Presidential Election Archives

Logic in an Age of Persuasive Imagery: Focus On The Presidential Campaigns

Posted on January 17, 2012October 17, 2015 by confidentchristianity@gmail.com

The campaigning and debating for the 2012 presidential election is
already underway, as are loads of advertisements seeking to persuade
voters to vote for one candidate or another.

The campaigns in our current culture are largely focused on presentation
and perception (imagery), rather than on actually making good arguments
for their political platform (rationality). As
Christian philosopher, J.P. Moreland stated, “In the political process,
the makeup man is more important than the speech writer, and we
approach the voting booth, not on the basis of a well-developed
philosophy of what the state should be, but with a heart full of images,
emotions, and slogans all packed into thirty-second sound bites.”[1] The
American public is likely to see lots of negative and positive imagery
utilizing many logical fallacies to “trick” the voter into favoring a
candidate. These fallacies could include (but are not limited to): transfer, ad hominem,
hasty generalization, red herrings, appeal to pity, appeal to the
people, straw man, loaded questions, and faulty appeal to authority.

Here are links to the past six blog posts dealing with these topics:

1. Logic in an Age of Persuasive Imagery: Focus On The Presidential Campaigns (May 10th, 2011)
2. Logic in an Age of Persuasive Imagery: Ad Hominem (May 18th, 2011)
3. Logic in an Age of Persuasive Imagery: the Red Herring (May 31st, 2011)
4. Logic in an Age of Persuasive Imagery: the Straw Man (June 17th, 2011)
5. Logic in an Age of Persuasive Imagery: Appeal to Pity (August 29th, 2011)
6. Logic in an Age of Persuasive Imagery: the Loaded Question (October 25th, 2011)

Logic in an Age of Persuasive Imagery: the Loaded Question

Posted on October 25, 2011October 17, 2015 by confidentchristianity@gmail.com

“Have you stopped beating your wife?”

A loaded question occurs when someone asks you two questions, but one is hidden behind the other. The purpose of a loaded question is to make you assume the answer to a hidden question, without actually asking that hidden question.[1]

In the example above, the hidden assumption is that the person has been beating his wife. While that’s not so hidden in this question, it still presents a problem because the question is asking for a “yes” or “no” answer. Both of these replies will incriminate the responder. If a “yes” answer is given, the person is admitting he used to beat his wife. If a “no” answer is given, the person is admitting he still beats his wife.How is this a problem for candidates in the elections? Candidates are asked all sorts of loaded questions by journalists and others who interview them and moderate their debates. For example, in the 2007 Republican debates, Senators John McCain and Mike Huckabee were asked this basic question, “Do you believe in evolution? Yes or no.”[2] At first, this may not appear to be a loaded question. However, if you know the history behind the question and the perceptions involved in the heated debate, this is an obviously loaded question. Let’s look at why.The issue has been superficially divided, for the most part, between those who believe the universe was created and those who believe the universe does not need a creator. Though the issue is wrongly divided in this way, it tends to get labeled and promoted as such, especially through the media. A person who has studied the question of evolution and the origins of the universe in some depth knows that there are non-religious scientists as well as religious scientists who argue, based in scientific evidence, for a creator of the universe.[3] There are also various views on evolution within the faith community. Yet the question assumes the perceptions of the issue: that ‘belief in science’ is what is actually at stake. So the assumed question is: what do you believe about the endeavor of science?Due to the simplistic labeling of the various positions on this argument, if Mike Huckabee or Senator McCain had simply answered “yes” or “no,” here’s how it would have come across because of the loaded question:“Yes” – I believe in science. (ala the movie Nacho Libre)

“No” – I do not believe in science.

Loaded questions have much to do with perceptions. That is why Mike Huckabee stated that his moderator was asking the wrong question.[4] This is an example of what to do when you are faced with a loaded question. You should question the question!MJ [1] Adapted from Hans and Nathaniel Bluedorn. The Fallacy Detective: Thirty Six Lesson on How to Recognize Bad Reasoning. (Muscatine, IA: Christian Logic, 2002, 2003), 120.[2] McCain was asked the question one-on-one. The moderator then asked for a show of hands of who “doesn’t believe in evolution.” Mike Huckabee, in a later debate, was asked to explain why he raised his hand to signify he “didn’t believe in evolution” in a more complex version of the same basic question.[3] Paul Davies, John O’Keefe, Fred Hoyle, Alan Sandage, Arno Penzias, Arthur Eddington and others.[4] He actually stated it was an “unfair question,” which I would not have said. I would have said it was the “wrong question.”

Logic in an Age of Persusasive Imagery, Part Five: Appeal to the People

Posted on July 16, 2011October 17, 2015 by confidentchristianity@gmail.com

“One million users of Shiney Bubbles can’t be wrong!” Appeal to the People (ad populum): When we claim that our viewpoint is correct because many other people agree with it we are committing an appeal to the people. This logical fallacy is one of the more popularly (pun intended) utilized in marketing a product. A company wants you to go out and purchase their product so they tell you how many other people have also done so. “Buy a Tough Guy truck. The number one truck in Oklahoma.” This appeal does nothing to evidence the quality of the product, it’s just an appeal to the popularity of the product. “Use BeautyGirl wrinkle cream. Voted the best wrinkle cream by Vogue magazine readers.” What is wrong with using a product, buying an item, or believing a view on the basis of its popularity? The error in reasoning is due to the fact that a position or product is not the best one for any individual just because a group of people (even a large group of people) think so. What is important is looking at the evidence these people have utilized in arriving at a conclusion about the product or view. Unless the group has some kind of special knowledge (such as they all work for a consumer watch company), it is fallacious to ascribe authority to their view.An everyday example: Gossip can fall into this category when a person uses the phrases “some people” or “the word on the street” or “they say” in order to prove or argue for a point. Remember, good reasons (good data) must be brought as evidence for an argument, not just a group of people’s preferences or opinions; especially not an anonymous group of people such as “they.” A political campaign example: Political campaigns utilize this strategy when they use the opinions of the American populace to support their platform: “Seventy-five percent of Americans say they will vote for Senator George Washington in the upcoming presidential election. Therefore, Washington is the best candidate!” The problem with polls and percentages is that though they may reflect a group of people’s opinion on an issue or on a person, the poll itself does not prove that the candidate is therefore the best choice for any individual voter. However, candidates misuse the polls as evidence that they are the better choice for voters. When choosing the best candidate for your individual vote, you need evidence that the candidate will legislate according to what you think is best for the nation. Popularity is not an evidential factor for legislative ideology. I’m sure you have seen this type of fallacy in use already as we approach the upcoming 2012 elections.Resources for recognizing fallacies:
1)Hans and Nathaniel Bluedorn. The Fallacy Detective: Thirty Six Lesson on How to Recognize Bad Reasoning. (Christian Logic, 2002, 2003). I am utilizing this book for preteens through adults as an introductory level book on fallacies.2) For a higher level reading on critical reasoning, see Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking by M. Neil Browne and Stuart M. Keeley (Pearson Prentice Hall, 2007, 2004, 2001, 1998, 1994).

Logic in an Age of Persuasive Imagery, Part Four: the Straw Man

Posted on June 17, 2011October 17, 2015 by confidentchristianity@gmail.com

“When you want to know the truth and want to stop being foolish, we can talk about how to become a Christian.”

Straw Man Fallacy: changing or exaggerating an opponent’s position or argument to make it easierto refute.

Straw man is an error in reasoning, because it does not address the actual argument or position of a person. It builds up another argument, called a “straw man,” that may be close to the person’s original argument, but is not the actual argument itself. Then the person attacks the straw man because it is easier to defeat. I call this the “bite-sized, mini-shredded wheat” version of the argument. It’s easy to put one of these mini-shredded wheat pieces under your foot and crush it, rather than to deal with the more comprehensive original argument.

For the Christian, the straw man is to be avoided because it does not demonstrate intellectual honesty with others. If a Christian is seeking to show the truth of God, he must be careful to extend the truth all the way out to accurately represent the view or position of the other person (to the best of their ability). Among Christians, I have heard the straw man utilized on occasion against atheist arguments. Here’s an example:

Chris, the Christian: Do you believe in God?
Aaron, the atheist: Nope.
Chris, the Christian: Oh, so you’re an atheist?
Aaron, the atheist: Yes, I am.
Chris: Why are you an atheist?
Aaron: I don’t believe in God because I cannot understand how a good God could allow so much evil and suffering in the world.
Chris: The Bible says that only the fool says in his heart there is no God. So you are a fool. When you want to know the truth and want to stop being foolish, we can talk about how to become a Christian.

Of course, this is an exaggeration of the kind of argumentation I have heard, but it isn’t too far off! The straw man isn’t the only problem with this representation, but the straw man was

committed when the Christian avoided the atheist’s actual argument and put forth a response to a different argument. The Christian focused on this issue: that the atheist did not desire to know truth. In doing so, the Christian is irresponsible in representing the atheist’s actual argument (the problem of evil), and therefore irresponsible to represent the truth. Notice that the atheist offered a reasonable objection to the existence of a good God, and the Christian did nothing to even acknowledge the atheist’s argument. This is not being a good ambassador for the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the truth. Jesus did not avoid questions. He sought to engage people with a deeper understanding of the questions they asked (Matthew 22).

Also, Christians should be wary of straw men arguments utilized against their own view of God in conversations. The most frequent straw man arguments which I address are related to views of God that I do not hold. A person who is arguing against your view of God should be responsible to find out as comprehensively as possible what is your view of God before making arguments against that view. In that situation, I ask the person to describe my view of God (to show where they have made false assumptions and perhaps do not know basic Christian doctrine) and then I correct them. This isn’t an attack on them, but it is a way to get past some faulty reasoning and to get closer to the truth.

A political campaign version: In a debate between two presidential hopefuls, Candidate A argues that he will cut back on government spending if elected. Candidate B responds to this proposal by saying that Candidate A doesn’t want to fund education, or take care of the elderly, or to provide programs that help the poor. So, he concludes that you can’t vote for Candidate A if you care about children, the elderly, and the poor. Notice that Candidate B argued Candidate A doesn’t care about all these people groups or want to fund these areas. If Candidate A hasn’t expressly stated that he doesn’t care about these people or doesn’t want to fund these areas as reasoning for his cut in government spending, Candidate B has made a straw man (with some appeal to pity). Of course I wouldn’t vote for a person as described by Candidate B: that person doesn’t seem to care about other people! But has Candidate B accurately conveyed or addressed Candidate A’s argument? No.

Candidate A’s care and concern for these people is not explicitly the argument, but it is much easier to argue that Candidate A doesn’t care for people or want to help them than to argue about the specific areas to cut back spending. Candidate B could have inquired of Candidate A where he would suggest we cut back spending and how that would affect education, the elderly, and programs to help the poor. The argument should center on how Candidate A proposes to cut spending and why or why not those are areas that can or should be cut back.[1]

Pay close attention to the kind of reasoning the presidential candidates use in addressing their opponents’ positions. Straw men can be hard to detect sometimes because political issues can stir our emotions greatly. Listen to what the candidates are actually proposing and if you cannot make out a clear platform from their speeches, look at their voting records in the past.

MJ
_____________________________________________________________

[1] Political issues illicit such emotional responses from people that I want to be clear that although the hypothetical candidates closely relate to current Republican and Democrat arguments, I am not endorsing either view. That is not the point of this article. I am endorsing good reasoning no matter what side of the political spectrum to which a person belongs. In an earlier article, I utilized an example involving a fallacious answer that would seem to be representative of a Republican response to a question.

Logic in an Age of Persuasive Imagery, Part Three: the Red Herring

Posted on May 31, 2011October 17, 2015 by confidentchristianity@gmail.com

“I don’t even know what we’re talking about anymore!”

Red Herring: “the introduction of an irrelevant point into an argument. Someone may think (or they may want us to think) it proves his side, but it really doesn’t.”[1]

So you’ve finally worked up the gumption to go discuss an important matter with someone with whom you have a specific problem. You approach the person about the issue and all of a sudden you find yourself defending another issue not directly related to your point. In fact, you are no longer discussing your original point at all. What happened? The person moved the subject to another topic; they used a red herring. The red herring fallacy is probably more prominent in our current culture than we realize. I’m making that generalization due to my own experience with this fallacy with much frequency. I’ve also seen this fallacy utilized by public figures to deflect difficult questions which they don’t wish to answer.The term red herring comes from the name for a dead, smelly fish used to throw off a dog’s tracking ability while training a dog to follow a scent trail. A dog trainer would lay out the scent of the animal they wanted the dog to track and allow the scent to become old. Then, the trainer would drag the smelly red herring across the original trail, leading in a different direction from the animal scent the dog was supposed to follow. The red herring smell is intended to distract the dog from the original trail. So, in an argument or discussion, a “red herring” is a distraction from the real issue or question. It throws us off the track!As the authors of Asking the Right Questions remind us, “You should normally have no difficulty spotting red herrings as long as you keep the real issue in mind as well as the kind of evidence needed to resolve it.”[2] The listener should ask themselves: 1) What was the questioned asked? 2) What kind of response would specifically answer the question? 3) Did the response given specifically answer the question?The main reason a red herring is fallacious is due to the fact that changing the topic of discussion does not count as an argument against a claim. Let me say that one more time: changing the topic of discussion (even if the new topic is closely related to the original topic) does not count as an argument against a claim. In order to get somewhere in an argument, we have to stay on a specific point until we’ve arrived at an answer or conclusion for that point. This is how to avoid “talking past one another.”We also have to remember that when a red herring is introduced, the person might be saying something that is true, but not relevant to the original point. “Red herrings are often good arguments. The only problem is, they don’t prove the point being argued—they prove something else.”[3] So if someone asks you why you are late for an event and you respond with “you’re always picking on me,” you’ve still responded with a red herring even if it’s true that they’re always picking on you.An example from current events: The Cordoba Initiative would like to build a mosque close to the site of the 9-11 terrorist attacks. The Anti-Defamation League has expressed a concern about the symbolism of the project due to a connection of the religion professed by the terrorists and the religion professed by those wanting to build the mosque: Islam. In response to this concern, the Council on American-Islamic Relations has stated that the people expressing concern are “Islamophobic.” Not only is this response by CAIR ad hominem (see my last post), but it doesn’t answer the concern of the symbolism of the same religious beliefs of both groups. Instead, it throws interested dialoguers off the track with an accusation of bigotry. It’s a red herring. An appropriate response would be to evidence how this particular mosque, in this location, would not be symbolic of the religious beliefs of the terrorists who led the attack.
A political campaign version of a red herring: A senator running for office might be asked about when our military is going to be out of Afghanistan and respond with an answer saying that our military is the best in the world. This is a red herring. It is avoiding the question by deflecting to a different argument. The senator wasn’t asked about the capability or rank of our military, but was asked for a specific response with regard to pulling out or staying in Afghanistan. The red herring was introduced as a deflection to answering the question. It might seem like the senator’s answer is related. However, he is really implying that we shouldn’t worry about the question asked because we are doing what the best military in the world would do. This does not answer the specific question asked. Instead, the senator could appropriately reply, “I do not know, but I trust our military because I believe they are the best in the world.”[4]
I anticipate we will see a lot of this fallacy in the upcoming elections as the nation is dealing with so many difficult and emotionally-charged issues. So be on the lookout for the red herring:
1) Introducing an irrelevant argument into a topic of discussion
2) Answering a question with an unrelated response
3) Changing the topic of discussion (even if somewhat related to the original topic)MJ

I also blog over at The Point Radio Blog, along with other Christian apologists.

[1] Nathaniel and Hans Bluedorn. The Fallacy Detective. (Muscatine, IA: Christian Logic, 2002, 2003), 38. I am utilizing this book for preteens through adults as an introductory level book on fallacies. For a higher level reading on critical reasoning, see Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking by M. Neil Browne and Stuart M. Keeley.[2] M. Neil Browne and Stuart M. Keeley. Asking the Right Questions (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2007, 2004, 2001, 1998, 1994), 95.[3] Bluedorn. The Fallacy Detective. 42.[4] Please notice that I am not arguing for or against an issue. However, I am utilizing familiar topics to help illustrate fallacious reasoning present in our culture today.

Logic in an Age of Persuasive Imagery: Focus on the Presidential Campaigns

Posted on May 10, 2011October 17, 2015 by confidentchristianity@gmail.com

The campaigning and debating for the 2012 presidential election is already underway; as are loads of advertisements seeking to persuade voters to vote for one candidate or another. During this time, I am concurrently teaching on recognizing logical fallacies. While I cannot say that I actually planned the parallel between the two, I am, however, quite pleased with the timing. So I will utilize this next year (and a half) to emphasize not just the need for critical thinking, but to introduce some errors in reasoning. It seems like a “match made in heaven” for an educational opportunity! The campaigns in our current culture are largely focused on presentation and perception (imagery), rather than on actually making good arguments for their political platform (rationality). As Christian philosopher, J.P. Moreland stated, “In the political process, the makeup man is more important than the speech writer, and we approach the voting booth, not on the basis of a well-developed philosophy of what the state should be, but with a heart full of images, emotions, and slogans all packed into thirty-second sound bites.”[1] The American public is likely to see lots of negative and positive imagery utilizing many logical fallacies to “trick” the voter into favoring a candidate. These fallacies could include (but are not limited to): transfer, ad hominem, hasty generalization, red herrings, appeal to pity, appeal to the people, straw man, loaded questions, and faulty appeal to authority. These fallacies are not just a problem of the presidential campaigns. Rather, it is a safe generalization to say various fallacies are committed on a regular basis by nearly all of us.[2] This is due to the difficulty in avoiding such fallacies, even when we train ourselves to think critically about our reasons for believing something is true. Since we all are in need of the “renewing our minds,” the presidential campaigns can provide good training material for the Christian wanting to improve their own reasoning abilities. I will post some of the errors in reasoning over the next month. As you watch the presidential campaigns, take some time to dissect the messages you are receiving. What fallacies are being utilized? What are the actual issues and how has each candidate supported their view? Has the candidate given sound reasons and evidence for their position? Analyzing the presidential candidates’ platforms and campaigning methods are a great way to utilize the gift of rationality with which God has endowed human beings. You will grow in your critical thinking abilities and you will be better informed on the candidates for whom you will be voting. Let’s begin with the first fallacy mentioned above, transfer. Transfer: A propaganda technique in which someone tries to make us transfer our good or bad feelings about one thing to another unrelated thing.[3] A prime example of transfer is found in commercials for a fitness center or for fitness equipment. The commercial almost always shows a man or woman who is representative of the ideal body either working out at a specific gym or utilizing a certain product. The viewer is supposed to transfer the good feelings about the ideal body to the product offered. A presidential campaign version of transfer: A commercial shows one candidate either frowning or upset while utilizing a darker color scheme or even a black and white scheme while dark and ominous music plays in the background. The commercial then shifts to a second candidate; the candidate is smiling, the colors are bright, and the music is happy. The purpose is to make the viewer uncomfortable when they think about the first candidate so they will carry that emotion with them to the voting booth and not vote for him/her. Conversely, the idea is to carry the happy emotion with them and vote for the second candidate. See if you can find some examples of transfer as the presidential campaigning gets underway! Next post: Ad hominem.

[1] J.P. Moreland. Love Your God With All Your Mind: The Role of Reason in the Life of the Soul. (Colorado Springs: Nav Press, 1997), 21.

[2] I cannot say “by everyone” or I will have committed the fallacy of hasty generalization. I also do not have the knowledge of whether or not everyone in the world is actually committing fallacies, but I do have the general knowledge of human nature (including the effects of sin), which allows for an extrapolation out to the human community. It is safe to say none of us is perfect in our reasoning.

[3] Hans and Nathaniel Bluedorn. The Fallacy Detective: Thirty Six Lesson on How to Recognize Bad Reasoning. (Muscatine, IA: Christian Logic, 2002, 2003), 183. I am utilizing this book for preteens through adults as an introductory level book on fallacies. For a higher level reading on critical reasoning, see Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking by M. Neil Browne and Stuart M. Keeley.