Argument Mechanics - The Realm of Reason Part X (Cause)

Cause

Causal arguments attempt to support causal statements - those that reduce to the claim that A causes B.

- cause may be particular ie. this individual thing caused, is causing, or will cause something - or they may be general  ie. this type of thing causes this other type.

- causes may be affirmative or negative.

We have immediate cause, proximate cause.

Causes are not exclusionary: different interests suggest different avenues of prevention, or cure, and hence different causes.

Unlike “did” and “do” causal statements, which require more proof,  “could” causal statements are established simply by getting duplicate results in duplicate conditions.

A true “could” causal statement definitely rebuts a claim that something cannot be or have been done.

Most causation results not from a single claim of immediate and proximate causes, but from complexes of factors.

When wishing to emphasise the complexity of a problem people speak of contributory causes (no one thing is responsible).

Many a perceived “difference” has turned out to be purely psychological.

Assessing the causal arguments of others, is frequently an obligation of good citizenship.  Therefore it is important to have explicitly in mind what good causal arguments look like, and to be articulate at explaining the strengths and weaknesses of those sorts of causal arguments.

Good causal arguments are (1) congruent (they state a connection between occurrence or phenomena), (2) always contain an exclusion aspect, a ruling out.

- if we connect two occurrences we have a connection but not yet a causal connection.

correlation - a repeated, regular connection between one phenomena and another.

- a correlation connects one phenomenon with another.

- correlations may be of degree.

Correlations may be positive, or direct, or they may be inverse, or negative.

Many correlations are coincidence.  Then again many correlations result not from the action of one variable upon another but from that of yet another variable.

Some correlations, though parts of a causal chain, do not count as causal because their point in the chain is not the one at which we can exert control, or is incidental to the point in the chain where we can exert it.

post hoc ergo propter hoc = “after it, therefore because of it”, an error in logic or bad causal reasoning.

A simple causal argument can be seen as built on an “if then” premise, the causal hypothesis.

Good causal arguments are twofold comparisons, (1) “before” and “after”, but requires a control group[(i) a control is matched to the material being tested in every respect except one, namely the alleged cause, (ii) a test or trial is run, (iii) if the test material undergoes change and the control does not then the change is attributable to the difference]

retrospective and prospective studies make use of natural controls.

- retrospective studies can be valuable in defining causal issues and in leading to breakthroughs, but they are rarely sufficient to settle causal issues.

- even second-best attempts at controls are better than no attempt.

The term “control” denotes not only the standard against which a supposed causal change is measured but also the whole process of monitoring and regulating the many details, which could affect the result.

Placebo effect - “effects” tend to occur for no other reason than that subjects expect them to occur.

Test should be done blind ie. the subjects not knowing which stimulus, which batch, they are sampling.

- the test should be repeated (replicated).

Avoid a possible order effect, half the subjects should be given the test material first and half given to the control first.

“fatigue” effect - senses become dull upon successive simulation.

crossover - test and control are reversed in a latter trial.

Groups which are to be compared must be comparable.

A result is said to be causally significant when the probability of its having occurred by chance falls below a certain level.

Significance will be higher the greater the difference between control and test groups. the greater the number of trials, the greater the number of individuals and the less the inherent variability in the material.

Argument Mechanics - The Realm of Reason Part IX (Comparison)

Comparison

When we place 2 or more things together in order to measure them against each other, we make a comparison.

When a similarity, a likeness, seems to be found, we have to that degree an analogy.

- analogies go by various names: simile, fable, precedent, model, metaphor, caricature, extrapolation.

Comparisons underlie the acquisition and practice of language and everything else distinctly human.

Analogies can also mislead.

There is some difference between simply stating a resemblance between two things and drawing a conclusion from a resemblance (the former is an analogy, the latter an analogical statement).  Whoever uses it argues by or from analogy.

Sizing up an analogy (1) exactly what is at issue, (2) exactly what is being compared, (3) exactly what are the real similarities and differences.  Next one should be able to either (4) attack half of the comparison, (5) attack or defend the analogy, (6) change it, (7) extend it, or (8) attack the pivot.

- using an analogical argument in support of a point not at issue would be to argue irrelevantly.

When considering a difficult and important analogical argument, one should try to achieve perspective by listing similarities and differences.

Since analogies typically convey more psychological force than logical force any chance to nip a misleading analogy in the bud should not be missed.

If possible, attack a premise.

Instead of wasting words in trying to break an arguments spell, one can sometimes make use of the spell.  One can turn the magic against its perpetrator by extending the analogy.  Thus elaborated, the analogy may actually support a thesis contrary to the one claimed for it, or lead to ridiculous consequences.

An analogical argument can be thought of a “pivoting” on an implied generalisation.  The pivot generalisation, if true, underwrites the argument and, if false, weakens or ruins it.

In an argument from historical analogy, one or more historical situations, together with a present or impending situation are found similar.  The past situation(s) contain an additional characteristic.  The inference is then drawn that the present or impending situation also exhibits the characteristic.  Then an implication for policy is drawn or left to speak for itself.

To behave justly is close to, or is, being fair.  Fairness dictates equal treatment - similar action in similar circumstances.  Therefore much moral argument will be analogical.

defenses usually stress analogy of treatment in analogous situations.

condemnations and entreaties usually stress disanalogy of treatment in disanalogous situations.

Many analogical arguments sometimes lurk in seemingly innocent explanatory metaphors and similes.  They hide beneath veiled references.

The careful reasoner will have developed facility at making implicit comparisons explicit.

Argument Mechanics - The Realm of Reason Part VIII (Generality)

Generality

- some generalisations are causal, some are arrived at by analogy and some arguments which are technically analogical (weather forecasts) methodologically resemble causal and generalising arguments.

- generalisations claim for all something believed known about some.  In each generalisation there is a conclusion and a basis for it.  The conclusions are all general statements, not themselves reasoning, but rather the results of reasoning.

General statements have been characterised by their outward form, by their containing certain terms in certain slots.

Generalisations are about “all”, “no” or the equivalent.  Generalisations can be either true or false.  Generalisations can be factual or definitional.

Hard generalisations are characterised by language such as “each”, “every”, “not one single...” etc. and can be falsified by one or more counter instances.

When a general statement is improperly objected to on the basis of a so-called “exception” which it never was intended to cover, we have the fallacy known as secundum quid or “from a qualified statement to an unqualified one”

Moral behaviour is introduced together with moral language and moral principles.

Moral principles are integral with the whole social fabric.  When moral principles get separated from that fabric, they get reduced to formulas.

Formulas fail as a basis for moral action unless they are accompanied by a deeper understanding.

Scientific laws get evaluated by their range of applicability, by their felicity with other theory, and by the accuracy of the deductions which can be made based on them.

Generalisations distribute - they apply distributively (collective statements)

It is easy to slide into thinking that what holds for the parts of the class must hold for the class as a whole, and vice versa.  To argue from a characteristic  of the parts of a group to a characteristic of the whole is to commit the fallacy of composition.

To argue from a characteristic of a whole to a characteristic of the parts commits the fallacy of division.

In composition the term equivocated upon appears in the premises in a distributive sense and in the conclusion in a collective sense.

In division a term appearing collectively in the premises appears distributively in the conclusion.

Much good reasoning does proceed from parts to whole, and vice versa.

Not many statistical generalisations are distributive.  A statistical generalisation applies a percentage or proportion to a class.

What counts is to generalise intelligently and to be articulate in assessing the generalising of others.

Simple and statistical projections frequently provide exact and powerful tools for getting the job done.

The art of induction, of making intelligent projections, is called sampling.

The goal of sampling is to obtain a representative sample, one which contains proportionally all relevant characteristics of the class projected to.

An unrepresentative sample is said to be biased.

The class projected to and sampled from is called the universe or population.

- sometimes a representative sample can be obtained by making a random or probability sample, one in which each member of the population has an equal chance of being selected.

“Random” is relative.  Random with respect to what population?

Changes can occur in the population between the sampling time and the time of the event projected to.

Sampling can be biased itself as in sampling without replacement.

Failure to distinguish between sampling with and sampling without replacement may account for the psychological trick called the “gamblers” or “Monte Carlo” fallacy, in which the victim imagines that each successive loss increases the chances of a win on the next round.  A vague analogy brought over from the gamblers previous experience in games where non-replacement is practiced.

A stratified random sample can be taken wherever variations in the parent group are familiar and known to effect the result.

Systematic or interval sampling selects every nth item beginning at a randomly selected starting point.

Cluster sampling is taking the sample in clusters as the clusters occur in the parent group.

Quota sampling, an investigator selects so many instances in each stratum of a stratified sample, not at random, but as they are found.

Besides varying the instances, the responsible generaliser should get enough instances.

The topic of proper sample size becomes technical very quickly.

Proper sample size depends on the desired precision of the results, on the number of instances in the sample, on the variation within the sample, and on the size of the population. (perhaps surprising population size is usually the least important factor in the list).

Two important elements in determining what is the appropriate sample size are (1) the margin of error which can be tolerated, and (2) the desired degree of confidence that the result will be within that margin.

The degree of precision in any sample is called its sampling error, an index of the  probability of a sample of that size falling within a certain percentage range (it is theoretical margin of error).

All things being equal, the precision of a sample increases with the square root of the sample size.

Polls and surveys are best seen as morally neutral - tools which can be used for good ends or for bad.

One ought not to take polls at face value.  Any poll worth considering ought to display its methodology.

Opinion survey reports ought to state at least the following (1) the sponsor’s name and surveyor’s name, (2) the sample size (and sampling error), (3) the date of contact, (4) exactly what population is being sampled and the method of contact, (6) the exact questions asked.

Responsible surveys consisting of people’s responses to questions must be designed in order to eliminate the charge that the questions themselves colour the results.  Questions undergo scrutiny by experienced critics in order to uncover poor wording.  Then they are tested on samples of respondents.  The questions are asked, then followed up with questioning designed to bring out respondents comprehension and true feelings.  Alternative formulations may be given to split samples in order to detect differences  between formulations.

Questions must be easy to understand.

Good questions should be short and cover one subject.

Questions should be divided, one question for goal, the other for the means.

Questions should be worded so as to avoid colouring the responses eg. “Are you a racist?”

People are inclined to say what they think the pollster wants to hear, and not what in fact they think.

People also tend to project what they imagine to be a favourable self-image.

Argument Mechanics - The Realm of Reason Part VII (Statistics)

Statistics

While not themselves authorities, statistics do resemble authorities in being frequently quotes as gospel, in adding a transfixing air of knowledgability and in being misused.

Whenever making or confronting an appeal of the “statistics show that...” sort, good thinkers will be prepared to ask a number of related questions: “Does it reflect reality?” “Is it complete?” “Is it appropriately precise?” “Are the standards uniform?” “When were the measurements made?”

Does it reflect reality eg. quoted the official exchange rate when there is a black market rate.

Most statistics achieve meaninglessness by being incomplete.  Half the truth, is zero truth.  Always demand completeness.

Most statistics are comparisons.  Comparisons have two or more parts.  Demand all parts.

Always look for the base from which a claim for a difference is made eg. “30% or more” ==> “30% more than what?”

Statistics in term of percentages, rates or proportions should usually indicate not only the base against which a difference is claimed, they should supply absolute numbers.

Ways sometimes exist of arriving at statistics which might at first seem impossible to obtain (via double, or sequence sampling) eg. only 80 of an estimated 800 rapes were reported last year.

Good statistical reporting sketches methodology.  It take little space and leaves strengths and weaknesses open for all to see.

Reports of statistics ought to identify the source.

If rises or falls in a statistic are to mean much, the standards before the change and after it must be uniform.

- watch out for garbage in, garbage out with statistical data gathering and quality.

System of significant figures - any expression of a measurement also states the degree of precision with which the measurement was made.

Like all classes of statistics, averages have their uses and abuses.

When we need to emphasise similarity or speak generally, when we want to lump together or sum up, or when we don’t know details, averages provide valuable tools.

With averages you need to look at the standard deviation as well.

Watch the use of means, modes and medians.

Pictorial statistics should accomplish visually what written or spoken statistics accomplish verbally (“a picture is worth a thousand words”)

However a misleading picture may be worth 10,000 misleading words.

Always check axes and scales for graphs.

Logarithmic scales are good for comparing rates which fluctuate from very different absolute bases eg. compare enrolment fluctuation at a small school with that of a large school.

Graphic distortion is really a form of equivocation, usually on relative terms.

Pictographs are especially prone to manipulation.  Are we to compare relative heights? relative areas? or relative volumes?

Argument Mechanics - The Realm of Reason Part VI (Appeal to Authority)

-->

Authority

A society requires authority to perpetuate the language, lore and institutions which form the social fabric.

- authority here in the sense of not only the people or publications ordinarily considered authorities, it covers anyone or anything whose word is taken.

The sensible approach to authority (instead of blanket distrust), is to nurture skills for distinguishing reliable authority from poor authority.

When a person is cited as an authority it is wise to have developed the habit of asking questions such as, “is it a matter for authority?”  “Is the authority expert on exactly this subject?” “Is the authority well recognised?”

On topics on which the experts are in disagreement, appealing to authority is usually insufficient.  In areas of disagreement any attempt of the form “it is so because A says so” can be easily countered with “Well, so what, B says such and such”

In such areas the proper alternative must be the withholding of judgment or a more direct form of argument.

It is amazing how frequently someone eminent in one area gets cited in order to glamorize a conclusion in another area.  This deception has been called the fallacy of “borrowed” authority.

The deceptiveness of borrowed authority probably derives partly from our over-simplifying the concept of intelligence.  We think that with brilliance goes good judgment, that with cleverness goes wisdom.

Citing an authority’s recognition backs authority by appealing to authority.  As long as the recognisers remain independent of the authority, no question is begged.

Recognition can be seen in posts held, academic training and degrees, licenses, awards and grants, publications, invitations, citations, and deferrals, to professional references.  Possessing any combination of these means little, one must press further.

Posts held - are they desirable posts? how are they filled? are they filled by the choice of one superior? a committee? popular elections? political influence?

Academic training and degrees - what schools? are the degrees earned or honorary? are these schools strong in the relevant matter? how is a “good” school being judged?

Awards and grants - to offset the awe which some prizes (Pulitzer and Nobel) produce, one must remember that the prizes reward not expertise but work done, which may be in an incredibly narrow specialty.  Remember also that prize committees have their own pressures, sometimes rewarding a science, race, politics or nationality which of the time seemed deserving.

Winning grants tells in someone’s favour if the decisions on the grants were made by experts in the field, on the basis of competence, and if the grants were competitive.

Publications - in themselves books mean nothing unless favourably reviewed.

Articles - articles in several different journals would be preferable to articles in only one, to avoid charges of cronyism.  Articles in publications other than professional journals indicate expertise only in proportion to the expertise of their editors and consultants.

Renown often gets mistaken for expertise.  There are those with more reputation than substance.

It is a useful sign of expertise when one expert defers to or cites an opinion of another.

Other sources of authority - print (some people seem to feel that printer’s ink is the embalming fluid of truth); experience (there exists quite a link between quality and experience, between reliability and time; the need to debunk the appeal to tradition argument (eg. “brewed since 1382” doesn’t necessarily make it inherently better); tests and seals (ie. research houses - some are in a better position to evaluate some factors than to evaluate others); traditions and privilege (ie.  “its always done that way” reply “does that mean it can’t be done better?”); objections to the “privileged access”argument - (1) although those in power may have access to information denied the rest of us, the public may be able to make a better assessment since they are not constrained by a homogeneous group of yes-men, self-servers or flatterers surrounding the decision maker in question (2) if those in power have the “complete picture” then lets hear it, the burden of reasonable explanation of policies lies with the authors and enforcers - this derives from the principle that arguments should be open; backhanded authority argument (argues a position not because of who advocates it but because of who advocates its opposite).

Arguing ad hominem is not to argue immediately for a definite proposition.

Ad hominem attempts to undercut someone else’s claim.  It attempts to do so because of who made the claim.  Since it aims at truth, an argument demands to be addressed.  Thus, whoever advocates not listening to someone’s argument solely on the grounds of who they are or what they might be (eg. a liar)  has not addressed the argument and reasoned falsely.

Argument asks to be accepted on its merits, and should not stand or fall on those merits.  Testimony, on the other hand, asks to be accepted at least partly on the authority of its giver.  With testimony the giver is very much a part of the issue.

Therefore a person’s studity, unreliability or lack of expertise does tell against their testimony, though not against their arguments.

Personal abuse which creeps into debate over issues can generally be taken as intended to weaken the opponents position and so deserves classification as fallacious.

Abusive ad hominem - instead of addressing the issue, abuse the opponent.

Abuse ad hominem - either agree with me, or suffer abuse.

pooh-poohing - offers a temptingly easy way to dismiss the other side’s argument while supplying no reasons yourself [“merely”and “only” are ways of doing this]

circumstantial ad hominem - using people’s special circumstances to tell against their positions.

In invective, abuse and circumstance often fuse together.

- another form of rebuttal attempts to turn advice against its givers by stating that the givers do not practice what they preach.  This has been called tu quoque - “and you, too”; this reply misses the point.

It is wrong to believe that a person must be morally pure in order to make moral judgements.

Wavering in the past, back and forth, does in general weaken testimony, however it does not necessarily apply to argument since reasons and premises can and do change.

In answering an argument, however, neither past changes nor past wavering really matters.  Ther argument itself demands attention, not its circumstances or its author.

Argument Mechanics - The Realm of Reason Part V (Trading on Words)

-->

Trading on Words

In any valid argument at least one term or its negative must be repeated.

equivocation - the illegitimate switching of meanings in mid-argument.

Sometimes a conclusion which employs a term in one sense will appear to be based on premise(s) which turn out to use the term in another sense.

Relative equivocation - changing standards of comparison mid-argument.

Propagandists employ a series of equivocation designed to continue approval, or mute disapproval, by exploiting the lag created by what might be called semantic inertia, our tendency to believe that terms continue to apply to just what they did formerly in order to hide something undesirable, the propagandist retains a familiar term while worsening what the term covers, eg. buying a car called a Charade and then buying the Charade XT model three years later and finding that it has less features than the original.

Equivocation by name change - we sometimes proceed as if along with linguistic change goes actual change eg. changing the name on a river from Rampager to Tranquil.  This weakness gets exploited by those wishing to cover up unpopular actions eg. change “search and destroy” to “reconnaissance for pacification” or to give the aura of progress to inaction.

Definition

Often writers on definition have proceeded as if defining were a matter of meeting formal requirements.  The result has been unnecessary shackles or senseless artificiality.

There is little point in trying to define words whose meaning is already familiar.

To define is basically to explain what a term means.

- good explaining puts the unclear in terms of the clear, or known.

- a good definition rephrases a term whose meaning is unclear or unknown.

- whoever knows what a term means can variously employ it.

Audience is an integral part of any explanation.  Good definitions fit their audience.

Sorts of definition - stipulative, operational, and persuasive.

Stipulative definitions: if what a term does mean is a matter of general usage, then good definitions describe that usage (such definitions are called lexical).

What a person means by a term, need not be governed by what a term does mean - as long as the person explains in a generally understood way what he or she means - this is stipulative definition.

As long as it remains clear that a term has been defined stipulatively, the use of stipulative definition can be valuable.

Stipulative meanings can fuse with conventional meanings, resulting in equivocation.

Operational definition - specify meaning in terms of procedures one goes through in order to arrive at a case.

Operational definitions have several good effects (1) they offer a precise way to stipulate exactly what is meant, (2) they lead the audience into the activities of which the term is a part, (3) they sometimes counter the urge to hypostatize ie. to feel as if there ought to be a something or a doing which an abstract term denotes.

Definitions carry an aura of authority.  Often writers, speakers parasitize this aura in order to pass opinion off as fact.  They give a persuasive definition as a lexical definition.

A persuasive definition sets down not what the term does mean but what its author would like it to mean.

Misconceptions about definitions (1) good definitions must give the common and distinctive property, (2) defining by example is no good, (3) definition must not be circular, (4) definition must precede understanding, (5) definition is a form of understanding.

Concatenation = a chain forming process by which the meanings of the habitual accompaniments of what is called by a term come to attach to the term’s meaning eg. the word “green” originally referred to the colour of grass, but has since been concatenated to mean other things ie. unripe, immature.

Insistence on there being a unique, exhaustive, defining property, an essence, could be called the essentialist fallacy.

To avoid circular definitions is good policy, as long as it is subordinate to the principle that, what explains should be more accessible than what gets explained.

Understanding and being able to define, however are different.

“words are neither ambiguous nor vague; words are used ambiguously or vaguely.  It’s not the word but the user”

Insistence that definition precede understanding usually stems from the feeling that vagueness and ambiguity are in the term itself and must be eliminated by precise defining.

Knowledge precedes definition, not vice versa.  Definition can extend only to the limits of knowledge, no further.

People sometimes proceed as if to construct a definition is to discover the hitherto unknown.

Argument Mechanics - The Realm of Reason Part IV (Language)

-->

Language

Not only what one says counts, but how one says it.

The language in which something is expressed can mean the difference between truth and falsehood, between boredom and fascination, between pique and persuasion, between failure and success.

Linguistic matters which affect argument.  Chief among these is the twisting of meanings in order to doctor results.

If the  central purpose of reasoning is to establish useful fact, then good reasoning will be clear, and it will be objective: what can’t be followed can’t lead anyone to fact; what is unobjective leads away from fact.  An arguers style conveys that clarity and objectivity.

Clarity - presenting a case well means not only stating the case but also caring that the case be grasped: clarity is an indication of the arguers good faith.

Though being clear is a skill of detail, it is helpful to cultivate the following habits: needle details, seek simplicity, expose structure.

Needle details - redundancy turns dedicated servants into bureaucrats.  Force logic into the details of argument language.

Many absurdities pass as cliches eg. “track record” “very real” “nature” “characteristic”  “time frame” “at that point in time” etc.

Many terms work against a stated or implied standard.  With that standard omitted the words lose their meaning  eg.  “very” “quite” “extremely” “rather”.

Failure to notice omitted standards accounts for a whole family of current expressions  eg.  “prepackaged” 

“prepaid” “prerecorded”  “advance planning” etc.

Seek simplicity - in persuasion, less is more.  The use of “jawbreakers” (big words) rarely gets a conclusion across effectively.

Forthright, plain terms convince, not jawbreakers.

Not only do four letter words say it better, they are democratic.  They do not talk down, and they do not hide the truth.

Scientism, the feeling that nothing counts unless couched as science, clouds much writing.

Expose structure - good argument, like good architecture, reveals its structural elements so that what is being said and how it is being supported lie open to the consideration of all.  By revealing duplication and omission, structure forces an arguer to be simple and complete.

Objectivity - a well argued case not only persuades its friends but also attracts the uncommitted and unfriendly. 

Many words in themselves convey approval or disapproval - they have a positive or negative connotation - and they need to be wielded carefully.

Connotation: certain terms, called pejorative, tend to trigger aversion or avoidance.  Others, called honorific or commendatory, tend to evoke favourable responses.

Euphemisms replace pejoratives or offensive plain terms.

Pejorative and honorific terms fit in careful arguing only where their use is justified: ie. in conclusions or derivations from conclusions.

Euphemism is a valuable ingredient in all  parts of argument.  Like social pleasantries, euphemism lubricates the wheels of society,  eg. Teachers do not tell parents that their kids are stupid or brats.

Euphemisms allow the robust, the plainspoken, and the rude to interact with the sensitive, the innocent, and the genteel without anyone going off in a huff.

Honestly used, euphemisms, like white lies, promote objectivity by quashing disagreement over trivia in order that attention may be focused on significant business.

Parasitising connotation: Whatever is “natural”, “organic”, “analytical”, or “structured” is usually being commended.  We like what is “new”, “creative”, “dynamic”, “real”, “positive”, “objective”, “clear”, “precise”, “scientific”.

Sometimes the approval implied in such terms gets transferred to topics and conclusions where it does not belong.  One of these ways is the creation of an “ism” or “ology”  from a commendatory term.

Commendatory terms sometimes play a related trick.  Though normally occurring as approval, none has to occur as approval.  The trick involves transferring to approval to where it does not belong eg.  generally it is good to behave rationally, but it might be right to criticise a participant and behaving rationally in an encounter group for not opening up.

“natural” does not always equal “good”

Another technique for parasitising connotation involves smuggling in a viewpoint by means of the language in which something is expressed - “framework” language, eg. “consciousness raising” suggests a direction up from better to worse.  Yet what is described as “consciousness raising” may or may not raise consciousness.  That is a matter to be decided by observation or insight - by argument - not by terminology alone.  The same could be said for “progress”, “liberation”, “development” and others.

Notice that the positiveness or negativity depends on the observers point of view.

A favourite trick to avoid commitment consists in using framework comparative terms while neglecting to supply any basis in relation to which the comparatives compare eg. to “move forward and not turn back” are fine depending upon one’s orientation, “forward” or “back” could be any direction.

The trick seems to be especially effective when worded with a “sandwich” of pejorative comparative terms - two excesses enclosing what, by contrast, looks like the golden mean.

“we mustn’t overreact, but there again neither must we do nothing”

Argument Mechanics - The Realm of Reason Part III (Fallacy contd)

Someone obliged to tell the whole story who tells less than the whole story while implying that all has been told, commits that form of lying called the half-truth.

“black/white thinking” - we can fall into the trap of proceeding as if every field were exhausted by a pair of opposites; black and white, A and B/
Argument environment is usually one of less than complete knowledge, the increase of knowledge being, after all, the point of arguing.

argumentum ad ignorantium - the arguer uses the other sides inability or unwillingness to prove that a thesis is false as evidence that the thesis is true.
Appeals to ignorance turned around “prove” the opposite shows the faultiness of the style of reasoning eg. since opponents can’t prove the creation account false, then Genesis must be true; but since creationists can’t prove their contention, therefore Genesis is false.
Appeals to ignorance cheat because where there is ignorance as to the exact truth, the burden of proof belongs on whoever steps off of non-committal ground.
Our “conservative” natures see no point in doing for no good reason - ie. advocating change takes on the burden of proof.
petitio principii - an argument which depends partly or wholly on its conclusion ie. begging the question.
circular reasoning - concocting a string of premises in which the string, itself insufficient to sustain the conclusion, ultimately receives support from the conclusion
when a conclusion is a theory or a deduction according to a theory, one way to stack the deck is to formulate the original problem in terms of a framework presupposed by the theory.
(ir)relevance - the issue in dispute can appear to be addressed when in fact it is not being addressed.
ignoratio elenchi - ignoring the issue or the opponents argument.
ignoring the issue - designates any argument the premise(s) of which do bear on the conclusion but which bypass the issue.
- diversion also sometimes occurs not by addressing the larger issue but by elevating a subissue.
One pervasive source of reasons not addressed to the issue is subversion of reason by the passions.

The morality of nonrational methods - we owe others control over their lives, and control is what a nonrational pitch usually denies.
Appealing to the nonrational in human nature has been a favourite form of behaviour modification eg. Eve to Adam; Klondike sales pitch “every good person gives”
nonrational methods are immoral due to (1) it denies information on which to make intelligent decision, (2) even if a good decision has been made in response to a nonrational pitch, what assurances exist that the decision will remain good? [a rational decision is flexible] ie. if and when times and circumstance invalidate old reasons, new reasons come to the fore and a new decision can be made, (3) nonrational methods can be used for the worse or for the better.

Ways to by-pass the reasoning process and jump directly to a conclusion from instinct, emotion or prejudice: Appeal to pity, appeal to vanity, appeal to gregariousness, appeal to popular prejudice, appeal to subconscious motivation.
In a relevant appeal, the issue, by its nature one which arouses emotions, will be presented with a force proportional to the issues claim to consideration.
Appeals to pity achieve irrelevance by either the type, or the degree of their appeal ie. they fail to touch the “heart strings”, or they “milk” the issue for all its worth thereby putting you off, or they “lay it on thick” by inflating an otherwise relevant factor beyond its claim to consideration.
“everybody’s doing it” tends to carry people along in a hubris or gregariousness which neglects the question or issue why this or that?

Numbers don’t answer the question, “Why this or why that?”
Advertising testimonials, lacking usually even the pretence of authority or expertise, fall more neatly under the present heading, the irrelevant subrational appeal.
Many products don’t meet actual needs, they meet potential needs which are then created by advertising.
Playing on culturally induced fears, likes and aversions has won many an election, provided support for many a war, etc. Techniques that go under various guises such as “grandstanding” “playing to the gallery”.
For the political scoundrel, shallow patriotism, far from being a last refuge, becomes a vanguard.
Humor is used for the avoidance of argument confrontation.
Humorous ads seem especially effective at avoiding discussion of the product or issue.