by Caleb Nelson
“There are only two parts to a speech: you make a statement and you prove it.”
[466] - Aristotle, Rhetoric
Identify the principle they need to learn next and the primary facts upon which the principle rests. Then construct questions to which those facts are the answers.
For example: someone believes that “Governments have the moral authority to tax, and this authority is derived from the people.” The principle you are teaching is Collective Action Has No Unique Moral Authority. One of the facts this is based on is that people cannot delegate rights they do not have.
The questions you might ask to arrive at this fact are:
· “Do you as an individual have the right to tax me personally?”
· “Do I have the right to tax you?”
· “Do any of your neighbors have the right to tax you?”
· “If I and all your neighbors, who don’t have the right to tax you, got together and voted to tax you, would we have the right to do that?”
· “Would you agree zero plus zero cannot equal more than zero?”
· “So would you agree that one person without the authority to do something, plus another person without that authority, equals two people without the authority to do it?”
· “So even if we add a thousand other individuals without the authority to tax you, what we end up with is a group of people who still don’t have any authority to take your money.”
If this fails, you may then inform them they believe in fairies and remove yourself from the conversation.
“But if one asks him what he means by a given idea, he will not be able to answer. If one asks him the reasons of his convictions, one will discover that his convictions are a thin fragile film floating over a vacuum, like an oil slick in empty space—and one will be shocked by the number of questions it had never occurred to him to ask . . . all hell breaks loose when [his beliefs are challenged] because what is threatened then is not a particular idea, but that mind’s whole structure. The hell ranges from fear to resentment to stubborn evasion to hostility to panic to malice to hatred.”
[467] - Ayn Rand
HOW TO INTERACT WITH PEOPLE
If only teaching people truth were as easy as dialectics! Unfortunately teaching requires much more than discussion. People are naturally protective of their beliefs, and if they perceive they are being attacked in the slightest, or condescended to, their critical thinking shuts down completely and they go into defensive mode. This phenomenon is described by marital therapist Dr. John Gottman as flooding. Flooding is when the body experiences the physiological fight or flight response. Respiration and heart rate quicken, blood is diverted from the brain and non-essential organs to the limbs to prepare for action. Flooding destroys any ability you had to think rationally. If the person you are talking to feels attacked, whether you are actually attacking or not, they will be incapable of learning.
Before you can teach someone, you have to have their buy-in. They must not only think, but feel, that your only concern is teaching, not making them look dumb. They must also feel you have something worthwhile to teach. You must make them feel safe. They must feel comfortable admitting they are wearing the emperor’s new clothes in front of you. If they suspect any hint of condescension, they will dismiss you out of hand. Truly, people don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care. In other words, relationship precedes education. The only time this is not true is when you’re dealing with someone who values truth over ego. (But as intellectual honesty is a province of the emotionally mature, expect it at nearly the same frequency as unicorns.)
When proceeding in conversation with people, take great care to make them feel comfortable. Begin by letting them know that you want to discuss ideas and not cause any strife (and mean it). Separate the person from the belief. Let them know that they are not being attacked. If at any time you sense that they are feeling attacked, take a step back and reestablish their feeling of safety. Don’t be afraid to ask them if they are feeling upset, but be prepared to be lied to, and take a step back anyway. This will show that you are more concerned about them than about proving your point.
With this in mind, timing is vital. The time to engage in dialectics is not during a heated political discussion. When people want to debate, they are seeking to reinforce their beliefs, stroke their egos, and aren’t interested in learning. The opportunity for teaching is almost never when “politics” has come up in a conversation.
COMMON FALLACIES
“When a politician says that he or she wants to open up a ‘debate’ on this or that burning question of the day, the interested citizen should immediately be on their guard. For this is political code for not wanting any kind of real discussion at all. What is meant instead is that we should accept the politician’s definition of both problem and answer in terms that the politician wants, and then ‘debate’ within those parameters.”
[468] - Will Hutton
The purpose of this next section, in addition to boring you with lots of Latin, is to point out the common flaws in man’s thinking. By being familiar with these defective modes of thought you will be much more able to point them out and correct them. We would recommend taking the time to memorize each one; it’s very difficult to identify something if you cannot name it. It’s easier to help someone see the flaw in their thinking when you are able to clearly state the principle of the fallacy, give an example, and then show how their argument conformed to it. It is important also to be aware of these cognitive distortions so that you can avoid them in your own life. With a little introspection, you are sure to find some of these fallacies in your own thinking. (We drew heavily from wikipedia’s list of common fallacies for this section.
[469] )
IRRELEVANT CONCLUSION FALLACIES
The irrelevant conclusion fallacy is also commonly known as Non-Sequitur (“it does not follow”), Ignoratio Elenchi (ignorance of refutation), and Red Herring.
[470]
The irrelevant conclusion fallacy applies to any fallacy in which the conclusion of the argument does not follow from the major premise (the first premise). These types of arguments are wrong by default because their form is flawed. Even though the major or minor premise might be correct, the argument itself is always invalid. Many types of fallacies fall into this category:
Red Herring—Typically an evasion, intentional or not, which draws attention away from the argument by laying a false trail. Example: “I think that we should make the academic requirements stricter for students. I recommend that you support this because we are in a budget crisis and we do not want our salaries affected.” The topic is academic requirements; the red herring is teachers’ salaries.
Ad Hominem—An attack on the person who is arguing rather than on their ideas. This is a red herring because it uses name calling to distract from the argument. Example: “My opponent is a racist, therefore his policy is bad for America.”
Ad Populum—An argument which claims to be true based on the number of people who believe it or how popular it is. Example: “90% of Nazis believe gassing Jews is moral; therefore gassing Jews is moral.”
Ad Baculum—An “appeal to the stick” using fear, threat, or force. Example: “The Dear Leader is always right. All citizens who prefer to keep their teeth believe this.”
Ad Verecundiam—Basing the truth of a proposition on what an authority figure has to say. Example: “My professor said it’s true, and he has a Ph.D.” “An expert economist said that the more debt we have the richer we are. Do you have an economics degree?” “The government said it, so it’s true.”
Fallacy of False Cause,—Incorrectly assumes one thing is the cause of another. Example: “I hear rain outside my window. Therefore the sun is not shining.” This conclusion is false because the sun can shine while it is raining. “The economy is collapsing; therefore capitalism failed.” Economies can collapse under other social systems. There are two additional applications for the False Caus
e Fallacy:
Post hoc ergo prompter hoc—That temporal succession implies a causal relation. Example: “I misbehaved, and then my parents got divorced. I caused my parents’ divorce.” “George Bush was elected, and then the housing market collapsed. George Bush caused the recession.”
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc—That happenstance or correlation implies a causal relation. Example: “People became free and prosperous enough to fight against child labor in the 19th century. Free-markets were growing in the 19th century. Therefore, free-markets caused child labor.” “More cows die in the summer. More people eat ice cream in the summer. Eating ice cream kills cows.”
OTHER FALLACIES
“Debate skill cannot by itself make good citizens, but the American who cannot speak effectively in an organized way is a voiceless citizen, one whose good ideas may be lost in the crowd or never heard.”
[471] - The Debater’s Guide
Confirmation Bias (cherry picking)—This is the disturbing habit of selectively filtering perceptions, keeping what supports your beliefs and ignoring what doesn’t. This one is disturbing because everyone does it unconsciously until they train themselves not to. Example: A person who thinks racism is getting more prevalent will remember negative interactions and forget positive ones between ethnic groups.
Sweeping Generalizations—A general rule that disregards exceptions. Examples: “All generalizations are false.” “Public schools do a poor job.”
Hasty Generalization—Using a specific case making a general rule. Example: “I ate at Applebee’s and got food poisoning. Applebee’s will give you food poisoning.”
Ad ignorantiam—Appeal to ignorance. Making an argument based on a lack of evidence to the contrary. Example: “There is no proof that God does not exist, therefore God exists.” “Until you give proof that Care Bears don’t exist, I say they do.” Rather than proving its correctness, this attempts to shift the burden of proof on to you and require that you prove a negative. The problem is, you cannot logically prove a negative. If something does not have proof of existing, then there is no evidence one could produce to show that it doesn’t. Its own lack of evidence is all the proof you can have.
Affirming the Consequent—Drawing a conclusion from premises that do not support it by assuming q implies p on the basis that p implies q. Example: “If Kenneth lifts weights, he must be sexy. Kenneth lifts weights. Therefore Kenneth is sexy.” “A free economy results in people getting rich. If people are rich, there must be a free economy.”
Denying the Antecedent—The opposite or negative of affirming the antecedent. Example: “If Kenneth lifts weights, he must be sexy. Kenneth does not lift weights. Therefore Kenneth is not sexy.”
Circular Reasoning (Begging the Question, (petitio principii)—Draws conclusion by means of a premise that assumes the conclusion; assuming the answer; arguing in a circle. It might be true, but it is has insufficient proof. Example: “God created everything, if he didn’t, we wouldn’t be here.” “She is a liar because she can’t be trusted.” Neither statement proves the point.
Straw Man—A component of an argument based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. To “attack a straw man” is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet nonequivalent proposition (the “straw man”), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position. The vast majority of attacks against capitalism are straw man attacks, which are also very popular in political speeches. Opponents set up such straw men as “Highly regulated (insert industry name here) just tanked and people lost billions. This proves that capitalism doesn’t work. We need more regulations.”
False dichotomy, (false dilemma)—Where two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are more. “Government can either legislate to help the rich or the poor.” As the character Ginger from the film Chicken Run said: “Listen, we’ll either die free chickens or we die trying.” Babs responds: “Are those the only two choices?”
Is–ought problem—The inappropriate inference that because something is some way, so it ought to be that way. It is confusing the man-made with the metaphysically given. “Governments have always taxed their citizens. That is the only way society can work.”
Naturalistic fallacy—A fallacy that claims that if something is natural, pleasant, popular, etc. then it is good or right. “Many in Britain love the National Health Service. It must be a good thing to have.”
Nirvana fallacy—When solutions to problems are said not to be right because they are not perfect. “We can’t cut national expenses; it won’t solve the problem immediately.” “We shouldn’t open up more domestic oil drilling; it would take decades before we’d see any benefits.”
Package-deal fallacy—Consists of assuming that things often grouped together by tradition or culture must always be grouped that way. “My opponent is a conservative who voted against higher taxes and welfare, therefore he will also oppose gun control and immigration.” “If government doesn’t build roads, who will?”
Argumentum ad consequentiam—Appeal to the consequences. Example: “If you vote for that third party candidate, the incumbent Democrat will win the election. Therefore you should vote for the Republican candidate.” This is one of the most common ways you will see this fallacy demonstrated—the lesser of two evils argument—in which a person takes responsibility for outcomes beyond their control.
Review
Q1. What are the four branches of philosophy and what basic questions do each seek to answer?
Q2. What does using the Socratic Method consist of?
Q3. Why is making someone feel safe a prerequisite for teaching them?
Q4. Pick 3 logical fallacies and offer examples you have heard in your own life.
Appendix B: List of Principles
MAJOR PRINCIPLES
· Existence exists.
· Principles govern.
· Happiness is the purpose of life.
· There is no truth without context.
· All that which is proper to the life of a rational being is good; all that which destroys it is evil.
· Collective action has no unique moral authority.
· Man’s primary motivating force begins with self-interest.
· Force destroys freedom and prosperity.
· Personal freedom requires private property.
· Agency implies responsibility.
· The proper role of government is the protection of individual rights, which means the protection of individuals from the initiation of physical force.
· The government is only morally authorized to act in those spheres in which you, the individual also have the right to act.
· Taxes discourage production.
· Credit diverts production
· Production, not consumption, grows an economy.
· People are assets, (things are not).
· Exchange creates wealth.
· Happiness is a function of achieving rational, life-serving values; higher energy causes greater happiness.
· There is no exploitation without force or deception.
· Dollars follow value.
· Profit is a tool of validation.
· Human Life Value is the source of all property value.
· Productivity is the standard.
· Human behavior changes with incentives.
· Perspective Determines Action.
In addition to these major principles, you may want to take some time to articulate principles that are specific to your life and goals. Such principles should be based on true broad principles, but can be as specific as these examples:
· Morning exercise helps me feel more alert throughout the day.
· White lies aren’t helpful in my relationship with my spouse.
· My “work” time needs to be away from the internet so I don’t get distracted.
· My children feel and act bet
ter when they eat healthier.
· Thursday is laundry day (or an even broader: Everyday of the week has a specific purpose, which helps me be more productive).
· I budget better and make fewer impulse purchases when I make a shopping list.
· A weekly nature hike helps relieve stress.
Appendix C: Recommended Reading
For further reading on the principles of freedom, we recommend the following (such a recommendation is not a blanket endorsement of everything these authors and organizations believe):
THE FOUNDING PRINCIPLES OF AMERICA
Allison, A., Maxfield, M., and W. Cleon Skousen. The Real Thomas Jefferson. Washington D.C.: National Center for Constitutional Studies, 1991.
Allison, A., Parry, J., and W. Cleon Skousen. The Real George Washington. Washington D.C.: National Center for Constitutional Studies, 1991.