http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBaZwNaxuBs&feature=watch_response
ceteris paribus
Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges
ad hoc
post hoc
ex post facto
a priori
habeas corpus
ad hoc ergo propter hoc
e pluribus unum
perspicacity
perspicuity
paucity
dearth
Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.
What did I just say? Unfortunately, most people will have no idea whatsoever.
Someone with something to hide will try to goad you into accepting an argument without scrutinizing it. One useful tactic to this end is the Red Herring; specifically the Appeal to Authority. Another is the Weasel Word. But the number one rule of writing, public speaking, movie-making and such is “Know your audience.”
Fortunately, for most, concentrating on knowing your audience means seeking out all the ways to phrase your argument so that it may be clearly understood, scrutinized, assessed, and perhaps even duplicated by others. But let me emphasize, I’m talking about the argument being duplicated—the reasoning which composes it; not the rhetoric which characterizes it. Unfortunately, for some, knowing your audience equates to seeking out all the ways to manipulate them and prey upon their frailties and foibles.
We live in a world with a number of very academically-inclined authorities with a tendency to dispense very good advice. Therefore, a lot of us have a tendency to have our trust evoked by the sound of very erudite-sounding language; that is, language containing such words as “erudite.” As an unfortunate side-effect, there are those who rely on this association in order to make themselves sound trustworthy while preventing their audiences from being able to determine whether or not they actually are. I’m inclined to call this the fallacy of Vague Grandiloquence.
I suppose you could call this a sort of unspoken appeal to authority. The idea is to lace one’s argument with language along the lines of the litany of examples I cited at the beginning of the video to the end of making oneself sound like an expert, thereby discouraging scrutiny. Real experts invite public scrutiny of their arguments because real experts are ready for it.
Now consider, if someone tries to explain his or her ideas to you in a language you have no understanding of, does this consign you to accepting the argument in question? Of course not. This is a definite red flag. If someone speaks English fluently but insists on making every important case in Navajo, do these cases have to be accepted? Of course not.
What could it mean if someone insisted on making cases to you in such a fashion? It would indicate someone trying to hide something. Well dressing up the argument in language like this serves the same purpose.
Most people don’t have the entire dictionary memorized, but most of us do know the most frequently used words in a language. That being the case, anyone fluent enough to work for a living, drive a car, read street signs and directions, pay bills and get their taxes done is probably fluent enough to understand and assess an argument or explanation from someone sincere about being understood.
Any politician campaigning for public office who presents you with an argument so saturated is operating from the very same motive as the one who relies on Weasel Words. He or she is trying to gain your endorsement while avoiding your scrutiny.
Remember my description of the Presumptive Assignment. “Your position is wrong, and if you check all the information sources I tell you to check, you will see that, and here’s a list of sources three miles long. Since I told you you were wrong, you have to check every last one of them, or else I will shower you with the most vitriolic insults I can think of.” This is a time-wasting tactic made in the hope of sending you off on a wild-goose chase to get you out of the way. This is what happens when Christians, instead of trying to address your points or answer your questions, tell you, “You just need to read the Bible.”
But given the fact that only about one in ten Christians has, in fact, read the Bible, clearly having read the Bible is not the reason they believe.
What if, on the other hand, the individual you are in disagreement with takes all the information from all those sources and presumes to recite it to you himself or herself? Usually, this is also done in an effort to waste your time and create the illusion of expertise. “Look at all the facts at my command. Clearly, I have done my homework on this, so you should just trust me.”
But what matters with information is not the quantity, but the quality. The idea with a tactic such as this is to prevent you from assessing and scrutinizing the quality of the information presented. With so many claims coming at you so quickly, you couldn’t possibly check them all or even a significant selection of them. That’s the idea. This fallacy is called Argument by Verbosity.
So Weasel Words could be described as Argument by Vaguery. The Red Herring could be called Argument by Distraction. Vague Grandiloquence could be called Appeal to Association. But all of the fallacies I have described in this video could be called Argument by Evasion.
No comments:
Post a Comment