Sarah Palin certainly deserves credit for introducing the world to the notion of the “gotcha” question. Given the name, a “gotcha” question should be a question that is intended to trap a person in some devious or tricky manner. This, naturally enough, makes me think that perhaps Palin had in mind something like the fallacy of complex question or a loaded question.
The fallacy of complex question is committed by attempting to support a claim by presenting a question that rests on one or more unwarranted assumptions. The fallacy has the following form:
1) Question Q is asked which rests on assumption (or assumptions) A.
2) Therefore A is true.
This version of the fallacy is similar to begging the question in that what is in need of proof is assumed rather than properly
established.Complex question is also often defined as presenting two or more questions as if they were a single question and then using the answer to the single question to answer both questions. The answer is then used as a premise to support a conclusion. This version has the following form:
1) Question Q is presented that is actually formed of two (or more) questions Q1 and Q2 (etc.).
2) Question Q is based on one or more unwarranted assumptions, U.
3) An answer, A, is received to Q and treated as if it answers Q1 and Q2.
4) On the basis of A, U is concluded to be true.
This is a fallacy because the answer, A, is acquired on the basis of one or more unwarranted assumptions. As such, the conclusion is not adequately supported.
This fallacy needs to be distinguished from the rhetorical technique of the loaded question. In this technique a question is raised that rests on one or more unwarranted assumptions, but there is no attempt to make an argument. In the context of law, a loaded question is sometimes referred to as a leading question. The classic example of a loaded question is “have you stopped beating your wife?”
I think it would be quite reasonable (and colorful) to refer to complex and loaded questions as “gotcha” questions. However, this view of “gotcha” questions is based on there being some sort of trap or unwarranted assumption in the question. That is, the “gotchaness” is a property of the question. This does not, in practice, seem to match how Palin uses the term. After all, in defending her mistakes regarding the ride of Paul Revere she claimed that the question “”What have you seen so far today and what are you going to take away from your visit?”” was a “gotcha” question. The question itself does not seem to have any tricks, traps, or unwarranted assumptions built into it. In fact, it seems like an easy and innocuous sort of question. As such, either she is wrong about it being a “gotcha” question or she means something else by the term.
If she is not in error, then the most plausible account of the “gotcha” question is that it is defined not by what is asked but by what Palin answers. To be specific, if she gives a rather bad answer to a question, then it is a “gotcha” question, regardless of the content of the actual question. Presumably anyone can help themselves to this defense. So, if you give an incorrect or embarrassing answer to any question, be sure to insist that it is a “gotcha” question. That will surely show that either you are not accountable for your answer or that your answer is, in fact, right.
The classic example of a “gotcha” question was when George Bush senior was asked the price of a gallon of milk.
It’s easy to see where that may “get” or baffle someone who’s never personally bought a gallon of milk.
Well, I don’t know the price of a gallon of milk. Do we need to get within 5 cents to be considered correct? I’ll ask my wife tonight. Though I’m sure the price in Germany is different from here in Afghanistan.
I forgot that you’re in the Army. Context is certainly important. And location, location, location.
A politician—Bush, , Obama, whoever—should respond with simple candor, just as you have. If the truth is that the individual has “no need to know” the price because his wife/staff do the shopping and cooking, he should say so. Thus, no one is “gotten”. These days fewer people are fooled by the classic political wiggle-waffle. Fewer still find it interesting.
To be honest, I could not answer that question exactly. I look at prices when I stuff things into the cart, but it doesn’t really stick except in vague terms.
“What would your biggest mistake be . . . and what lessons have you learned from it?”
Gotcha question?
Bush Jr. never cited one mistake. Obama was asked a similar question. No real “mistakes”.
“Caughtca”, say the headlines ! Looking stupid and shallow.
Q: Is the president’s biggest mistake (as he sees it) something for public consideration? Do we need to know what haunts the dreams of the leader of the Free World?
A good response might be “We all make mistakes. I prefer to focus on my successes and what I can learn from them.”
This is the 34th (approximately) article that Mike has tagged with “Sarah Palin” or “palin”. He still has a crush.
You’ve changed my mind, Mike. The more you blog about her, the more I like here. I’m sure I’m not the only person who feels this “rebound” effect when someone is unfairly attacked over and over, and yet appears to have done nothing wrong.
I’m no longer campaigning for Bill Clinton. It’s Palin ’12 for me.
https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150203463153435
The best missile defense is taking out the launch sites before they can launch.
While I have not kept up with missile defense technology, what I recall is that any practical missile defense system would not be adequate for a full scale war. However, a massively expensive system could handle a small strike-provided that it actually worked.
I take the stance that our enemies know the impact of our systems on their possible operations better than we do. I’ve taken the same stance in doing analysis on the Taliban and the Afghan insurgency; anything that our enemy fights hard to make go away is probably something we ought to consider strongly.
While I would not call Russia our enemy, she clearly has ideas that may pose dangers to US national interests in the future.
The subject of your blog is also called circular reasoning; it seems to be quite common.
On a slightly different note, it seems that politicians are expected, or even required, to know everything and have an instant answer for every possible question. They are also expected to be masters of debate. It seems to me that the skills required to win an election are not the same skills required to do a good job while in office. A good office holder does not need to have an answer for everything or a solution for every problem. More important is the skill required to assemble a group of experts who can properly advise him (or her).
“A good office holder does not need to have an answer for everything or a solution for every problem. ”
I agree. But. But. As depicted by the media (MS and otherwise)a sizable and very vocal portion of the population and–Lord help us– even the electorate seems to think otherwise. And. And. Those same people know the (not “a”, but “the”) solution. And that solution must be immediate. The clock is always ticking for the other guy.