Archives for April 20, 2022

Description:

Demonizing is a rhetorical strategy aimed at casting the target as evil, corrupt, dangerous, or threatening. Demonizing can also be used to fuel or intensify other fallacies, such as the Demonic Ad Hominem and the Demonic Genetic Fallacy.

Demonic justification is a fallacy in which a target is demonized in an attempt to justify how the target is being treated. This treatment can include such thing as actions taken against the target or policies that are detrimental to the target. The fallacy has the following form:

 

Premise 1: Target person or group T is demonized.

Conclusion: Action A against T is justified.

 

This is a fallacy because the attempt to justify the action is based on demonization rather than good reasons. Since demonization, by definition, involves making either selective, exaggerated, or false claims, demonization cannot justify an action.

It should be kept in mid that committing this fallacy does not entail that the action is automatically unjustified. The action could be justified by other reasons, but the fallacy would still occur if the stated justification for the action was the demonizing. As with any fallacy the conclusion is not disproven because the reasoning is fallacious. To think otherwise is to fall victim to the Fallacy Fallacy.

This fallacy is often used to try to justify damaging, harsh and even brutal actions, or policies. It derives its power from the willingness of people to engage in demonizing and the appealing belief that harsh measures must be taken against the wicked.

This technique is often used in war to motivate and try to justify the killing of enemy soldiers. It is also a powerful tool in domestic politics and is often used to try to justify cruel and unjust policies.

For example, throughout history migrants have been demonized as diseased criminals who are out to steal jobs from native workers. This demonizing has been used to try to justify harsh immigration policies and even violence against migrants. As another example, Stalinists and Maoists demonized their targets, thus attempting to justify their harsh and brutal measures.

As a final point, taking actions or creating policies in response to real evil, threats or dangers need not be fallacious. Sorting out such justifications would be a matter for ethics.

 

Defense: The main defense against demonic justification is being aware that demonization is occurring. One should take the time to seriously ask if such claims are true. Since people are influenced strongly by their biases, prejudices, and stereotypes, this can be challenging. People also like to believe that they are on the side of good and are battling evil, and demonization plays right into this.

 

Example 1

“Migrants are bringing in disease, committing crimes and stealing our jobs. Sure, some people claim that some of them are legally seeking asylum, but I say that they are just using that to drop more anchor babies on American soil. We need to round them up, concentrate them in camps, and then ship them back.”

 

Example 2

Nero: “These Christians do not worship our gods and we all hate the, for their many abominations. It is no wonder, then, that they started the fires that burned down Rome. We need to round them up and be rid of them.”

 

Example 3

“These trans people just want to get into bathrooms to attack women. They also want to steal athletic trophies from real women and girls. Therefore, we must impose bathroom bans and band trans from sports!”

 

Example 4

“We all know that men are the ones who commit rape, sexual assault, and domestic violence. They also commit crimes and acts of violence against each other. Why, they surely go into bathrooms to attack women and girls.  They also steal jobs, trophies, and opportunities from women, what with all their testosterone and old boy networks. We need harsh measures to deal with all these men; they are naught but devils on the earth!”

Description:

This is an error in causal reasoning that occurs when it is assumed that a correlation between two things must be a causal connection.  Translated, the fallacy is called “with that, therefore because of that.” This fallacy has the following form:

 

Premise 1: There is a correlation between A and B (or As and Bs).

Conclusion: Therefore, A causes B (or As cause Bs).

 

This fallacy is like another classic causal fallacy, the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy. The difference is that the Post Hoc fallacy occurs when it is inferred that A causes B merely because A occurs before B. In the Cum Hoc fallacy, the error involves assuming that correlation must entail causation.

Just because two things are correlated is not enough to justify inferring that there is a causal connection. In some cases, this is obvious. For example, no one would infer that cold weather is caused by people wearing jackets.

Not surprisingly, the fallacy is most likely to occur when it appears there might be a causal connection.  For example, a person might find that there is a correlation between sleeping fully dressed and waking up with a headache and conclude that sleeping this way causes headaches. It would not be unreasonable to consider that clothes might have this effect, but mere correlation would not suffice to prove there is a connection.

The fallacy can even be committed when a causal connection holds between the two things. While it might seem odd, the key to the fallacy is not that there is, in fact, no causal connection between A and B. It is that adequate evidence has not been provided for the claim that A causes B. This is another example of the distinction between factual errors and bad reasoning.

This fallacy is often committed unintentionally due to a lack of caution in causal reasoning. Leaping to a causal conclusion is easier and faster than investigating the phenomenon. However, such leaps often land far from the truth of the matter.

The fallacy can also be intentionally committed. In these cases, the person inflicting the fallacy believes that there is no causal connection but uses correlation to try to persuade others that there is. This technique can be misused for a wide variety of nefarious purposes, ranging from generating clickbait “science” headlines to deceiving people about the efficacy of a medical product or procedure.

This fallacy is often committed or accepted when a person wants the correlation to be causation. Such cases can be considered a combination of Wishful Thinking and this fallacy. For example, someone who wants to believe that eating chocolate causes weight loss might be inclined to accept an attempt to use (possibly manufactured) correlation to “prove” causation.

If you are interested in strange correlations, Tyler Vigen maintains a collection of spurious correlations at tylervigen.com. As Vigen shows, correlation exists between such things as the divorce rate in my home state of Maine and the per capita consumption of margarine. Such non-causal correlations should be expected. If enough data is analyzed, numerous correlations between unrelated things will be found.

 

Defense: Because this fallacy is committed by drawing an unjustified causal conclusion, the key to avoiding it is careful investigation. While causes and effects do correlate, correlation is not causation.  While a causal investigation will often begin with an investigation of correlation, it should not end there.

To avoid having this fallacy inflicted on you, the defense is to consider whether the claim is supported by anything beyond correlation. While statistical analysis goes way beyond the scope of this book, you should consider that there are numerous deceitful techniques to make it appear that a causal connection exists. But you also need to be careful about unwarranted skepticism about causal claims. People also reject well-supported causal claims because they do not want them to be true, which is often a case of Wishful Thinking.

 

Example#1

“You know what I’ve noticed? There is a correlation between when the President speaks on the economy and the Dow Jones. While it does not happen every single time, usually when he speaks the Jones dips. And the more he talks, the deeper the dip. If he wants to help the economy, he needs to stop talking about it. His speeches are bringing it down!”

 

Example #2

Sam: “After four years of college I’ve learned something important.”

Jane: “And what might that be, Socrates?”

Sam: “Sleeping in your clothes gives me a headache.”

Jane: “You’ve been sleeping in my clothes?”

Sam: “No, I mean the general thing. Well, I mean when I sleep in my clothes, I get a headache. I’m not sure why but sleeping with clothes on hurts my head. So that is why I started sleeping naked.”

Jane: “What does your roommate think of that?”

Sam: “He’s not happy. He calls me ‘junk man.’”

Jane: “So, do you no longer get headaches?”

Sam: “That is the odd part. I still do. But I’m sure the clothes cause headaches. Maybe I’m sleeping too close to them?”

Jane: “Yeah, I’m sure that is it.”

 

Example #3

Ashleigh: “I’ve decided I’m not eating ice cream before I go swimming.”

Nancy: “You know that isn’t true. The myth about eating before swimming, I mean.”

Ashleigh: “Oh, I know. But I heard the professor say in class that drowning deaths increase in proportion to the sale of ice cream. I’m not sure what he was talking about, but I’m sure that eating ice cream before swimming would be risky.”

 

Description:

As noted above, an Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected based on some irrelevant fact about the person making the claim or argument. The demonic version of this fallacy involves two steps, the first of which distinguishes the demonic from the normal ad hominem. First, the target of the Ad Hominem is demonized. Demonizing is portraying the target as evil, corrupt, dangerous, or threatening.

This is usually done in three ways: selective demonizing, hyperbolic demonizing, or fictional demonizing. Selective demonizing is when a true negative fact about the target is focused on to the exclusion of other facts.  Hyperbolic demonizing involves greatly exaggerating a negative fact about the target. Fictional demonizing is simply lying about the target. Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument in question.

The demonic ad hominem has the following form:

 

Premise 1: Person A makes claim X.

Premise 2: Person B demonizes person A.

Conclusion: Therefore, A’s claim is false (or A’s argument fails).

 

This is a fallacy because demonizing a person has no bearing on the truth of their claim or the quality of their argument. In addition to the logical error, a demonic ad hominem also suffers from the fact that demonizing, by definition, involves deception. At the very least, demonizing involves taking facts out of context and often involves outright falsehoods.

A Demonic Ad Hominem can have considerable psychological force since demonizing typically goes beyond the usual Ad Hominem attacks and can trigger stronger emotions.

A common tactic is to demonize the target using stereotypes the audience already accepts and by appealing to their biases, fears, and prejudices. Such an audience will be inclined to accept the demonization as true, and their emotional response can lead them to accept the fallacious reasoning.

 

Defense: There are two main defenses against this fallacy. One is to be aware it is an Ad Hominem. Even if the demonizing claims were true, the reasoning would still be flawed: true but irrelevant negative claims about a person, no matter how terrible, do not disprove a claim or show an argument is flawed. The other is to be especially critical about extreme negative claims and only accept them if they are adequately supported by evidence.

This fallacy can be self-inflicted since a person can convince themselves that the alleged terrible qualities or actions of a person proves that person’s claim is not true. The fallacy can also be inflicted on others and is a staple in many political debates and advertising. It can be especially hard to defend against this fallacy when you dislike the person targeted for demonizing. As would be expected, this fallacy can be used to cause dislike in the target and thus incline people to believe the attack because of this manufactured dislike.

 

Example #1

Steve: “The president says that we should use more renewable energy and less foreign oil.”

Ted: “Yeah. Well, that guy really likes the young kids. If you know what I mean.”

Steve: “Are you saying he is a pedophile?”

Ted: “Oh, I’m just asking questions here. But I think we know that the answers are.”

Steve: “So you think he is wrong about energy?”
Ted: “Oh yes. Definitely. I mean, someone who is that way is going to be wrong about everything. Drill, baby drill!”

 

Example #2

Steve: “The president says that we should use less renewable energy and drill for more oil and gas in the United States.”

Ted: “Yeah. Well, that guy really likes the young kids. If you know what I mean.”

Steve: “Are you saying he is a pedophile?”

Ted: “Oh, I’m just asking questions here. But I think we know that the answers are.”

Steve: “So you think he is wrong about energy?”
Ted: “Oh yes. Definitely. I mean, someone who is that way is going to be wrong about everything. Solar and wind baby! Solar and wind!”