctors smoke Camels sufficient reason for us to smoke Camels, too? Are Camels really good for our T zone (whatever that is), the way the doctors in the advertisement said? Notice that I am picking on historic advertisements because in retrospect we know that they were bull. Contemporary advertisements are similarly unreasonable and as easily attacked.
Principle: Endorsements are not worth our attention. What’s in a firm’s mailbag, testimonies to the benefits conferred by the product, are not worth our attention.
Advertisers sometimes print grateful letters from people who have bought their wares. Such letters prove one thing and one thing only. Such letters prove that the writer liked the product. An unscrupulous firm might get nine hundred ninety-nine letters complaining that its soap was worthless and its claims for the soap were fraudulent and only one letter praising the product. If it prints the one and suppresses the others, partially selecting the evidence, then any generalization about the value or popularity of the product would be worthless. The published letter would create an illusion, as advertising often does, that the product is good when in fact it is not good. In fact, it is not good for the majority (999/1,000) who used it.
Lesson: Advertising endorsements are meaningless and should not be believed or acted upon.
p. 75 General conclusions about products have to be based on carefully selected and characteristic samples, not on partially selected and often dubious evidence. In advertising, it is almost never the case that the evidence is scientifically selected and impartially presented.
The real motive behind partially selected evidence is to reinforce prejudice. Watch out for that because there is a real tendency to seize upon facts that are agreeable to us and to ignore those that are not.
Personal preferences should put us on guard against the possibility of erroneous conclusions and overgeneralizations.
If I like to drink wine, I might look favorably on news reports that tell me that drinking wine will be good for me and will prevent me from getting a heart attack or a stroke. If I wish to argue reasonably, I must counter this tendency by searching for conflicting evidence. The confidence that can repose in the generalization that wine is good for me should not depend so much upon a few striking reports from France apparently verifying the statement as upon the thoroughness of the search made for instances disproving the theory. The wine generalization must be based on investigations covering a sufficiently wide field, and the instances studied must be representative of people like myself, not just the French. The French may be eating something else that prevents heart attacks and therefore the benefits of wine drinking are more apparent than real. In fact, wine drinking might be associated with a higher social and economic status and increased consumption of vegetables and less stress, all of which might be the controlling factors reducing the incidence of heart attack and stroke. In view of all that, the wine drinking might be a spurious association or a confounding variable. As discussed, even if the wine statement meets all these conditions, it should be regarded as a working rule or hypothesis subject to review and revision in view of new data.
Advertisers have nearly perfected the art of unreasonable thinking. Very few advertisements appeal to reason; most prefer mere assertion, repetition, and tied suggestions, which are themselves irrational overgeneralizations. Virginia Slims cigarettes don’t make you thin, though that is what the advertiser wants you to believe. Virginia Slims don’t make you beautiful, though that is what—by showing a young, beautiful woman smoking a Slim—the advertiser would like you to believe. Virginia Slims don’t bring on the men, though that is what—by showing those shadowy male figures in the background—the maker would like you to believe. Virginia Slims don’t make you a free spirit p. 76 and individual thinker, though that is what—by showing statements like “I look temptation in the face and make my own decisions”—the cigarette maker would like you to believe.
Conclusion: In most cases, advertising = bunk.
From which follows:
Lesson: Have nothing to do with it.
Before we go on to chapter 2, we pause for a brief word about general rules and exceptions.
General rules admit no exceptions, else they would not be truly general.
Do exceptions prove the rule?
Think about this.
How many times have you heard that “the exception proves the rule.” This assertion might silence criticism for fifteen seconds, but it is a meaningless statement. General rules admit no exceptions. If exceptions exist, they prove the rule wrong. Incidentally, the word prove in this context originally meant “test,” and the statement was a way to test the general rule by looking for exceptions. This method of disproving general rules is exactly what we discussed. To test a rule by looking for exceptions is the way to test the rule. If an exception is found, it then proves the rule wrong.
Pseudoscholars like me think that the assertion that “the exception proves the rule” came from a poor translation of the Latin phrase Exceptio probat regulam, which means that rules cover every case not (specifically) excepted.
Oh well, into every life a little rain must fall.
To those of you who have made it so far, much thanks. There is one last molehill to climb before we head into the review and then enter the next chapter and start our downhill coast through the rest of this book. That molehill is called syllogism, a word from the Greek syn, meaning “together,” and logizesthai, meaning “reason,” hence “reasoning together.” Syllogism is a form of generalization in which statements, also known as premises, are made and a conclusion is drawn from them.
A syllogism is an argument or form of reasoning in which (usually two) statements—called premises—are made and a conclusion is drawn from them.
Example:
p. 77 1. All mammals are warm blooded. (major premise)
2. Whales are mammals. (minor premise)
3. Therefore, whales are warm blooded. (conclusion)
1 + 2 + 3 = the syllogism.
Because there are three sentences in each categorical syllogism, and each sentence can be one of four moods (A, E, I, O: universal affirmative, universal negative, particular affirmative, particular negative), that gives sixty-four different categorical syllogisms. Since there are four figures to each syllogism (that is, arrangements of the major term, minor term, and middle term), there are 256 known forms of categoric
al syllogism.
Logicians have distinguished the valid syllogism from the invalid. Although valid and invalid are fundamental to most contemporary academic systems of logic, we are not (much) concerned with them here because this is a book of practical, not formal, logic designed to help you know the truth, not to acquaint you with the intellectual heritage of the Western world. However, it is important to mention the most common error in syllogism, which is known as the undistributed middle. This example will give you an idea of how formal logic operates and how it is concerned with appraising truth values by studying the interrelations of premises. Consider the following:
1. All mammals are warm blooded. (major premise)
2. Whales are warm blooded. (minor premise)
3. Therefore, whales are mammals. (conclusion)
In this syllogism, the conclusion is true but not logically deducible from the premises. Premise 1 did not say that all warm-blooded animals are mammals. If premise 1 did say that, it would have been dead wrong. In fact, considerable evidence indicates that the dinosaurs were warm blooded (they were animals), and, of course, birds are always warm blooded (they are animals). So premises 1 and 2 as stated above do not logically make conclusion 3, because premise 1, though true, does not include the fact that some warm-blooded animals are not mammals. It is easier to see the reason for this with cars as an example:
1. All Fords are cars. (major premise)
2. I own a car. (minor premise)
3. Therefore, I own a Ford. (conclusion)
p. 78 In fact, I do own a Lincoln Continental, which is a Ford product, so that conclusion is true. But it is not logical because premise 1 didn’t state that all cars are Fords. In fact, if premise 1 did state that, it would have been incorrect because there are many kinds of cars besides Fords. I could easily have owned some other kind of car.
In both the whale and the car syllogism, the problem arose because the middle term—that common to both the major and minor premises—did not encompass the whole universe of possible warm-blooded animals (example one) or cars (example two). In technical terms, the middle term of the major premise was not distributed, that is, it didn’t apply to each member of the mentioned class of warm blooded animals (example one) and each member of the mentioned class of cars (example two). There were other members of the class of warm-blooded animals that were not whales, and there were other members of the class of cars that were not Fords. Thus, the conclusions were actually generalizations that were not true.
A very famous syllogism offers us another view of how reasoning from syllogism can get us into trouble:
1. All men are mortal. (major premise)
2. Socrates is a man. (minor premise)
3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal. (conclusion)
The conclusion is true and was proven by Socrates’ death upon drinking the hemlock. But the syllogism is true only insofar as it encompasses all the observations to date. It certainly can’t be logically applied to future generations who may someday discover the secret of immortality. One single case to the contrary in the future would refute the Socrates syllogism.
How about this one? Can you find the defect?
1. Other men die.
2. I am not another man.
3. Therefore, I will not die.
Review
Time spent in review is never wasted. Neuroscientists have discovered that review fixes our memories by increasing the probability of reactivating p. 79 previously activated neuronal networks. Repeated reactivation results in actual structural changes in the brain that facilitate recall. Therefore, you should do it. (Notice that the repetition of this paragraph had the effect of giving you a sense of familiarity that you did not get when you first read it at the end of the introduction. Notice also that I filled in my deduction so that you can compare your deduction with mine.)
Exercises
1. Reread all the main points in this chapter. The main points are the principles, lessons, and the topic sentences presented in italics. When you have done so, give yourself a check here __.
2. Reread all the main points in this chapter aloud. When done, give yourself a check here __. Rereading aloud fixes the memory better than silent rereading does. Rereading on separate days fixes the memory better than rereading twice the same day. The more you reread, the more you will fix the memory. But don’t overdo it. Four times should be quite enough. You don’t want to acquire the reputation of being a harmless drudge.
3. How would you prove wrong the statement that women who wear glasses never smoke? Give yourself a check mark if you think you are right __. Hint: The answer to this question is in the chapter. If you understand the answer to this question, you know how to prove a generalization wrong.
4. Do you really believe that all scientific knowledge is tentative and not known to be absolutely true for all times and all places? Give yourself a check mark if you think you are right __.
5. Do cats think? How do you know? Give yourself a check mark if you think you are right __.
6. What is the cause of most incorrect, unreasonable, false, and defective thinking? Give yourself a check mark if you think you are right __. Hint: This is a trick question in that it was covered in the introduction, not in chapter 1. Hint: If you are not sure about the answer, don’t be lazy. Look it up in the introduction.
7. Explain why statements with words like all, always, and never are likely to be wrong. Give yourself a check if your answer seems OK __.
8. “Smoking pot is always bad.” Why is such a statement wrong? p. 80 What error in thinking is involved? Why do I call a statement like that an overgeneralization? Is it also an example of black-and-white thinking? Give yourself one, two, or three checks depending on how well you feel you answered the questions ___.
9. What is evidence? What is the best kind of evidence? Give yourself two checks if correct ___. Hint: The answer to this question was hidden in the text. I defined evidence as any sign that leads to the correct perception of the truth. As such, evidence would include facts, intelligent experimentation, clear reasoning, verification, and a host of other signs that include formal and informal logic, which indicate the way to truth.
10. What is unreasonable about blindly following the dictates of an authority? How can following the dictates of an authority lead to trouble? Under what circumstances should you follow the dictates of an authority? Hint: Should you trust yourself to fly a 747 to Tahiti, or should you trust the UTA pilot who has flown the trip many times? How about surgery? Would you consider yourself qualified to repair a leaking aortic valve, or would you let a heart surgeon do the job? Give yourself four checks if you thought about the possible answers to the above questions and your answers seem OK ____.
11. What is unreasonable about the following? “As the author of a book on logic, I can claim to be qualified to diagnose a straightforward case of manic-depressive psychosis. Unequivocally, Andrea Yates was not thinking logically, and her behavior was irrational at the time she drowned her children.” Give yourself a check mark if you think you are right __. Hint: Authority in one field is not authority in another. An author of a logic book is not a forensic psychiatrist. An explanation of the psychological or irrational mechanisms that led Andrea Yates to drown her five children may explain what happened, but it doesn’t necessarily excuse it, much less justify it.
12. Read about the famous Charge of the Light Brigade or study Alfred, Lord Tennyson’s poem on the subject. Explain why the English brigade of about six hundred men unflinchingly obeyed an erroneous order though they knew “someone had blundered.” Why would military men, at great disadvantage to themselves , make a heroic but futile charge against Russian p. 81 heavy artillery at the Battle of Balaklava in the Crimean War? Is it reasonable to obey an order, even a military order, if you know it is wrong? Why do American military personnel take an oath to obey all “reasonable and lawful” orders, rather than an oath to obey all orders? Give yourself two checks if you had the energy to look up the charg
e or if you read the poem. Give yourself five checks if you did both ______.
If you feel up to it, check your answers to the questions above by rereading the appropriate sections of the text. If you got most of them correct, stop here and reward yourself in some way with a simple pleasure that will also serve to fix the memories. Rewards for work well done help the brain function effectively.
If you don’t feel up to checking your answers, go on to the next chapter and learn about a common source of communication difficulties, vague definition.
Notes
1. Robert Frost, The Poetry of Robert Frost: The Collected Poems (New York: Henry Holt, 1979), p. 17, line 13.
2. Both quotations appear in Anthony Flew, How to Think Straight: An Introduction to Critical Reasoning (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1998), p. 37.
3. Quoted by Louis Rukeyser, “There Is No Magic Key: Only Knowledge and Consistency,” Louis Rukeyser’s Mutual Funds (February 2001).
4. Martin J. Medhurst, Dwight D. Eisenhower: Strategic Communicator (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1993), pp. 78, 167. The original quotation comes from a March 27, 1970, Life article by John K. Jessup.
5. This quotation is based on Don DeLillo, White Noise (New York: Penguin, 1985), pp. 114, 117.
6. In Paul H. H. Schoemaker, “Disciplined Imagination: From Scenarios to Strategic Options,” International Studies of Management and Organization 27 (1997): 1.
Truth, Knowledge, or Just Plain Bull: How to tell the difference Page 9