A Tea Party favorite, Michelle Bachmann would seem to need lessons in both history and logic.
While in New Hampshire, Bachman said “It’s your state that fired the shot that was heard around the world, you are the state of Lexington and Concord, you started the battle for liberty right here in your backyard.” Of course, as those darn intellectuals will point out, Lexington and Concord are in Massachusetts. She has made other interesting mistakes as well.
Now, it can be said that it is easy enough to make an error about history. This is true. However, one would expect that a Tea Party patriot would at least know where the revolutionary war started. Hopefully she knows where the original tea party took place. In any case, Bachman should probably do some remedial work when it comes to American history. After all, knowing the facts of the country’s past would seem to be rather important for those who wish to lead it into the future. It also seems rather important for someone who claims to be following the founding fathers to get things right about that time.
Bachmann also seems a bit weak in the area of logic. She was recently speaking before Bob Vander Plaats’ Christian conservative group The Family Leader and said the following against the legality of same sex marriage:
“In 5,000 years of recorded human history … neither in the east or in the west … has any society ever defined marriage as anything other than between men and women. Not one in 5,000 years of recorded human history. That’s an astounding fact and it isn’t until the last 12 years or so that we have seen for the first time in recorded human history marriage defined as anything other than between men and between women.”
This is, of course, a paradigm case of an appeal to tradition and also an appeal to common practice
Appeal to tradition is a fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that something is better or correct simply because it is older, traditional, or “always has been done.” This sort of “reasoning” has the following form:
- X is old or traditional
- Therefore X is correct or better.
This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because the age of something does not automatically make it correct or better than something newer. As an example, treating women as inferior to men has a long tradition behind it. If we accept her line of reasoning as correct, then women should not have received the right to vote. After all, women had been traditionally denied the right to vote for centuries and changing a tradition would, on her view, be wrong. Women were also traditionally denied the right to hold office. As such, her line of reasoning would entail that this should not have been allowed-so presumably she will resign from office and stop running out of respect for those traditions. Interestingly, she has praised the elimination of slavery, although that had been (and still is) a matter of well established tradition. Bachmann does seem to be rather inconsistent in her view of the justifying power of tradition.
Appeal to common practice is a fallacy with the following structure:
- X is a common action.
- Therefore X is correct/moral/justified/reasonable, etc.
The basic idea behind the fallacy is that the fact that most people do X is used as “evidence” to support the action or practice. It is a fallacy because the mere fact that most people do something does not make it correct, moral, justified, or reasonable. There are many practices that are common that are clearly not correct or good. For example, it is common practice to treat women as inferior to men: it occurs all around the world. However, I doubt Ms. Bachmann would regard being mistreated as a correct simply because it is commonly done.
I’m tempted to help Ms. Bachmann out by gifting her a copy of my book on fallacies. Someone who has written a text on early American history should also send her a copy. After all, someone who does not know how to reason and lacks basic knowledge of American history probably should not be in office. After all, how will such a person reason? How will they draw from the lessons of history or understand America’s founding principles?
I’ll grant you that Michelle Bachmann is not the sharpest tool in the shed.
But personally, it makes me nervous when my president–who has far more responsibility than Michelle Bachmann–doesn’t know they speak German in Austria.
And as for the “appeal to common practice” fallacy, how many times did we hear during the health care debate that “every other industrialized nation has universal health care”?
This seemed to be a convincing argument to those on the left.
By itself, that would be an appeal to common practice.
Hi, I’ve read a few of your posts but I haven’t kept up. This isn’t a comment but a personal message. You linked to my blog a while ago, and I didn’t follow it up, because at the time I didn’t understand what it was or what it meant. So apologies. I didn’t click on it because I didn’t realise it was a link to one of your posts, and i have no idea now which one it was.
Hope you’re well.
Sue.
Very good definition of her inability to think .Her interpretations of history and religion are quite amusing. I also am interested in her along with Perry. They both tend to appeal to peoples anger and misbeliefs.
How does she appeal to people’s anger?
Were people angry when they voted for Obama? If not, they probably are now.
Not necessarily. What if they wanted to take the country in a new & radical direction and saw the nation’s history (national ego) as a retarding force to advancement?
Not necessarily. What if they knew of a new & radical direction in which to take the country and saw the nation’s history (national ego) as a retarding force to advancement?
Please delete/ignore the earlier post.
The difference?
Effectively, there is no difference. But there have been those who thought there was and have acted genuinely with the very best of intentions and in full accord with their Nature, though sadly from a fatally egoistic consciousness. Hitler, Jesus & Frodo Baggins to name but three. Though curiously, Frodo got out with his life. That’s the trouble with fiction, one can adapt the Law to suit one’s Nature while in reality one must adapt one’s Nature to the Law.
(Spoiler alert)
Frodo, having been guided to the summit of Mount Doom by his psychic and his ego, when it came to the crunch was unable to bring himself to throw the Ring of Power into the Fires of Doom, choosing to wield it instead. His ego, having been spared earlier by Gandalf, in it’s lust for power then gnawed it from his hand and, during a triumphant dance, is tackled once more by Frodo in a last ditch attempt to rescue the situation and save the day, which he does… just.
Incidentally, I first read The Lord of the Rings in my late teens while our family lived in a guest house in a seaside village in Wales. My father picked it up and said he thought it was a book for kids. He used to sleepwalk as a boy and would sometimes brush the paved area of their back yard until woken. To the best of my knowledge he has never murdered anyone.
Frodo & his psychic – off to the next level…
A few shall see what none yet understands;
God shall grow up while the wise men talk and sleep;
~ Sri Aurobindo – Savitri, The Secret Knowledge.
Actually, one’s Nature adapts itself to the Law as a result of Forces acting upon it… eventually.