Category: Critical Thinking

 

The idea that government should be more like a business is appealing to those whose education, experience and values are in the business world. People do see the world through the lens of their experiences and want to apply the methods they are most familiar with to as many areas as possible. For example, I am a philosophy professor and tend to see the world through the philosophical lens and want to apply critical thinking, logic and ethical reasoning whenever I can. Likewise, those who are educated and experienced in business see the world through a business lens and wish to broadly apply their business skills and methods.

A reasonable case can be made as to why a business focused approach has merit. One can point out that many skills developed in the context of business can be used in government. For example, negotiating and deal making skills can be applied to politics. As another example, business leadership and management skills can also be applied in government. It would be a mistake to claim that government is nothing like a business, but it can also be argued that it is mistaken to try to transform government into a business.

One mistake is to think that just because there are positive qualities of business that overlap with those of government, making government more like a business will thus make government better. Making one thing more like another only adds positive qualities if they are made alike in positive ways. Making them alike in other ways does not do this. For example, dressing like a runner makes one like a runner, but this does not confer the health benefits of running.

 There is also the fact that although things with similar positive qualities are similar, it does not follow they are otherwise alike in relevant ways. For example, efficiency is a positive quality of business and government, but merely making government like business does not necessarily make it more efficient. There are businesses that are very inefficient.

Also, the fact that efficiency can be a positive quality of both business and government does not mean they are alike in other ways or that the way business is made more efficient is the way to make government more efficient. To illustrate, a business might be very efficient at exploiting customers and workers while enriching the stockholders, but that is presumably not the sort of efficiency one should aim for in government.

Avoiding this mistake involves resisting the mythology and fetishizing of making things like businesses and giving due consideration to which skills, methods and approaches transfer well from business to government and which do not.

A second basic mistake is like that made by Ion in Plato’s dialogue Ion. The rhapsode Ion believes, at the start of the dialogue, that poets have knowledge and mastery about almost everything. His reasoning is that because poets write about, for example, military matters, they thus are experts in military matters. As such, poets should be able to teach people about everything and serve as leaders in all these areas.

Socrates shows that the poets (as poets) do not have such knowledge. The gist of his argument is that each area is mastered by mastering the subject of that area and all these areas “belong” to others and not to the poets. For example, knowledge of waging war belongs to soldiers. The poets touch but lightly on these other areas and understand only the appearances and not the depth. Socrates does note that a person can have multiple domains of mastery, so a medical doctor could, for example, also be skilled at mathematics or art history.

The error in the case of business is to think that because there are many types of business and almost everything has some connection to business, then an alleged mastery of business confers mastery over all these things. However, business skills are distinct from skills specific to types of businesses. To illustrate, while a manager might believe that their management skills are universal, managing a software company does not confer software skills nor does managing a hospital confer medical skills. One might pick up skills and knowledge, but this would not be as a businessperson. After all, while a businessperson might be a runner, that does not make running a business. The fact that there are businesses associated with running, such as Nike, does not entail that skill in business thus confers skill in running. As such, for someone to think that business skills thus confer mastery over government would be a mistake. They might believe that they have such mastery because government interacts with business and some businesses do things like what government does, but they would be as mistaken as someone who thinks that because they manage a Nike outlet, they are thus an athlete.

 

A way to argue the United States is obligated to provide health care is by contending it is analogous to its obligation to defend citizens from “enemies foreign and domestic.” While there is disagreement about the obligations of a country, most thinkers believe the state is required to provide a military defense against foreign threats and deploy the police against domestic threats. So, just as the United States is obligated to defend its citizens from foreign terrorists and domestic criminals, it is obligated to defend them against cancer.

Another approach is to forgo the analogy and argue the basis of the obligation to provide military defense and police services also extends to providing health care. The general principle is that the state is obligated to protect its citizens. Since anthrax and heart failure can kill a person just as dead as a bullet or a bomb, then the state is also obligated to provide medical protection. Otherwise, the citizens are left unguarded, and the state would fail in its duty as a protector. While these lines of reasoning are appealing, they can certainly be countered. This could be done by arguing that there are relevant differences between providing health care and providing armed defenses.

One way is to argue that the state is only obligated to protect its citizens from threats presented by humans and not from other threats, such as disease or accidents. So, the state is under no obligation to protect citizens from the ravages of natura disease. But, the state is obligated to protect citizens from foes using disease as a weapon.

This seems odd. From the standpoint of the victim, it does not matter whether their disease is natural or inflicted, since the effect on them is the same. What matters is the harm being inflicted on the citizen. To use an analogy, it would be like the police being willing to stop a human from trying to kill another human but shrugging and walking away if they see a wild animal tearing apart a human. As such, it does not matter whether the harm is caused by a human or, for example, a virus—the state’s obligation to protect citizens would still apply.

Another counter to my view is to argue that while the state is obligated to protect its citizens, it is only obligated to provide a certain type of defense. The psychology behind this approach can be made clear by the rhetoric of those supporting generous state funding of the military and police while being against state funding for medical care. The military is spoken of in terms of its importance in “degrading and destroying” the enemy and the police are spoken of in terms of their role in imposing “law and order.” These are very aggressive roles. One can appear tough while speaking about funding submarines, torpedoes, bullets and missiles.

In contrast, the rhetoric against state funding of health care speaks of “the nanny state” and how providing such support will make people “weak” and “dependent.” This is caring rather than clubbing, curing rather than killing. One does not look manly or tough when speaking about funding preventative care and wellness initiatives.

What lies behind this psychology and rhetoric is the principle that the state’s role in protecting its citizens is one of force and violence, not one of caring and curing. This does provide a potentially relevant difference; but the challenge is showing that this difference warrants providing armed defense while precluding providing medical care.

One way to argue against it is to use an analogy to a family. Family members are generally obligated to protect one another, but if it were claimed that this obligation was limited only to using force and not caring for family members, then this would be rightfully regarded as absurd. Imagine, for example, a parent who was willing to kill to protect their child, but unwilling to take care of their illnesses and injuries. They would be rightfully condemned as a bad parent.

An interesting rhetorical approach is to embrace the military and police metaphors. Just as the state should thrust its force against enemies within and without, it should use its medical might to crush foes that are literally within—within the citizens. So, the state could wage war on viruses, disease and such and thus make it more manly and less nanny. This should have some rhetorical appeal to those who love military and police spending but are loath to fund healthcare.

As far as the argument that health care should not be provided by the state because it will make people dependent and weak, the obvious reply is that providing military and police protection shoulf have the same impact. As such, if the dependency argument works against health care, it would also work against having state military and police. If people should go it on their own regarding health care, then they should do the same when it comes to their armed defense. If private health coverage would suffice, then citizens should just arm themselves and provide their own defense and policing. This, obviously enough, would be a return to the anarchy of the state of nature and that would be bad. If accepting military and police protection from the state does not make citizens weak and dependent, then the same should also hold true for accepting health care from the state.

As a final point, an easy way to counter the obligation argument for state health care is to argue that the state is not obligated to provide military and police protection to the citizens. Rather, the military and the military, it could be argued, exists to protect and advance the interests of the elites. Since the elites have excellent health care thanks to their wealth and power, there is no need for the state to provide it to them. Other than the elites in government, like the Republicans in congress, who get their health care from the state.  On this view, support for using public money for the military and police and not health care makes perfect sense.

 

While the right to free speech is fundamental to classical liberalism, contemporary liberals are often accused of being its enemy. Two examples include incidents at Berkeley and Middlebury. As always, the matter of free speech is philosophically interesting, especially when it involves higher education.

One important distinction in the context of rights is that of the negative versus the positive. A negative right is not an evil right; rather it is a freedom such that the possessor is not entitled to be provided with the means to exercise the right. It is a right to not be interfered with.

A positive right is an entitlement to the means needed to exercise the right. For example, the United States currently grants citizens a right to public K-12 education. In addition to having the liberty to seek this education, it is also provided (by the taxpayers). In contrast, college education is usually a negative right: students have the liberty to attend college but are (generally) not provided with free education.

The right to free speech is a negative right; it is intended as a protection from impediment rather than an entitlement to the means of expression. To use an obvious example, while I have the right to express my views no one is obligated to provide me with free radio or TV time in which to do so.

While university personnel have no right to unjustly interfere with free speech, they are usually under no moral obligation to provide people with speaking opportunities on campus. For example, while I might be invited to speak at Harvard, Harvard has no obligation to provide me with a room just because I might want to talk about philosophy.

Decisions about who to invite and who to allow to speak in official venues are often made on pragmatic grounds, such as which speakers will boost the reputation of the school or who happens to be friends with top administrators. There are also practical concerns about the cost of the speaker, the likelihood of trouble arising, and the extent of the interest in the speaker. While these practical concerns are important, decisions about who to invite (and who to exclude) should also be made on principled grounds.

One reasonable principle is that decisions should be made based on the educational value of the speaker campus, broadly understood. Since universities are supposed to educate students, it makes sense for them to operate on this principle. Speakers who offer little or nothing in the way of educational value could be justly denied invitations. Of course, education is not the only concern of a university in terms of what it offers to the students and the community. Speakers who offer things of artistic value or even mere entertainment value should also be given due consideration.

One concern about decisions based on these factors is that there can be good faith debate about which speakers have the merit to warrant their invitation. For example, the incident at Middlebury arose because some see Charles Murray’s co-authored controversial book The Bell Curve as  based on pseudoscience and bad methodology. While these matters can be clouded with ideology, there are established standards regarding educational merit regarding such things as methodology and legitimacy. The main problem lies in their application, but this is not a problem unique to picking speaker as it extends across the academy. Fortunately, the basic principle of merit is reasonable clear but the real fights take place over the particulars.

Another seemingly sensible principle is a moral one; that those invited should reflect the values of the institution and perhaps the broader society. At the very least, those invited should not be evil and should not be espousing evil.

This principle does have some problems. One is deciding what conflicts with the values of the institution. Another is that it is difficult to speak of the values of the broader society, given the considerable diversity of opinions on moral issues. When people use this approach, they usually refer to their own values and fall prey to the cognitive bias that leads them to assume their values are shared by society. There is the enduring problem in ethics of sorting out good and evil. There is also the concern about whether academic or artistic merit can offset moral concerns. For example, a Catholic university might see a pro-choice philosopher as endorsing a morally wrong position, yet think that having this philosopher engage a pro-life philosopher in a campus debate to have educational merit. As another example, a liberal institution might regard an extreme libertarian as having morally problematic views yet see educational merit in having them present their arguments as part of a series on American political philosophy.  As with the matter of merit, there are rational and principled ways to approach ethical concerns but this is even more fraught with controversy than questions of assessing educational merit.

While I agree that speech can cause harm, I hold to a presumption in favor of free expression. As a principle, this means that if there is reasonable doubt as to whether the merit of a speech outweighs moral concerns about the speaker or content, then the decision should favor free expression. This is based on the view that it is better to run the risk of tolerating possible evil than to risk silencing someone who has something worth saying. As such, I generally favor a liberal (in the classic sense) approach to inviting speakers to universities.

Americans tend to favor free expression for those they agree with and oppose it for those they dislike. When campuses attempted to exclude right wing speakers, the right expressed its devotion to free expression, speaking of the free market of ideas. As was expected, when college students and faculty recently protested the treatment of the Palestinians by Israel, the right supported a crack down on free expression and on some campuses riot police were turned lose on students and faculty. The right has also worked hard to restrict the content of college classes, enacting laws imposing what they call “reforms.” For example, my adopted state of Florida professes to be all about freedom, but this is only for the freedom to express views that accord with the ideology of the right. It could be countered that “the left” takes a similar approach when it is in power, allowing free speech it approves of. While such finger pointing might feel good, it also shows that Americans are not as committed to free speech as we claim.

 

While simple and ideologically appealing explanations for Harris’ loss are tempting, the truth is that the reasons are many and often complicated. While it is inarguably true that racism and sexism (two staples of American politics) were factors, the relationships between the two parties and the truth were also factors.

While politics often involves people in a dubious relation with the truth, Trump seems to have locked the Republican party into strategic deceit. The prime example is, of course, what was dubbed the “Big Lie” about Trump being robbed of his rightful victory in 2020. As would be expected, talk of issues with the election has ceased with Trump’s victory. While the Republican party has engaged in strategic lying broadly, I will focus on economic lies.

To be fair and balanced, both the Republicans and the Democrats are right when they claim that many Americans are suffering economically. Inflation, stagnating wages, the high cost of health care and the absurd price of housing have been hurting Americans. Even those who are relatively well off also seem to have felt that the economy was not working for them as it should. As such, both sides agreed on and were correct about the general claim that most Americans are facing economic woes. But they obviously differed in their explanations and proposed solutions. I will focus on the explanations.

While the Republican populist rhetoric did lay some of the blame on corporations, there was an emphasis on lying about the impact of migrants. In addition to the old lies that migrants are stealing jobs, spreading disease, committing crimes and sponging off the system, J.D. Vance also offered the false claim that migrants were responsible for the high cost of housing. While migrants do occupy housing, it is obviously not true that undocumented migrants are buying houses in the United States. In addition to the barrier of the high cost, there is also the fact that legally buying a house is a process that an undocumented person would not be able to complete. Trump and Vance ran hard on the migration issue, linking it to the economy and using racism and xenophobia to add rhetorical fuel to their false claims. The economic link is a smart rhetorical play for two reasons. First, it provides cover for people who are motivated by racism and xenophobia but who do not want to be seen for what they are. Second, it onboards people who are not racist or xenophobic but who are rightfully worried about their economic woes. In terms of how this can work, I need to present an analogy to tech support.

While I am a philosopher, I am also the guy that family, friends, and co-workers turn to when they have tech issues. While I do not work in IT, I was the editor of a Mac ezine in the 1990s, wrote shareware programs, and still build my own PCs. I also have those philosophical critical thinking skills that translate well into fixing tech problems.

When I first started helping people, I made some mistakes that were soon corrected by experience. These were not technical mistakes but psychological. The first was that I would try to explain the nature and the cause of the problem accurately and in some detail. I learned that no one cared much about a detailed explanation, even if they could understand it. The second was that when I tried to show them how to fix the problem as I fixed it, they did not want to know the details, nor did they care much about what I was doing as long as I solved their problem. As one friend put it, they didn’t need to know how to fix problems since they had me. Since learning that people only want their problems solved without caring much about the complicated why or how, since then I have fixed problems quietly. While I was initially annoyed by this and wondered how they could not love knowing about technology as I did, I realized that this was a biased view on my part. While I am interested in technology and solving problems and willing to expend my resources on this knowledge and skill, other people are not interested and prefer to expend their mental resources on other things. This is rational since a person has only so many resources to spend and it makes sense to rely on other people who have the needed knowledge and skill. This holds even when the problem is important and affecting a person.

While I am also interested in politics and economics, it makes sense that (just as with technology) most people are not. They do recognize when they feel things are not going as they would like, and they want someone else to offer them a simple explanation and be told that the problem will be fixed for them.

While we talk about “the economy”, it is obviously an incredibly complicated network of people, resources, made-up laws, made-up traditions, practices, relationships, and so on. As such, there are usually no simple explanations or fixes for economic problems (and one person’s problem is another person’s profit). But just as people notice when their PC is crashing, people notice when their grocery bills are higher, and their rent eats up an ever-larger chunk of their paycheck. Not being experts in the economy (and who really is?) they do not really know why this is happening and have no idea what complicated solutions are needed. Instead, just as my friends and relatives turn to me to fix their technology woes, voters look to politicians to offer simple explanations and easy to understand fixes. But there are obvious differences in that I am honest about technology problems, and I know how to fix them (only one partial failure in over thirty years). When it comes to the economy, as noted above, the Republicans have embraced strategic lying.

They offer simplistic and untrue explanations, such as blaming migrants. But this appeals to people since they are offering an explanation they can understand without being experts in economics: migrants are hurting the economy and hence hurting them. They can then offer a simple, easy to grasp solution (that will make things worse): the Republicans will round up and deport the migrants. This solution will not work for obvious reasons and will most likely make things work because a cornerstone of American food production and construction is cheap migrant labor. This means that the Republicans might suffer some loses when the economy does not improve (or gets worse) but perhaps they can use strategic lying to avoid blame for that. Given that the Republicans have adopted strategic lying, one might think that the Democrats could have won by telling the truth about the cause of Americans’ economic woes and offering real solutions. But Democrats will (mostly) not tell the truth about the economy.

While the Republican rhetoric accuses the Democrats of being socialists and communists, this is also part of strategic lying. While it is true that there are Democrats who have views that are left of the current center, the mainstream Democrats are committed to (or bought by) the same capitalist system (and capitalists) that the Republicans work hard to serve. There is, however, a meaningful difference in that the Democrats push back against some of the worst excesses and favor relatively timid and mild regulations and protections for the lower classes and the environment. In contrast, the Republican party seems to favor allowing the elites to do as they wish without regulation (as long as they do not wish to appear “woke” for marketing purposes, as Disney found out). While some Democrats might have laudable motives, there is also a practical reason to keep the excesses of capitalism in some degree of check, since failure to do so could result in social upheaval and revolt. But getting back to Democrats not telling the truth.

Harris decided to run from the center, making a show of embracing rebel Republicans such as Liz Cheney and “good” billionaires. Despite the claims that the Democrats lost because they were too “woke” or too into identity politics, Harris and her fellow Democrats steered away from “wokeness” and generally avoided identity politics. They even took harder lines on immigration and crime. While acknowledging the economic woes of the lower classes, the Democrats generally did not tell the truth about the cause of those woes nor did they offer any meaningful solutions. This is because telling the truth about these woes would reveal that they are the result of the actions of the elite classes and that significantly improving the conditions for the lower classes would require meaningful changes to the status quo and not just band aids. One of the many reasons that the Democrats cannot do this is that they are, like the Republicans, reliant on the economic elites for their re-election funding. There are also the financial rewards politicians receive for serving these interests, be they Democrats or Republicans. Congress has, to no one’s surprise, an abundance of millionaires. Democrats, I suppose, deserve some faint praise for not engaging in scapegoating migrants or the poor for the economic woes most Americans face. But they deserve criticism for not telling the truth.

While it can be pointed out the Republicans’ strategic lie beat the Democrats’ strategic silence, it can be argued that the Democrats could have won if they had adopted views like those of Bernie Sanders. While some pundits and liberal elites are quick to claim that people who voted for Trump did so because they are dumb racist misogynists, I recommend that people think about my tale about fixing technology: people rationally want someone who can explain complicated problems in simple terms and offer a promise that they will fix the problems. The Republicans did offer explanations, although they were mostly lies. They also offered simple solutions (albeit ones that will just make things work). The next election cycle the Democrats should heed my advice and take my approach: offer a simple but honest explanation and offer a simple explanation of the complicated fix that is needed. Then fix the problem and remember that people will forget you fixed it until they have another problem.

 

110 Fallacies

Description:

Like the general Appeal to Silence fallacy, the Gish Gallop and Fire Hose of Falsehoods are tactics that involve taking a failure to respond as evidence for a claim.

As a rhetorical tool, the Gish Gallop is an attempt to overwhelm an opponent by presenting many arguments and claims with no concern for their quality or accuracy. The Gish Gallop was named in 1994 by anthropologist Eugenie Scott who claimed that Duane Gish used this tactic when arguing against evolution.

The Gish Gallop is somewhat like the debating tactic of spreading which involves making arguments as rapidly as possible in the hopes that the opponent will not be able to respond to all of them. The main distinction is that the Gish Gallop is an inherently bad faith technique that relies on rapidly presenting weak arguments, fallacies, partial truths, Straw Men, and lies in the hopes that the opponent will not be able to refute them all. The Gish Gallop can be seen as a metaphorical cluster bomb of fallacies and untruths.

While this technique lacks logical force, it can have considerable psychological force. The Gish Gallop relies on Brandolini’s Law, which is the idea that it takes more time and effort to refute a fallacy or false claim than it takes to make them. Effective use of a Gish Gallop will yield many unrefuted fallacies and false claims, and this can create the impression in the audience that the Gish Galloper has “won” the debate. The Gish Gallop can be combined with Moving the Goal Posts to create the illusion that at least some of the refutations have been addressed.

Psychologically, the side that seems to have made the most unrefuted arguments and claims might appear to be correct, especially if the Gish Galloper uses the Gish Gallop fallacy, which has the following general form:

 

Premise 1: Person A presented N arguments for claim C.

Premise 2: Person B, the opponent, refuted X of A’s arguments.

Premise 3: N is greater than X.

Conclusion: C is true.

 

This is fallacious reasoning because it is not the number of arguments that proves a claim, but the quality of the arguments. As an illustration, consider this silly example:

 

Premise 1: During a debate, Bob presented 123 arguments that 2+2=6.

Premise 2: Bob’s opponent Sally only refuted 2 of Bob’s arguments before time ran out.

Premise 3: 123 is greater than 2.

Conclusion: Therefore, 2+2=6

 

While the error in reasoning is obvious in such absurd cases, people can easily fall victim to this reasoning in more complicated or controversial cases, especially if the audience does not know the subject well.

One reason why this fallacy might be appealing is that it seems analogous to methods that do work. For example, a swarm of relatively weak ants can overwhelm a strong spider in virtue of their numbers, even though the spider might kill many of them. But argumentation usually does not work like that; weak arguments generally do not add together to overcome a single strong argument. So, the analogy is not a swarm of ants beating a spider, but a spider fighting weak ants one at a time.

Another reason the fallacy might seem appealing is that making claims or arguments that are not refuted could seem analogous to one team not being able to block every shot taken by their opponent. But the Gish Gallop would be best compared to a basketball team rapidly taking wild shots all over the place, not caring whether they are even made in the direction on the basket. The opposing team does not need to block those wild shots; they are not going to score any points. In the case of arguments, not refuting a bad argument does not prove that the argument is good. Not refuting a claim does not prove the claim is true. See Burden of Proof for a discussion of this.

While the Gish Gallop technique involves presenting at least some arguments, a related technique is to blast an opponent with a Fire Hose of Falsehoods. In this context, the Fire Hose of Falsehood is a rhetorical technique in which many falsehoods are quickly presented. The technique can also employ the rhetorical technique of repetition. As a matter of psychological force, the more times a person hears a claim, the more likely they are to believe it. But the number of times a claim is repeated is irrelevant to its truth. This method also often involves using multiple channels to distribute the falsehoods. For example, real users or bots on various social media platforms could be employed to spread the falsehood. This can have considerable psychological force since people are also inclined to believe a claim that (appears to) come from multiple sources. But the mere number of sources making a claim is irrelevant to the truth of that claim.

This technique can be used to achieve various ends, such as serving as a Red Herring to distract people from an issue or, in its classic role, as a propaganda technique. On a small scale, such as in a debate, it can be used to overwhelm an opponent because a person can usually tell a lie much faster than someone else can refute it. This technique can be used with Moving the Goal Post to exhaust an opponent and run out the clock.

It can also be employed as a variant of the Appeal to Silence. As a fallacy, the reasoning is that unless all the falsehoods made by someone are refuted, then their unrefuted falsehoods are true. As a fallacy, it has this generally form:

 

Premise 1: Person A makes N falsehoods.

Premise 2: Person B, the opponent, refuted X of A’s falsehoods.

Premise 3: N is greater than X.

Conclusion: The unrefuted falsehoods are true.

 

Laid bare like this, the bad logic is evident. Not refuting a falsehood does not make the falsehood true. When someone uses this fallacy, they will attempt to conceal the logical structure of this reasoning. They might, for example, simply say that their opponent has not refuted their claims and so their opponent must agree with them.

While this is a fallacy, it can be effective psychologically. If a person seems confident in their falsehoods and overwhelms their opponent with the sheer number of their lies, they might appear to have “won” the debate.  

 

Defense: To avoid being taken in by the Gish Gallop, the key is remembering that the support premises provide to a conclusion is based on the quality of the argument. The quantity of (unrefuted) arguments for a claim, by itself, does not serve as evidence for a claim. In the case of claims, a failure to refute all the claims made a person does not prove that the unrefuted claims are true; this applies to both the Gish Gallop and the Fire Hose of Falsehood.

If a Gish Gallop or Fire Hose of Falsehood is being used against you in a debate, you will almost certainly not be able to respond to all the arguments and claims. From a logical standpoint, one good option is to briefly point out your opponent’s technique and why it is defective. If you are arguing for a position, focus on your positive arguments and, if time permits, respond to the most serious objections. If you are arguing against a position, focus on your arguments against that position and, if possible, try to pre-empt the arguments your opponent is likely to use in their Gish Gallop. You can also sometimes group arguments and claims together and refute them in groups. For example, if an opponent uses multiple Straw Men, you can respond to all of these by pointing this out.

 

Example#1

Gus: “So, my opponent is a climate change scientist. That means she hates capitalism, so she is wrong. Also, these so-called climate change scientists say that humans are the only things that affect the climate, that is totally wrong. You remember Al Gore, right? Remember how silly that guy is? Plus, he lost the election! To George Bush! Lots of smart people don’t believe in climate change and how can the climate change if the earth is flat? Remember how they used to call it global warming? Now these scientists say that some places will get cooler! Also, remember that it snowed in Texas. So much for global warming! And we still had winter; it was cold some days. And everyone knows that we had ice ages in the past. But we don’t have an ice age now. So, climate changes without us; so much for the idea that humans are causing it.”

Moderator: “Time. Your turn Dr. Jones. You have two minutes.”

Dr. Jones: “So where to begin…”

Gus, two minutes later: “See, “Dr.” Jones did not refute all my arguments. So, climate change is all a hoax, as I said.

 

Statistics show that violent and property crimes have plunged since the 1990s and although some types of crime have increased, overall crime is down. However, most Americans erroneously believe that crime has increased in general. Interestingly, while Americans tend to think that crime is up nationally and locally, they believe the increase is less where they live. This all can easily be explained using some basic ideas from critical thinking.

When people repeatedly hear stories about crime, even the same incident over and over, they tend to conclude that the amount of crime must correspond with how often they hear about it. Since many politicians and news companies frequently talk about crime, people will think it must be high or increasing; this is mistaking the frequency of hearing about it with the frequency of crime. This is the availability heuristic cognitive bias at work. This can also feed into the fallacy of hasty generalization in which an inference is drawn from a sample that is too small to warrant such a conclusion. For example, a person might hear about a few crimes on the news and then infer from this small sample that crime is more widespread than it really is.

 There is also a tendency to infer from hearing vivid or dramatic accounts of crime that crime must be high. This mistakes the vividness of crimes for statistical likelihood. In philosophy, this is known as the misleading vividness fallacy. It occurs when a small number of dramatic events are taken to outweigh significant statistical evidence. Somewhat more formally, this fallacy is committed when an estimation of the probability of an occurrence is based on the vividness of the occurrence and not on statistical evidence of how often it occurs.  It is fallacious because the vividness of an event does not make it more likely to occur, especially in the face of significant statistical evidence.

This fallacy gets its psychological force from the fact that dramatic or vivid cases tend to make a strong impression. In the case of crime, people can feel that they are in danger, and this intensifies the vividness. For example, when a politician or a news show focuses on a brutal murder and provides dramatic details of the crime, this can make people feel threatened and that such a crime is likely to occur even when it is very unlikely. The way people respond to shark attacks provides another good example of this fallacy: the odds of being killed or injured by a shark are extremely low; yet shark attacks make the news and make people feel that they are likely to be in danger.

Politicians and news companies also tell their audiences that crime is high, often explicitly using various logical fallacies and rhetorical techniques to persuade people to accept this disinformation. One common fallacy used here is anecdotal evidence. This fallacy is committed when a person draws a conclusion about a population based on an anecdote (a story) about one or a very small number of cases. The fallacy is also committed when someone rejects reasonable statistical data supporting a claim in favor of a single example or small number of examples that go against the claim. Politicians, pundits and the media will often have a go-to story of a crime (which is also usually vivid and dramatic) and repeatedly present that to their audience. If the audience falls for the anecdotal evidence, they will feel that crime is high, even though crime has been steadily decreasing (with a few exceptions).

Politicians and news companies also often enhance their anecdotes and crime stories by appealing to people’s biases, fears and prejudices. For example, a politician might focus on migrant crime and present minorities as criminals, thus tapping into racism and fear of migrants. Those who fear or dislike migrants and minorities will respond with fear or anger and feel that crime is occurring more than it really is.

The disparity between what people think about local and national crime can be explained by the fact that the local experience of people and whatever accurate local information might be available will tend to match reality better. People also tend to think better of their local area than they do of other places (although there are exceptions). And there is evidence that people are good at estimating crime in their own area and as crime is down, a more accurate estimate will reflect this.

The obvious defense against poor reasoning about crime is to know the facts: while America is a dangerous and violent country, crime has been decreasing and is much lower than it was in the 1990s. But it is fair to say that Americans are right to be concerned about crime, although we tend to be wrong about the crime facts. For example, if you work for wages, you should be worried about wage theft and the fact that the criminals usually get away with it.

 

Trump and his allies have claimed that the Democrats are engaged in lawfare against him and are even proposing defunding those prosecuting Trump. Republicans have also promised to investigate what they claim is the weaponization of the legal system against Trump. Trump has even claimed that Biden planned to assassinate him. For his part, Trump has publicly stated that he plans to capture the justice department and turn it against Biden and other Democrats, showing that he has no objection to the weaponization of the legal system as such. This situation presents an interesting problem in critical thinking and epistemology.

The basic question is whether the claims about lawfare, assassination and weaponization are true. While I need to rely on publicly available information, I must infer that if Trump’s supporters had access to a smoking gun, then it would be all over Fox News and similar sources.

Let us, for the sake of the discussion, imagine a world in which Trump’s claims about lawfare, the weaponization of the legal system and even the assassination attempt are true. In this alternative reality, what would we expect to see? If Biden and the Democrats were engaged in the sort of lawfare and weaponization claimed, then you would expect that Trump would not be afforded the full due process of the legal system. After all, if they are engaged in the sort of behavior being claimed by Fox News and others, they would have no reason allow Trump to hold press conferences during his trial, the trial would not have been held publicly, he would not have been able to hire his own lawyer and so on. However, Trump was afforded due process and, in fact, was probably given some of the best treatment of any defendant in the history of the legal system.

If Biden planned on assassinating Trump and the FBI was deployed to take the shot, then Trump would be dead. After all, if they were sent to Florida to kill him and he was not there (as they already knew in our reality), they would presumably be willing to travel to him to complete the mission. Unless, of course, we assume the FBI in that reality are bad at knowing where Trump is and are too lazy to try again after failing to find him.

Somewhat ironically, if you reflect even briefly on the claims being advanced by Trump and his allies, then you would need to infer that Biden and the Democrats have no compunctions against using the legal system against Trump. As such, they should be behaving like those Trump and his allies compare them to, such as the Soviet Union and various dictatorships. But they are not. To bring up the most obvious fact, Trump is still free to raise money, conduct rallies, give interviews and so on as he runs for president. That is, he and his allies disprove their claims every day.  

Given that Trump’s allies and supporters are not stupid, I can only infer that they know these claims are false while they pretend they are true. In sum, if the claims about Biden and the Democrats weaponizing the legal system were true, Trump would be in prison and not running for President. If the assassination attempt claim were true, Trump would have not been able to make it because he would have been dead. And he and his allies know this.

Continuing with our alternative reality, in a world in which Democrats were weaponizing the legal system as Trump and his allies claim, they would obviously not allow the legal system to prosecute important Democrats and would certainly not allow Hunter Biden, the president’s son, to face trial. They would also not allow Bob Menendez to be tried. However, the department of justice seems to be relatively bi-partisan in that Democrats and Republicans are both occasionally tried and convicted. But all this is true in our world, indicating that the Democrats are not doing what Trump and his allies claim. One could respond that Biden and the Democrats are so cunning and evil that they are allowing Trump to run for president and sacrificing Hunter Biden, Bob Menendez and other Democrats as part of a clever plan. But that is obviously absurd. Again, if the Democrats are as bad a Trump and his allies claim, Trump would be in prison (or dead), Hunter Biden would not have faced trial, and important Democrats would be safe from the legal system (well, safer). There is also the obvious fact that if the Democrats were willing and able to do this to Trump, they would also use the legal system against Republicans across the country. For example, Marjorie Taylor Green would presumably also be on trial for something. As such, ever day shows that these claims by Trump and his allies are lies.

As noted earlier, if we infer that Trump’s allies and supporters believe these claims, we will need to conclude that they are incapable of even the most basic inferences from the readily available evidence. As such, the best explanation is that this is political theater—they all know it is make believe, but are playing along and using it to spin narratives and raise money. Given that Trump plans to turn the Department of Justice against his opponents and enemies, this all could be a rationalization for his planned weaponization, and this is a rationalization his followers and allies could embrace to “justify” when this happens. What is probably the most ironic is that Trump being elected president in 2024 would be the most conclusive proof that he has been lying all along and this seems to be ever more likely.

In politics, it is said that perception is reality. But many philosophers will tell you that what we think is reality is just perception. Very concisely, the notion is that we never directly experience reality, only the ideas in our mind. As such, we do not really perceive people, including Trump and Biden. We just have ideas of them that probably do not match reality. But, laying aside skepticism, we can have ideas that are more or less accurate. Before continuing, I will note that I am a registered Democrat (Florida has closed primaries) and I voted for Joe Biden last election. I’ll be voting for him again. As a philosopher, I’m obligated to present these biases so you can use them to rationally assess my credibility.

Having followed Trump and Biden over the years, I have noticed that Biden supporters tend to have a mostly accurate view of him while Trump supporters tend to be wrong in their beliefs about Trump and Biden, or at least profess to believe false things.

While there are no doubt exceptions, people who voted for Biden seem to have a reasonably realistic view of him. He is an old man, has been in politics a long time, takes moderate positions on almost everything, and is willing to do a few things to make life marginally better for many Americans. He is also consistent in maintaining the foundations of the status quo, such as allowing the fossil fuel industry to do most of what it wants to do. I think that this realism is an important factor in explaining why support for Biden tends to be lukewarm and the most compelling reason to vote for him is that he is not Trump. People are supporting the real Biden, and there isn’t much there to really inspire voters.

While there are exceptions, people who voted for Biden seem to have a mostly accurate view of Trump. He is an old man, there are many issues involving taxes, finances, and mistreatment of women in his past, he tried to stay in power after losing the election, he lies, he is willing to exploit racism and xenophobia, he is primarily interested in enriching himself and his family, and he is now a convicted felon.  These are all compelling reasons to not vote for him. Thus, it is no surprise that most votes for Biden were votes against Trump; people picked the lesser evil.

In contrast, Trump supporters seem to be wrong in their beliefs about Trump and Biden. Their professed conception of Biden seems to match that made up by Fox News and more extreme right-wing outlets. Biden is seen as senile, a socialist or even a communist. He wants to take away our hamburgers, stoves, and cars. He is also seen, by some, as wanting to make children gay or trans. And so on. I am, of course, unsure how many people really believe this and to what extent, if any, they have critically assessed these claims. But this conception of a senile, incompetent mastermind who is making America into a socialist state does give people a good “reason” to vote against this imaginary Joe Biden. This also helps explain the enthusiasm of the opposition: Biden’s supporters see him as a tired old moderate politician, his foes see him as a tired old devil energized to destroy America. This helps to explain the enthusiasm gap.

Some Trump supporters do know what Trump is and before they chose to become his henchmen many of them savagely attacked him. Just look at what his fellow Republicans said about him before he became President. They had an accurate view of Trump and are presumably lying now. The Christian nationalists and racists who hope to benefit from his second term probably grasp what he is (a useful tool), although they usually do not say so openly. For example, Mike Johnson has professed to be so anti-porn that he and his son monitor each other via an app to ensure they are not sneaking a peak at Pornhub. Yet Johnson was at Trump’s trial, supporting a man who committed adultery with a porn star and has lied about it. I don’t think that Johnson is stupid; he knows that Trump is a tool to get what he wants, and so he must bear false witness in praising him.

But I think that many of Trump’s followers are sincere when they claim he is a good Christian, that he is smart, that he is strong, that he cares about them, that the negative claims about Trump are untrue or exaggerated, that he is honest and so on. For the most part, their beliefs are the opposite of reality. Which is fascinating.

The comedian Jordan Klepper has done an excellent job, in a kind way, of getting some Trump supporters into a state of cognitive dissonance involving the facts and their professed beliefs. I don’t think that these people are stupid or foolish. After all, Trump is much better at putting on a show than Biden and Trump has a vast army of people, ranging from Fox News to YouTube grifters, presenting him as a great hero (and Biden as a senile, yet incredibly dangerous, devil). While Biden does have supporters, they are both less enthusiastic and less willing to lie. This helps explain why Trump is doing shockingly well in the polls—his supporters are supporting a Trump that does not exist and opposing a Biden that also does not exist. Biden supporters are, for the most part, reluctantly supporting a mostly accurate conception of Biden and more enthusiastically opposing a mostly realistic view of Trump. In short, Trump is winning the perception war while losing repeatedly in reality. But there is a good chance he will get a second term.

Trump’s defenders might claim that my critical view of Trump is a manifestation of Trump Derangement Syndrome. There is, of course, no way to effectively counter this rhetorical move with logic. If I offer supporting evidence for my claims, such as that presented in court during Trump’s trial, it will be dismissed as lies and as all part of a witch hunt against Trump. If I argue that my view is based on a calm and rational assessment of Trump and Biden, this will presumably be dismissed, perhaps based on the claim that my derangement is so deep that I am unaware of it. That is, they will need to reject evidence, advance conspiracy theories, and question my sanity to address my claims. To be fair to them, this could be their honest conception of me. And from my perspective, they would have broken free of reality. That is a basic problem with the intentional destruction of the idea of an objective reality; there is little common grounded reality to stand on and talk.

Smoking ZeppelinThanks to the endless culture war, those who want to keep up with the political language need to learn the definitions and re-definitions of terms and phrases. Recent examples include “critical race theory”, “DEI” and “woke.” This essay focuses on “woke.”

For some folks on the right, the word “woke” seems to mean everything and nothing. An excellent example of this is the governor of my adopted state of Florida. What does DeSantis mean by the term? It seems to mean whatever he wants it to mean. But “woke” has a long history that predates the latest battles of the culture war.

In the beginning,  “woke” meant “alert to racial prejudice and discrimination.” Through use, the term gradually expanded to include broad areas of identity politics and social justice. While originally seen as a positive term, “woke” has been forcibly redefined in increasingly negative ways.

Around 2019, started to be used ironically to mock people for insincere performative activism and virtue signaling. The negative definition became “to be overly politically correct and police others’ words.” While somewhat vague, this definition has a set meaning. However, “woke” has been subjected to a rhetorical modification to make it mean everything and nothing. This can be traced back to Christopher Ruffo redefining “critical race theory” in March, 2021: “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.”

It is notable that he did this in public, on Twitter (now X) and you can still see the tweet (assuming Musk has not destroyed X). He told everyone he was presenting disinformation about CRT without any concern that this would undercut his efforts. This seems to imply he thinks that his audience is in on this dishonest redefinition. This is like a con artist Tweeting that they are running a con; this only makes sense if they think the marks do not care or will happily go along with it.

What Ruffo did is create a Balloon Man. This 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. This Balloon Man redefinition of “critical race theory” proved successful but it was soon engulfed by the term “woke.” That is, critical race theory is usually now presented as but one example of what is “woke.”

This move could also be called creating a Zeppelin Man. Zeppelins are airships that contain multiple inflated cells, so they can be seen as being made of multiple balloons. As a rhetorical move or fallacy, this would be a matter of making a term that has been made into a Balloon Man part of another term whose meaning has also been redefined in an excessively broad or vague manner. A fallacy would occur when this Zeppelin Man is attacked to “prove” that the original is defective. For those who are aware that the term is now a Zeppelin, using it in this way is an act of bad faith. But it has numerous advantages, many of which arise because the vagueness of the definition also allows it to perform other rhetorical functions. Redefinition also involves other rhetorical techniques. This is all done to weaponize the term for political purposes.

A key part of the redefinition of “woke” involved the rhetorical device of demonizing. Demonizing is portraying the target as evil, corrupt, dangerous, or threatening.  This can be done in the usual three ways: selective demonizing, hyperbolic demonizing, or fictional demonizing. Selective demonizing is when some true negative fact about the target is focused on to the exclusion of other facts about the target.  Hyperbolic demonizing involves greatly exaggerating a negative fact about the target. Fictional demonizing is simply lying about the target. For example, “critical race theory” (which now falls under “woke”) originally referred to a law school level theory about the impact of race in the law. But, in addition to being made into a Balloon Man, it has also been demonized as something awful. Likewise for the other terms that now fall under “woke.”  The defense against demonizing is to critically examine such claims to see if they are plausible or not.

Some on the right have also been scapegoating wokeness by blaming it for problems. One example is the bizarre efforts of some conservatives to blame the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank on wokeness. As would be expected, no serious person gives this any credence since the bank collapsed for the usual reasons . Presumably this is intended to misdirect people from the real causes (a red herring) and to “prove” that wokeness is bad. Americans should feel both insulted and offended by this latest attempt at deceit. After all, even the slightest reflection on the matter would show that the idea that a major bank failed because of wokeness is absurd. As such, unless these people think that their base is onboard with their lies, they must think their base is ignorant and stupid.

Some of what is included under the redefinition of “woke” includes dog whistles. One version of the dog whistle is to use coded language such that its true (and usually controversial or problematic) meaning is understood by your intended audience but not understood by the general population. This is like how slang terms and technical terms work; you need to know the special meanings of the terms to understand what is being said. Another version of the dog whistle is a form of innuendo. A word or phrase is used to suggest or imply something (usually negative). If you do not know the special meanings or the intended implication, you are excluded, often intentionally so.  For example, “Critical Race Theory” has been assimilated into “woke” but the phrase is now a dog whistle.

Interestingly, the term “woke” itself functions as a dog whistle. Since anyone can technically be woke, someone using the term as a dog whistle has plausible deniability if they are called out. That is, they could claim that since a straight, white man can be “woke”, the term “woke” cannot be a racist dog whistle. In some cases, a person could be making this claim in good faith, thus providing cover for those making it in bad faith.

The dog whistle aspect of the redefinition is a critical part of weaponizing “woke.” After all, making something into a dog whistle means that:

 

  • Your fellows know what you mean, and they approve.
  • Your foes know what you mean, and they are triggered.
  • Critics can seem silly or crazy to “normies.”
  • In can have plausible deniability that “normies” will accept.
  • Can onramp “normies.”

 

The vagueness and demonizing enable the term “woke” to refer what could be called a universal enemy. This is a rhetorical technique of broadly defining something in negative ways so that it can serve as an enemy for almost anyone. If the universal enemy is successfully created, then the term can be effectively used to persuade people that something (or someone) is bad simply by applying the term. If pushed enough, this can also be a form of begging the question by “arguing” that something is bad by defining it as bad. If people see “woke” as whatever they think is bad and they think that something is woke, then they will think that it is bad with no proof needed. A defense against this technique is to recognize  that if “woke” just means “bad”, then it is effectively vacuous.

The vagueness of the redefinition of “woke” also allows for assimilation of anything that expresses criticism of “woke”, whether the critic agrees with the redefined term. For example, someone might create content that is critical of “woke” defined in terms of performative activism or virtue signaling. This person might believe that people should be alert to injustice and discrimination, but their content can simply be assimilated and used as “evidence” that “woke” is bad. One common tactic used to assimilate is headlining: using the title of something that seems to support what is being claimed.

The vagueness of the redefinition of “woke” allows it to function as a weasler—a rhetorical device that protects a claim by weakening it. Attacking such a vague definition is like attacking the fog with a stick—it is so diffuse that there is nothing solid to hit or engage with. If the critic does manage to have some success with one aspect of the term, the user of “woke” can simply move on to another aspect and claim victory because the critic cannot possibly engage everything that falls under such a broad redefinition. The defense against this is to recognize when the definition of a term is so vague as to be effectively without meaning. While pointing this out to the person using it in bad faith is unlikely to deter them, you would at least show that you have not been deceived by them.

In closing, the redefining and weaponization of “woke” is a clever move by the right in terms of crafting a rhetorical weapon to use in a campaign of deceit and division. However, polls show that most Americans have not accepted the redefinition of “woke” and see being woke as positive. While the use of “woke” seems to have dropped off from its peak, it is still employed. But, just as “political correctness” before it, the term will fade away and be replaced by a new term that just means “what the right does not like.”