Archives for April 2022

Description:

A False Allegiance is a bad faith technique in which a person pretends to belong to a group and attempts to exploit this professed false allegiance for persuasive purposes. While it can be used in conjunction with Hijacking, the difference is that False Allegiance involves a false claim of membership while Hijacking involves pretending to agree with something to use it as a persuasive tool.

If someone uses a False Allegiance to cause harm to the target group through claims and arguments, this can be, perhaps a bit dramatically, called a False Flag. For example, a foreign agent might pretend to be a member of BLM and post inflammatory comments on Twitter. The same agent might also pretend to be a Proud Boy and post inflammatory comments, perhaps even in response to their fake BLM posts.

As would be expected, accusing a member of a group of having a False Allegiance is also a rhetorical technique. See the Appeal to Purity fallacy for how this tactic can work.

As a fallacy, one form involves attempting to persuade members of the target group to accept a claim based on a false claim of allegiance. It has this form:

 

Premise 1: Person A falsely claims membership in Group G.

Premise 2: Person A makes claim C to members of G.

Conclusion: Members of G should accept claim C.

 

Those using this technique usually employ other fallacies, such as Appeal to Group Identity, to exploit their false claim of group membership. Their intent is to get members of the target group to give their claim or argument more credence simply because they profess to be a member of that group. The person using the fallacy might also attempt to enhance it by claiming such things as that they are a dedicated member of the group or that they have been in the group a long time.

The False Flag variant would look like this:

 

Premise 1: Person A falsely claims membership in Group G.

Premise 2: Person A makes claim or argument C with the intent of harming G.

Conclusion: C should be accepted as representing G.

 

Those using this variant will typically use other fallacies and rhetorical techniques along with the False Flag. For example, they might make use of Appeal to Fear or Appeal to Anger to enhance the response to their claim. As with the other variant, the person using this will often claim that they are loyal, long time, or mainstream member of the group.

Alternatively, the person might claim to be disenchanted with the group or a former member. This technique can make harmful claims appear more plausible because the person appears to have been in a position to “know the truth” and to have a credible motive for making harmful claims. For example, someone might pretend to be a former Republican who left the party because they hate Donald Trump. As another example, someone might profess to have left the Democratic Party because they became “too woke.” This technique makes it easier to use fallacies such as Straw Man when trying to harm the target group. This is because a former or disenchanted member would seem more credible saying negative things than someone who claims to be a loyal and current member of the group.

 

Defense: Lying about being a member of a group is not a logical fallacy but is obviously a bad faith technique. If someone’s False Allegiance is revealed, this does not in itself prove that their claim is false, or their argument is flawed. As always, claims and arguments should be assessed on their own merits. It does, however, considerably reduce their credibility.

While a person’s real allegiance can sometimes be determined, the internet makes this difficult. After all, anyone can pretend to be anything. Groups obviously also have dissenters and extreme members, so what might appear to be a False Allegiance or even a False Flag might not be. Fortunately, defending against False Allegiance does not require that you know the allegiance is false. In the case of the first version, the defense is like that used against Appeal to Group Identity and similar fallacies: believing a claim just because it comes from (what appears to be) one’s group would be an error.

The defense against the False Flag variant is to keep in mind that a harmful claim made by a (alleged) member of a group does not, in itself, show that the claim is representative of that group. See, for example, Straw Man: Nut Picking.

 

Example #1

Ralph (who is not a Democrat): “As a long time Democrat who worked hard to get Obama elected, I can say that I have had it with cancel culture. I am disgusted and angered that my party is now against free speech. I am thinking about voting for the Republicans this year and think you should too.”

 

Example #2

Ralph (who is not a Republican): “As a long time Republican who worked hard for our party, I can say that I have had it with their racism, sexism, and homophobia. I am disgusted and angered that my party is no longer really the party of Lincoln. I am thinking about voting for the Democrats this year and think you should too.”

 

Example #3

Sally (who is not in BLM): “I loved being in BLM at first. I thought I was helping people. But then I found out the truth: they do not believe that All Lives Matter but that only Black Lives Matter. This made me so mad that I quit. You all need to wake up and be awake rather than woke!”

 

Example #4

Sally (who is not in the NRA): “I loved being in the NRA at first. I thought I was helping people learn gun safety and fighting to protect the Second Amendment. But then I found out the truth: they are secretly controlled by Hillary Clinton and their top members run her child slavery ring! This made me so mad that I quit. You all need to wake up and leave the NRA!”

Straw Man: Balloon Man

Description:

The Balloon Man is a variant of the Straw Man fallacy in which the target is redefined in an excessively broad or vague manner. This expanded definition, the Balloon Man, is taken to include a wide range of (usually) bad things. This Balloon Man is then attacked, and it is concluded that the original is defective on this basis.

Premise 1: A has an established definition D.

Premise 2: Person B provides an excessively broad or vague definition V of A in place of D.

Premise 3: Person B criticizes V.

Conclusion: Person B concludes that A is defective (false, bad, incorrect, flawed. etc.).

 

While this fallacy is usually aimed at an audience, it can be self-inflicted: a person can unwittingly make a Balloon Man. This can be done through innocent ignorance or due to the influence of prejudices and biases.

It should be noted that redefining something need not be a Balloon Man fallacy. The fallacy occurs when the redefinition is excessively broad or vague and is done in an unprincipled manner. As would be suspected, there can be good-faith debate about whether a redefinition is better or worse than the original definition.

A good definition must be clear, plausible, and internally consistent. It must also either be in correspondence with our intuitions or be supported by arguments that show our intuitions are mistaken. Since people differ in their intuitions about meanings this can be a problem. When in doubt about whether a definition is intuitively plausible or not, it is preferable to argue in support of the definition. A definition that fails to meet these conditions would be defective.

A good definition must avoid being circular, being too narrow, being too broad or being too vague. Definitions that fail to avoid these problems are defective.

A circular definition merely restates the term being defined and thus provides no progress in the understanding of the term. For example, defining “goodness” as “the quality of being good” would be circular.

A definition that is too narrow is one that excludes things that should be included. It leaves out too much. For example, defining “person” as “a human being” would be too narrow since there might well be non-humans that are persons. Angels or aliens, for example, might also be people.

As another example, defining “stealing” as “taking physical property away from another person” is also too narrow. After all, there seem to be types of theft (such as stealing ideas) that do not involve taking physical property. There might also be types of theft that do not involve stealing from a person. For example, if there is no after-life, then grave robbing would not be stealing from a person (since the person is gone). However, it might still be theft. Naturally enough, there can be extensive debate over whether a definition is too narrow or not. For example, a definition of “person” that excludes human fetuses might be regarded as too narrow by someone who is opposed to abortion while a pro-choice person might find such a definition acceptable. Such disputes would need to be resolved by argumentation.

A definition that is too broad is one that includes things that should not be included. It allows for the term to cover too much. For example, defining “stealing” as “taking something you do not legally hold title to” would be too broad. A person in a life raft fishing in international waters does not legally hold title to the fish but catching them would hardly seem to be stealing.

As with definitions that are too narrow there can be significant debate over whether a definition is too broad or not. For example, a definition of “person” that includes apes and whales might be taken by some as too broad. In such cases, the conflict would need to be resolved by arguments.

While it might seem odd, a definition can be too broad and too narrow at the same time. For example, defining “gun” as “a projectile weapon” would leave out non-projectile guns (such as laser guns) while allowing non-gun projectile weapons (such as crossbows).

Definitions can also be too vague. A vague definition is one that is not precise enough for the task at hand. Not surprisingly, vague definitions will also tend to be too broad since their vagueness will generally allow in too many things that do not really belong. For example, defining “person” as “a being with mental activity” would be vague and too broad. And that is just scratching the surface of debating definitions in good faith. Now back to the fallacy.

While the Straw Man has long been a political tool, it has proven exceptionally effective in modern American politics and the Balloon Man variant has become a go-to tool. The Balloon Man version of critical race theory provides an excellent example of the power of this fallacy and illustrates why people accept (or fall for) this and other Straw Man fallacies. What follows is a philosophical look at a Balloon Man fallacy in some detail; some readers might prefer to skip this part and go right to the Defense and Examples.

Briefly put, critical race theory was developed as an academic theory in the 1970s and was defined in 1994 by law professor Roy L. Brooks as “a collection of critical stances against the existing legal order from a race-based point of view.” While one can debate the merits of critical race theory, there is no question that it has been made into a Straw Man. This is because Christopher Rufo tweeted that this is exactly what he did: “The goal is to have the public read something crazy in the newspaper and immediately think “critical race theory.” We have decodified the term and will recodify it to annex the entire range of cultural constructions that are unpopular with Americans.”

This beautifully illustrates the creation of a Balloon Man, which is to take a target and redefine it both vaguely and negatively. In this manner, as Rufo tweeted, the target audience can be persuaded to fallaciously accept a wide range of unpopular things as being the same thing as the target of the Balloon Man. This strategy has proven effective, which provides an excellent example to use in discussing how this fallacy can work even when the creator publicly admits what they are doing.

In general, any type of Straw Man can be effective because the target audience is unaware that the fallacy is being used because they are ignorant about the truth about the target.

Although I have been a philosophy professor since 1993, I had only a vague notion of critical race theory since it is taught at certain law schools was never mentioned in my graduate philosophy classes. So, it makes sense that most people would have no idea what critical race theory really is. But for any type of Straw Man based on ignorance to remain effective, the intended audience must either not investigate the matter critically or must refuse to accept any criticism of the Straw Man.

The audience might become willfully ignorant and actively avoid critically assessing the Straw Man. This can be due to the influence of other fallacies. If the target accepts the Straw Man because they want to believe it, this could be Wishful Thinking. If they accept it out of fear or anger, it could be the result of an Appeal to Fear or Appeal to Anger. Other fallacies, such as the various Ad Hominem fallacies, the Genetic Fallacy or Appeal to Group Identity can also motivate people to accept the straw version as the real thing. These and other fallacies can also be used to motivate the audience to reject efforts to criticize the Straw Man.  For example, someone who presents the facts about critical race theory could be subject to Ad Hominem attacks accusing them of being a radical Marxist.

The audience can also believe the Straw Man version because they are being misled by a fallacious Appeal to Authority or Appeal to Authoritarian. For example, the audience might believe in the Straw Man version of critical race theory because a media personality or politician they mistakenly trust tells them to believe in the straw version. If the audience distrusts credible sources of information, they are likely to believe that there is no reason to doubt the misinformation from sources they trust.

While the above would explain why people who are unaware of Rufo’s Tweet might accept the Balloon Man, what is most interesting is the matter of why people who are aware that Rufo was the creator (or inflator) of this Balloon Man still accept it. That is, how can a person be told that something is a fallacy and still accept it?

One rational reason rests on the fact that fallacious reasoning does not entail that a claim is false (see the Fallacy Fallacy). As such, someone could recognize that a Balloon Man is being inflated, yet still believe that the Balloon Man is correct. But for this belief to be well-founded, they would need adequate evidence to support it.

There can also be pragmatic reasons to go along with a fallacy. The Balloon Man of critical race theory has proven a very effective political tool. If someone can gain by pretending the Balloon Man is the real thing, then they would have an excellent pragmatic reason to pretend to accept it.

A person can also engage in Rationalization to accept a fallacy (or false claim) they find appealing or useful. On one level, they are aware that something is a fallacy and that they do not have a good (logical) reason to accept the claim it is supposed to support. But they might see going along with such a deception as unethical, even if it is appealing or advantageous. Rationalization allows a person to have it both ways: they can engage in a self-deception that allows them to think they are believing something true while also being able to exploit the fallacy for their own advantage.

 

Defense: As with any Straw Man type fallacy, the main defense against falling for the Balloon Man is to check to see if a misrepresentation is being substituted for the original. In the case of the Balloon Man, the specific thing to watch for is the bad faith redefinition of something using a definition that is excessively broad or vague.

 

Example #1

Christopher Rufo: “The goal is to have the public read something crazy in the newspaper and immediately think “critical race theory.” We have decodified the term and will recodify it to annex the entire range of cultural constructions that are unpopular with Americans.”

 

Example #2

“The goal is to have the public see something crazy on social media or the news and immediately think “racism” or “sexism.” We have expanded the term to include a vast range of behaviors that are unpopular with Americans.”

 

Example #3

“Of course, I oppose feminism. Feminism is just a big bad burrito of all the man-hating, all the women whining about why they cannot have everything they want for nothing, all the false accusations against men, and all that other stuff.”

 

Example #4

“Of course, I oppose capitalism. Capitalism is just a big bad burrito of theft, racism, sexism, war, and everything bad in the world. Is something bad happening? Well, that is probably capitalism.”

Also Known As: Straw Person, Aunt Sally

Description:

A Straw Man is made when a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented version of something is substituted for the original. The substitute (the straw man) is then attacked, and on this basis it is concluded that the original is defective.

One version of the Straw Man fallacy occurs when a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented version of a claim or argument is substituted for the original. It has the following pattern:

 

Premise 1: Person A makes claim or argument X.

Premise 2: Person B presents Y (a distorted version of X).

Premise 3: Person B attacks Y.

Conclusion:  Therefore, X is false/incorrect/flawed.

 

This is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a claim or argument does not constitute a criticism of the original. This fallacy often involves hyperbole, a rhetorical device in which one engages in exaggeration.

Another version of the Straw Man creates a straw person of a person by exaggerating or distorting their qualities, beliefs, actions, etc. This version has the following form:

 

Premise 1: Person A has or is P, Q, R.

Premise 2: Person B presents X, Y. Z (distorted versions of P, Q, R or even complete fabrications).

Premise 3: Person B attacks A one the basis of X, Y, Z.

Conclusion:  Therefore, person A is defective/bad.

 

This is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a person does not show there is anything wrong with the person.

This tactic is most effective when the attack matches the audience’s biases, fears, or stereotypes. They will feel that the distorted version is the real version. This tactic is common in politics and is often used to set up Ad Hominem attacks against the straw man.

The Straw Man tactic can be used against other targets as well, using the same basic method of presenting a distorted or exaggerated version of the target in place of the original. For example, a concept or theory could be targeted by this fallacy.

Straw Man attacks often make use of an appeal to an unknown fact. This involves claiming to know the “real reason” a person or group believes the straw version. This “reason” is often presented as a Wicked Motivation.

For example, suppose that a climate scientist recommends reducing meat production to help slow climate change. In response, someone might craft a Straw Man by claiming the scientist wants to ban hamburgers because they hate capitalism. As another example, a conservative who favors providing tax breaks to those investing in underfunded communities might be targeted by a Straw Man in which it is claimed that they want to pay the rich to take over poor neighborhoods because they hate the poor.

While a person or group might have a wicked motive, they are keeping secret, evidence would be needed to support such a claim. And even if a person or group did have an evil motive, this would not prove that their claim is false, or their argument is bad. To think otherwise would be to fall for the Wicked Motivation fallacy.

Defense: The defense against a Straw Man, self-inflicted or not, is to take care to get a person’s claim or argument right. This involves applying the principle of charity and the principle of plausibility.

Following the principle of charity requires interpreting claims in the best possible light and reconstructing arguments to make them as strong as possible. There are three reasons to follow the principle. The first is that doing so is ethical. The second is that doing so avoids committing the straw man fallacy. The third is that the criticism of the best and strongest versions of a claim or argument also addressed the lesser versions.

The principle of charity must be tempered by the principle of plausibility: claims must be interpreted, and arguments reconstructed in a way that matches what is known about the source and in accord with the context. For example, reading quantum physics into the works of our good dead friend Plato would violate this principle. A person can overdo the principle of charity, committing the Steel Man fallacy.

 

Example #1

Prof. Jones: “The university just cut our yearly budget by $10,000.”

Prof. Smith: “What are we going to do?”

Prof. Brown: “I think we should eliminate one of the teaching assistant positions. “That would take care of it.”

Prof. Jones: “We could reduce our scheduled raises instead.”

Prof. Brown:” I can’t understand why you want to bleed us dry like that, Jones.”

 

Example #2

“Senator Jones says that we should not fund the Super Poseidon attack submarine program. I disagree entirely. I can’t understand why he wants to leave us utterly defenseless.”

 

Example #3

Bill and Jill are arguing about cleaning out their closets:

Jill: “We should clean out the closets. They are getting a bit messy.”

Bill: “Why, we just went through those closets last year. Do we have to clean them out every day?”

Jill: I never said anything about cleaning them out every day. You just want to keep all your junk forever, which is just ridiculous.”

Straw Man: Weak Man & Hollow Man

Description:

While a Straw Man fallacy always involves a misrepresentation, there are two variations developed by Robert Talisse and Scott Aikin. They call the classic Straw Man the Representative Form and their variations the Selection Form (or Weak Man) and the Hollow Man.

The Select Form/Weak Man substitutes a partial and weaker version of the target in place of the original. As in a classic Straw Man, this weaker version is attacked, and it is fallaciously claimed that the original has been refuted.

If the Weak Man target is a claim or argument, this reasoning has this form (it would be adjusted for other targets):

 

Premise 1: Person A makes claim or argument X.

Premise 2: Person B presents Y (a partial and weaker version of X).

Premise 3: Person B attacks Y.

Conclusion:  Therefore, X is false/incorrect/flawed.

 

The fallacy can also occur when the weakest (or weak) arguments for an opponent’s side are criticized to refute that side. This reasoning has this form:

 

Premise 1: Side A claims C.

Premise 2: Person B selects W, a weak argument for C, and ignores S, a stronger argument for C.

Premise 3: Person B criticizes W.

Conclusion:  Therefore, C is refuted.

 

As an example, atheists sometimes present the weakest arguments for God (such as the Appeal to Belief argument) and attack those, claiming that they have thus refuted the arguments for God. Or even that they have shown that God does not exist. Theists sometimes do the same sort of thing right back to atheists, selecting the worst arguments against God and refuting those to try to disprove atheism. While the Weak Man fallacy does present claims or arguments that someone makes, what about cases of complete fabrication? That takes us to the Hollow Man.

A Hollow Man follows the general pattern of the classic Straw Man but is based on a complete fabrication rather than a misrepresentation.  This fabrication is attacked, and this is fallaciously taken to refute or discredit the original.

If the Hollow Man target is a claim or argument, this reasoning has this form (it would be adjusted for other targets):

 

Premise 1: Person A makes claim or argument X.

Premise 2: Person B presents Y (a complete fabrication).

Premise 3: Person B attacks Y.

Conclusion:  Therefore, X is false/incorrect/flawed.

 

This fallacy can also be presented as having this form:

 

Premise 1: Person B fabricates Y.

Premise 2: Person B attributes Y to person A or Group G.

Premise 3: Person B criticizes Y.

Conclusion:  Therefore, person A or group G has been refuted/shown to be wrong.

There can be some debate about the distinction between complete fabrications and extreme exaggerations. After all, almost any sizable group has a chance of having a member who does believe what the creator of the fallacy believed they were fabricating. For example, a leftist might make up the idea that members of a conservative group believe that Jews are constructing space lasers to start forest fires to fake climate change. On the face of it, that notion seems too absurd to attribute to anyone. But it might turn out that a conservative believes this. As such, while the idea is a bad faith fabrication, it would just so happen to be true of one person, thus making it an odd sort of true lie.

Fortunately, we do not need to draw an exact line between complete fabrications and extreme exaggerations.  From a practical standpoint, there is generally not a need to determine whether an instance is a classic Straw Man or a true Hollow Man, since the reasoning is fallacious in either case.

This fallacy is commonly used to manufacture outrage over something no one has done or said. The manufactured outrage over the video game Cuphead is a good example of this fallacy. One part of the manufactured outrage was that vaguely defined group of social justice warriors was falsely claimed to be calling Cuphead a racist game. This fabrication was then used to “refute” that vague group.

The Hollow Man fallacy usually relies heavily on vaguely defined groups and vague attributed views. One reason for this is that if specific groups and views were identified, then someone could check on the claims in the Hollow Man and easily refute them. Complete fabrications also allow the Hollow Man fallacy to be perfectly tailored for the target audience. The person using it can simply make up whatever they think would work the best.

While you might think the Hollow Man fallacy would be ineffective because it would often be easy to point out that it is based on fabrication, it can be a powerful persuasive tool.  This is because the intended target will often either want to believe the fabrication or is unlikely to investigate. For example, someone who loathes supporters of Donald Trump is less likely to take the effort to confirm a fabrication about these supporters, especially if the fabrication matches their biases and the stereotypes they accept.

In some cases, members of the target audience know that it is a Hollow Man and are on board with spreading it. This might be because they agree with the claim the fallacy is alleged to support or they simply like trolling.

Spreading an instance of this fallacy can help create the illusion of truth and make the fallacy that much more effective. For example, if a Hollow Man attack on Trump supporters spreads to various blogs, Tweets, Facebook posts and YouTube videos, this can create the appearance that the claim is true. If a person does a search on the claim, they will get results that will superficially seem to provide evidence of the claim. This can be convincing, unless, of course, they take the effort to check this content critically.

 

Defense: The defense against these variants of the Straw Man is essentially the same as the dense against the classic Straw Man. For the Weak Man fallacy, the specific defense is to check to see if that side has stronger arguments than the one being attacked. Sometimes a critic will present a weak argument in good faith by making it clear that they know the argument is weak and that they are criticizing it to address those who use that weak argument. In that case, the Weak Man fallacy is not committed.

For the Hollow Man fallacy, there are two main parts of the defense. The first is to check to see if the group being criticized exists in a meaningful way or is itself a straw group. If a group is vaguely defined or poorly identified, then this is a red flag. For example, if someone is criticizing social justice warriors, conservatives, the rich, the poor, men, women, feminists in broad terms, then they might be committing this fallacy. But not all sweeping generalizations and vague group references are this fallacy (or any fallacy).

The second is to see if any actual person in the targeted group did or said what is attributed to them. For example, if it is claimed that conservatives have been setting fire to vehicles that display BLM stickers, then you would want to check credible sources to see if this is something that is really happening. If you cannot find any credible source to confirm this claim, that would also be a red flag for this fallacy. It must be kept in mind that even if the claim is true, another fallacy such as Straw Man: Nut Picking could be occurring.

 

Example #1 (Hollow Man)

“Trump supporters have been setting fire to vehicles displaying BLM stickers! This proves what we have known all along: Trump supporters are violent white supremacists.”

 

Example #2 (Hollow Man)

“Biden supporters have been setting fire to vehicles displaying Trump stickers! This proves what we have known all along: Biden supporters are violent criminals!”

 

Example #3 (Weak Man)

“So, today on Genius Atheist Philosopher we will be looking at the usual Christian proof for God. Christians will say that God exists because most people believe in God. But as anyone who knows logic gets, this is just the Appeal to Belief fallacy. So, that just about wraps it up for God and shows what dummies these Christians are.”

 

Example #4 (Weak Man)

“So, today on Genius Theist Philosopher we will be looking at the usual atheist attack on God. Atheists will always say that God does not exist because the only argument for God is an Appeal to Belief and that is a fallacy. But those stupid atheists never get that we have other arguments, like St. Aquinas’s Five Ways. That just about wraps it up for the atheists and shows what dummies they are.”

Description:

Kevin Drum coined the term “nut picking” to refer to a variant of the Straw Man. In this variant, a Straw Man is created from fringe and non-representative statements from or of members of a group. This Straw Man is then presented as representing the irrationality or incompetence of the group, which can be seen as like a Hasty Generalization. This version is often seen as combing an Ad Hominem with the Fallacy of Composition (what is true of the extreme or fringe parts is true of the whole). It can also be taken as making use of Guilt by Association, since it associates the fringe and extreme members of a group with the other members.

It can be presented in the following form:

 

Premise 1: Person A selects statements by or members of Group G that are fringe and non-representative of G.

Premise 2: Person A presents these statements or members as being mainstream and representative of G.

Conclusion: Therefore, group G is irrational, incompetent, or otherwise defective.

 

Alternatively, it can be presented more bluntly in the spirit of the nut picking name. Put this way, the fallacy involves selecting the “nuts” (fringe or extreme members) of a group and asserting that these members represent or speak for the mainstream of the group. This presentation would usually look like this:

 

Premise 1: N, the “nuts” (extreme or fringe members) of group G, are selected.

Premise 2: N, the “nuts” are presented as representing group G.

Conclusion: Therefore, group G holds the views of N or does what N does.

 

For example, a Democrat might nut pick avowed white supremacists in the Republican party to conclude that the Republican Party is a white supremacist party. As another example, a Republican might nut pick avowed Marxists in the Democratic party to conclude that the Democratic party is Marxist.

It is obviously not a fallacy to infer that a group is fringe or extreme if its views are fringe or extreme. It is also not a fallacy to infer that a group is fringe or extreme if that is the mainstream of the group.

Sorting out what the real views of a group are or who counts as a mainstream or true member of the group can be challenging. The difficulty of making such distinctions is often compounded by other fallacies, such as the Purity Fallacy, which can be seen as the reverse of nut picking. In nut picking, a group is taken as being defined by its fringe or extreme members. In the Appeal to Purity Fallacy, what might be seen as fringe or extreme members are excluded, in an unprincipled way, from defining the group.

Groups that hold extreme or fringe views sometimes attempt to defend themselves by accusing their critics of committing this fallacy. For example, a white supremacist group might claim that their critics are focusing only on their members who have swastika tattoos and thus are nut picking. But if the sample used is representative of the group (large enough and not biased), then this would not be nut picking but an accurate characterization of the group.

As the example shows, a false accusation of nut picking can, ironically, involve a form of internal nut picking: the defenders of the group select their most extreme members and claim that unless the entire group is as extreme as the most extreme members, then the group is not extreme. But, continuing the example, claiming that a group that publicly holds to white supremacist ideology is not a white supremacist group because only their most fringe members have swastika tattoos would not be good reasoning.

 

Defense: To avoid committing or falling victim to this fallacy, be sure to consider whether the evidence offered that a group is extreme, or fringe does not consist of fringe or extreme examples that differ from the mainstream of the group. As always, you should be especially cautious when considering groups that you have strong feelings about.

 

Example #1

“I saw some people at the rally for that Republican who had swastika tattoos. That confirms what I have long believed, the Republicans are all white supremacists.

 

Example #2

“I saw some people at the rally for that Democrat who were waving around a hammer and sickle flag. That confirms what I have long believed, the Democrats are Marxists!”

 

Example #3

Ted: “Look at those anti-choice lunatics. I bet most of them are fine with killing doctors and even women who get abortions.”
Sally: “Why do you think that?”

Ted: “Well doctors have been killed by these so-called pro-life nuts. So, it is reasonable to think that they think killing doctors is just fine. Hypocrits.”

 

Example #4

Ted: “Look at those pro-choice lunatics. I bet most of them are fine with killing babies at 8 or even 9 months.”
Sally: “Why do you think that?”

Ted: “Well, I did see this person at a rally who had a sign saying, “abortion on demand at any time!” They were endorsing abortions at any time. No one told her to put away that sign, so I am sure all those so called pro-choice anti-life feminazis agree with her. They are all fine with abortions at any time.”

Description:

This mistake occurs when the conversion rule from categorical logic, which is a type of deductive logic, is used improperly.

In deductive logic, conversion is a rule that allows the subject and predicate claims of a categorical claim to be exchanged. As with most rules, it has correct and incorrect applications. In the case of conversion, the correctness of the application depends on what sort of claim is subjected to the rule.

In categorical logic, there are four sentence types: All S are P, No S are P, Some S are P, and Some S are not P. C applies correctly to two of them: No S are P and Some S are P. A conversion is legitimate when the converted claim logically follows from the original (and vice versa). Put another way, the rule is applied correctly when its application does not change the truth value of the claim.

For example, “No cats are hamsters” converts legitimately to “no hamsters are cats.” Interestingly, “some dogs are huskies” converts correctly to “some huskies are dogs”, at least in categorical logic.

In categorical logic, “some” means “at least one.” Hence, “at least one dog is a husky” is converted to “at least one husky is a dog.” In this case, the inference from one to the other is legitimate because it is made in the context of categorical logic.

The illicit use of conversion is an error.  This error occurs in two ways. The first is when the rule is applied incorrectly in the context of categorical logic: if conversion is applied to an All S are P or Some S are not P claim, then the rule has been applied improperly.  This can be easily shown by the following examples.

The first example is that while it is true that all dogs are mammals, the conversion of this claim, all mammals are dogs, is not true.  As another example, the claim that some dogs are not huskies is true while its conversion, some huskies are not dogs, is false.  This sort of mistaken application of the conversion rule can also be presented as a fallacious line of reasoning, as shown by the following flawed inference patterns:

 

Fallacious Pattern #1

1. Premise: All S are P
2. Conclusion: All P are S

 

Fallacious Pattern #2

1. Premise: Some S are not P
2. Conclusion: Some P are not S

 

The second type of error occurs when the conversion rule is applied outside of the context of categorical logic as if it were being applied within such a context.  That is, it occurs in contexts in which “some” does not mean “at least one.”  The mistake, which is sometimes known as an illicit inductive conversion, is as follows:

 

Fallacious Pattern #3

1. Premise: P% (or “some”, “few”, “most”, “many”, etc.) of Xs are Ys.
2. Conclusion: Therefore P% (or “some”, etc.) of Ys are Xs.

 

For example, to infer that most people who speak English are from Maine because most people from Maine speak English would be an obvious error.  This is because “most” in this context is not taken to mean “at least one” but is instead taken to refer to a majority.

While people usually do not make such obvious errors, they can fall victim to conversions that seem plausible. For example, when people hear that a medical test for a heart condition is 80% accurate, they might be tempted to infer that 80% of those who test positive have the condition. However, to convert “80% of those who have the condition will test positive” (that is what it means for a test to be 80% accurate) to “80% of those who test positive have the condition” is an illicit use of conversion.

 

Example #1

“Very few white men have been President of the United States. Therefore, very few Presidents have been white men.”

 

Example #2

“A small percentage of automobile accidents involve drivers over 70. Therefore, a small percentage of drivers over 70 are involved in automobile accidents.”

 

Example#3

“Most conservatives are not media personalities on Fox News. Therefore, most of the media personalities on Fox News are not conservative.”

 

Example #4

“Most wealthy people are men, so most men are wealthy.”

 

Example #5
“Most modern terrorists are Muslims, therefore most Muslims are modern terrorists.”

 

Example #6

“Most modern terrorists are religious people, therefore most religious people are terrorists.”