Facts, Opinions, Logic & Fallacies

  Philosophy is defined as “the study of the general and fundamental nature of reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language." That sounds pretty encompassing, daunting, and, yes, esoteric.

    I took several philosophy courses during my college career at Michigan State University. My favorite areas of study in this field were (are) ethics and the history of philosophy, in particular the time period of the ancient Greeks.

    In 2011, I enrolled at Kellogg Community College, which had a campus in Hastings and signed up for two summer classes—United States History from the Reconstruction to the Reagan Administration--and a required English class that focused on proper sentence structure and how to write an acceptable academic paper.

    Enjoying them, I took another class that fall-- “Introduction to Philosophy.” The textbook we used was entitled: Philosophy: The Power of Ideas and in the opening chapter was this statement: “Philosophy isn’t mere expression of opinion. Philosophers support their positions with arguments which (ideally) make it plain why the reasonable person will accept what they say.”

   The authors (Brooke Noel Moore and Kenneth Bruder) go on to state: “When you support a position by giving a reason for accepting it, you are giving an argument. Logic, the study of correct inference, is concerned with whether and to what extent a reason truly does support a conclusion. Giving and rebutting arguments (itself a form of argument) is the most basic philosophical activity; it distinguishes philosophy from mere opinion.”

    This distinction reminds me of the well-known statement by the late U.S. Senator, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who said, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.”

    The definition of a fact is “something that truly exists or happens: Something that has actual existence: a true piece of information.”

   An opinion, on the other hand, is defined as “a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.”

    While a philosophical argument may deal with or seek to validate a fact through the use of logic, that endeavor falls more in the realm of scientific inquiry and experimentation. A scientific fact is defined as an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final). The latter is why Newton’s explanation of gravity is still called a theory, as is evolution. Scientists might believe something is true, or a fact, based on observation and testing, but the profession takes the stance that something new and different might turn up to disprove it.

    Philosophy, which generally deals with considerations beyond empirical science, requires that they be supported by good reasoning.”

   So how does one make a correct (i.e. logical) inference. One of the most important forms, established by Aristotle, is the syllogism, a form of deductive reasoning consisting of a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion.

    An example of a valid categorical syllogism would be:

    Major premise: All mammals are warm-blooded.

    Minor premise: All black dogs are mammals.

    Conclusion: Therefore, all black dogs are warm-blooded.

    Another example would be:

     Major premise: Fowlerville Grocery only sells fresh-baked bread.

     Minor premise: This loaf of bread was purchased from that store.

     Conclusion: This bread is fresh-baked.

      In the philosophy class at Kellogg Community College, we also had a lesson dealing with fallacies, or common mistakes in reasoning. There are seven of them cited in the text book.

   With the rhetoric of the political campaign for the presidency, as well as other elective offices, about to heat up—not that it hasn’t already been pretty hot--I thought it might be interesting to list these argumentative mistakes.

   Switching the Burden of Proof. Logically, you can’t prove your position by asking an opponent to disprove it. This, of course, makes the all of those attack ads logically inappropriate. Or in other words, tell us what you’re for or what you’ll do if elected, not just what’s wrong with your opponent.

   Begging the Question: This fallacy occurs when you assume the very thing you are attempting to prove or when the premise of your argument depends upon its conclusion. In either case, it means your proof doesn’t go anywhere. This is called circular reasoning. An example would be: John Doe, the XYZ Party candidate for Congress, says he should be elected because he is honest.
If an honest person says something, it must be true.
Therefore John Doe is an honest person, because an honest person says so.

    Argumentum ad hominem (argument against the person): This fallacy amounts to transferring the qualities of a spokesperson to his or her argument. The fact that you think a candidate is unsuitable because he is divorced, doesn’t mean his position paper on improving education is wrong. Or, when a Republican proposes a piece of legislation, and you are a Democrat, doesn’t mean the proposal, for this reason alone, is without merit. Or visa versa.

   Straw Man: This fallacy occurs when you think you have refuted a view by distorting, 

misrepresenting, or exaggerating it.  Enough said in regard to many (but not all) political campaigns.

   False Dilemma (the either-or fallacy): This is the fallacy of offering two choices when in fact more options exist. This is a favorite of the ultra-partisans who view the world through the lens of us vs. them and, doing so, attempt to frame every question or consideration in terms of right (our side) vs. wrong (their side) or moral (my view) vs. immoral (your view).

   Appeal to Emotion: This is trying to establish a point by arousing pity, anger, fear, and other emotions rather than dealing with the merits of the argument being considered. Again, enough said in regard to many (but not all) political campaigns.

    Red Herring: This occurs when a person tosses an irrelevancy into the discussion that has nothing to do with the topic being discussed. An example of a red herring (as pointed out by many observers) occurred during the second debate between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama in the 2012 Presidential Campaign. A woman asked how the two men will “limit the availability of assault weapons.” Neither man answered that specific question. Instead, Obama talked about catching violence before it gets out of control, while Romney focused on good schools and raising children in two-parent homes. They both diverted attention from the original question, the observers pointed out, by using red herrings.

   Ah, those pesky reporters; always trying to point out a red herring, or a straw man, or a false dilemma used by the candidates and their campaign staffs. And then there’s those darn fact-checkers, always attempting to point out the difference between a true piece of information versus a cherished opinion that’s based on an appeal to emotion or an argument against the person rather than logic.

    The use of logic in a political campaign? Now there’s a fallacy.