Making the Connection: Strategies to Build Effective Personal Relationships (Collection) (9 page)

That, of course, does not follow. Just because some people worried about global warming are vegetarian does not mean all who worry about it are. Here there has been an “illicit” process from one fact to another. Don’t be taken in by arguments of this kind. Test carefully whether the arguer is assuming that all people of a particular kind are the same.

The false choice

Using a false choice is a common device in arguing. It presents the listener with only two alternatives. George W. Bush became famous for this when he spoke of the war on terror:

“You are either for us or against us.”

This gives you only two options: to agree or disagree. Of course, you may want to agree in part, or be neither for nor against the proposal. But the rhetorical device closes those options for the listener.

Parents soon become experts at this:

“You can either eat your greens or go straight to bed.”

There are, in reality, many other options for the child but the parent has presented the child with just two.

As both the examples show, “bifurcation,” to give it its technical name, is a particularly popular form of argument where one of the alternatives is seen as highly unpleasant. The child doesn’t want to go to bed and so takes the option of eating the greens. Those listening to George W. Bush who did not want to side with terrorists were left with the option of siding with George W.—even if that meant siding with a man who said:

“I’m telling you there’s an enemy that would like to attack America, Americans, again. There just is. That’s the reality of the world. And I wish him all the very best.”

George W. Bush

Sometimes a good arguer can turn the bifurcation argument on its head. Consider this argument:

“If we build a new railway station here, either it will be empty and a waste of money or it will be full and the nearby roads will not be able to cope.”

One reply would be:

“Well, if we build a new railway station here, either it will be empty and the nearby roads will be able to deal with the traffic or it will be full and it will have been a financial success.”

Further, the false-choice argument is an example of a particular use of the burden of proof, the best known example of which is Pascal’s wager. Blaise Pascal was a renowned mathematician and philosopher who lived in the seventeenth century. He produced what he thought was a convincing argument for why everyone should believe in God. It went like this. Either there is a God or there is not. If there is a God and you don’t believe in him you may go to hell. If there is no God and you believe in him, you might have less fun in life but you don’t lose out much. Therefore it’s better to believe in God. Another version of this argument is sometimes heard in the climate change debate:

“If climate change is man-made and we cut CO
₂
emissions we might save the planet.”

“If climate change is not man-made and we cut CO
₂
emissions we won’t lose anything, except perhaps suffer some economic harm.”

The choice again is presented in such a way that there are two alternatives: one has a potentially terrible loss (eternal damnation, loss of the planet) and only a small gain (less fun in life, some economic harm); the other has no terrible loss, but a huge potential gain (eternal life, saving the planet). So presented, the argument seems compelling to choose belief in God and cutting CO
₂
emissions.

In many ways these are convincing arguments but it can be difficult to persuade people that they should avoid the awful possibilities mentioned, even at the cost of some minor inconvenience.

The best counter to such arguments is to suggest that it is not as straightforward as the two possibilities mentioned. In relation
to God there is the question of which god to believe in. There are so many gods and if you chose the wrong one you might still end up in damnation. Similarly in relation to CO
₂
emissions, the argument hides the option of slightly cutting CO
₂
emissions with less economic loss.

An alternative is to explore the likelihood of the events being true. If you think it’s just possible, but very unlikely, there is a God you might think the risk of eternal damnation is worth running in order to enjoy the “pleasures” of this world. If, however, you think it very likely that climate change is man-made, the argument presented above may become overwhelming.

When faced with a false-choice argument, first recognize it for what it is: a false choice. You can explore the likelihood of the events being true, as well as look for ways in which the arguments are not as straightforward as they appear. By this means you can bring meaning to the discussion and depth to the argument.

Generalizations

It’s always tempting when having an argument to make generalizations:

“You never do the dishes.”

“Politicians don’t understand what it is to be poor.”

These kinds of comments are really asking for trouble. It’s nearly always possible to think of exceptions. The person you’re arguing with can easily come up with a counter-example (“Well, I did the dishes last Sunday’). Your point is then weakened and indeed you’re even open to the charge that you’re exaggerating or lying. In the examples just given, if you wished to make the point you could do so in a way that would be more attractive:

“You don’t do the dishes very often.”

“Many politicians don’t understand what it is to be poor.”

Of course these statements may still be untrue, but they are much more likely to be true than the generalizations mentioned earlier.

Do be careful of the use of individual cases. Consider this:

“Everyone is so rude these days. Just yesterday a person knocked into me and didn’t even apologize; they just walked on.”

It’s easy in this case to seek to challenge the example raised. You may offer possible reasons for what happened that would explain the apparent rudeness. Maybe the person who knocked into her didn’t speak English and so couldn’t apologize. However, usually a better way to respond is to produce examples of your own where people were not rude. In fact, if you’re trying to show that a generalization is untrue you are on stronger ground than a person seeking to show it’s not. So to dispute the claim:

“All English people are good at waiting patiently in lines”

all you need to do is to show a single example where that was not true. However, typically, to support such a claim a single case (which could very well be one-of-a-kind) is used.

Like cases

A key principle of logic is that if two cases are the same then a reason must be provided for not treating them in the same way. Hence a popular tool in arguing is by proposing the analogous situation:

“You say that we should stop people smoking because it makes people ill. Do you support stopping people eating fatty foods?”

This is a perfectly fair argument. It’s helpful because it will elucidate why the person thinks the way they do. It might highlight the fact that their opinion is based on prejudice. If the smoking-banner were to reply:

“Well, I really enjoy fast food so I don’t want to ban that”

then they lay themselves open to a charge that they want to ban the vices that other people have, but not their own! They need to produce a good reason to distinguish the cases or agree that both are the same. So instead they could argue:

“Well, the vast majority of smokers die from smoking-related illnesses, but few eaters of unhealthy food die from their diets.”

Of course it would be necessary to back up the factual claims made there. Alternatively they could argue:

“Yes, quite right. As citizens we owe each other a duty to keep healthy. All clearly unhealthy behaviors should be banned, be that smoking or eating unhealthy food.”

For the “like cases” tactic to work, you might need to apply your position to what might seem an odd view, but not necessarily wrong. Say, for example, you are committed to opposing sex discrimination. You’re then asked, “Well, do you think women should be able to apply to be boxers?” The answer should be, “Yes, why not?” If you are committed to your principle then unless you have a good reason you should stick to it even if the consequences seem odd. But beware, it may be that you are being tricked. “Is a film director entitled to refuse a woman the role of Winston Churchill?” The answer may be: “Yes, as long as he is not refusing her the role because she is a woman, that’s permissible. If other candidates look more like Churchill they may be better suited to the role.”

Red herrings

These are important. They involve introducing completely irrelevant material.

Getting it wrong

Sami:   “How dare you forget my birthday!”

Raj:     “You know, you’re so handsome when you get upset.”

Quite clearly here Raj is aware that he has no excuse for forgetting the birthday, and is trying to introduce a new topic of conversation on which he is far more comfortable: the handsomeness of his beau.

This is, in fact, a common way of dealing with a brewing argument in social situations.

“Well, this is a really interesting discussion, but I’m afraid I must get ready to go out. Did I tell you we were going to see this new film?”

Often both parties, if they are friends, are happy to avoid the controversial issue and discuss the more pleasant topic of the film. Normally, introducing a red herring is an invitation to abandon the argument and discuss something different. You’ll need to decide whether or not to accept the invitation.

Some red herrings are deliberate attempts to muddle you.

Getting it wrong

Alf:      “Abortion is murder and should be outlawed.”

Brian:    “That’s a bit harsh; why do you think it murder?”

Alf:      “Well, it’s killing a child.”

Brian:    “But it’s not really a child, it hasn’t got feelings or thoughts.”

Alf:      “Well, Brian, you’re not a parent and I don’t think you understand about children.”

Alf has deliberately set off on a change of focus. Brian needs to bring it back to the subject.

But not all red herrings are appreciated. Let’s go back to the man who forgot the birthday. I’m sure we have all wanted to upbraid someone about an issue only to find they keep changing the subject we’re trying to address. It can be infuriating! Both parties need to beware here. The red herring can be a clear sign that you don’t want the argument now, but pay attention to whether the other party takes the bait.

Getting it right

Sami:   “How dare you forget my birthday!”

Raj:     “You know, you’re so handsome when you get upset.”

Sami:   “That’s kind of you to say, but I want to talk about why you forgot my birthday.”

Using a red herring can be dangerous too. Is this an argument that needs to be had? It may be that if the issue is not resolved now it will always be sidelined. Is this perhaps the right time and place for this argument? Is it an argument over a topic that might actually be productive? At least recognizing a red herring will give you a choice on how to proceed. And it’s a useful tool to employ yourself if you ever get stuck at the watercooler discussing your salary!

Circular argument

This is another deceptive type of argument to watch out for. It uses two unproven facts to bolster each other and give each credibility. Consider this:

“God exists because the Bible tells us so. We can trust the Bible because it is the word of God.”

All of this may be true, but this argument is not a good one! Arguments from logic require us to start with a fact that is true and reason from this. The difficulty in this example is that A is only true if B is true, and B is only true if A is true. Another example of a circular argument is this:

“I’m better than you at arguing. You always end up agreeing I’m right. You should accept I’m the better arguer.”

Concealed questions

A clever technique that is sometimes used is to ask a question that contains a hidden fact. In answering the question the person is thereby assumed to accept the fact. The best-known example is:

“Have you stopped beating your wife?”

Whether the man answers yes or no he is admitting that he has beaten or is beating his wife. More subtle forms would be:

“Has your unethical approach affected your profits?”

This can be a crafty device to get the hidden fact accepted. Lawyers in courtrooms use this technique a lot. The question:

“Who was the woman you were with on the night in question?”

assumes there was a woman and can trick the witness into accepting that fact if they’re not very careful. If the witness replies, “I don’t want to say; it’s private,” the witness has admitted he was with someone.

This is a clever trick to learn if you want to get other facts from your opponent to further your argument. So if you’re wondering whether your wife is really going to her exercise class at the gym, or whether she might be having an affair with Brian, you could ask, “How is Brian these days?”