Lies, and whether or not you can tell

Not sure if this falls into the "interesting" file or the "useful" file. A Scientific American article looks briefly into a couple of common logical fallacies that are used in political discourse and repeated by the media. One has an old name - the straw man argument, and the other has a new name - the weak man argument.
http://www.sciam.com/...

The strawman fallacy:

In this tactic, a person summarizes the opposition’s position inaccurately so as to weaken it and then refutes that inaccurate rendition. In a November 2005 speech, for example, President George W. Bush responded to questions about pulling troops out of Iraq by saying, "We’ve heard some people say, pull them out right now. That’s a huge mistake. It’d be a terrible mistake. It sends a bad message to our troops, and it sends a bad message to our enemy, and it sends a bad message to the Iraqis." The statement that unnamed "people" are advocating a troop withdrawal from Iraq "right now" is a straw man, because it exaggerates the opposing viewpoint. Not even the most stalwart Bush adversaries backed an immediate troop withdrawal.

The weak man fallacy:

a person sets up the opposition’s weakest (or one of its weakest) arguments or proponents for attack, as opposed to misstating a rival’s position as the straw man argument does. In a July 2007 edition of Talking Points, Bill O’Reilly took on a claim by the New York Times that we had lost the war in Iraq by saying that  "the New York Times declared defeat in Iraq Sunday on its editorial page, and there’s no question the antiwar movement has momentum." (The editorial actually said that "some opponents of the Iraq war are toying with the idea of American defeat," but let us assume that O’Reilly’s characterization was correct.) O’Reilly then offered a weak man explanation for the purported defeat:  "The truth is the Iraqi government and many of its citizens are simply not doing enough to defeat the terrorists and corruption. The U.S.A. can’t control that country. No nation could.... Unfortunately, the Iraqi failure to help themselves has come true." Although Iraq’s failure to aid in fighting terrorism and corruption could be why we are losing the war, the troubles in Iraq could also stem from a host of logistical reasons, some of which may shed a negative light on the current administration. O’Reilly, however, kept any discussion of these reasons offstage, suppressing the various other possible—and possibly more likely—reasons for "defeat" in Iraq. Meanwhile his claims that the "U.S.A. can’t control that country" and that "no nation could" deflected blame from the U.S. government.

The authors are, shall we say, lenient when it comes to whether these fallacies are purposefully perpetrated (how's that for some fancy book-learning language).

Many people have attributed such misconceptions to a politically motivated disinformation campaign to engender support for the armed struggle in Iraq. We do not think the deceptions were premeditated, however. Instead they are most likely the result of common types of reasoning errors, which appear frequently in discussions in the news media and which can easily fool an unsuspecting public.

I would feel not at all uncomfortable stating firmly that, whether or not Bush specifically had the mental capacity to come up with these strategies, someone in the administration was purposefully misinforming us. The statement above begs the question as to how premeditated are any of the things we say...

I suppose the question is what can we do about this in the future? Is it enough for everyone to be aware of these (and other) kinds of deceptions? Or do they have to be actively combatted? Fact-checking sites certainly go a long way towards helping the public, at least the curious or skeptical public, in finding the truth, but is there a way of making this proactive? Can you make someone skeptical?

Not sure if this is really diary-worthy, but i'm new at this and it is certainly germaine to a lot of the crap that is getting flung around. Even politically aware folks here on this site are flinging arguments like this (yes, i'm looking at you Obama vs. Clinton fanatics).

Anyway, interesting article.

•  I do believe that Bush is smart enough

  to use these strategies. His whole life has been one big strategy getting out of one screw up and another. And he always seemed to come out smelling like a rose. Probably with the help of his father but still.

  by Owllwoman on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 11:32:59 AM PDT

  •  I've seen people stupider than dubya, but

    I don't remember seeing anyone get less out of what brains he possesses.

    by Man in the Middle on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 11:43:02 AM PDT

    •  He does have a characteristic that

      seems scarily persistent in our culture. Willful ignorance, and he takes it one further. He seems to not only want to be ignorant/stupid, but he really seems to want to come across as such and enjoys being that way.

      by eco d on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 11:46:27 AM PDT

  •  He's a savant

    extremely bright but in a very limited fashion - he is good at visceral reaction and it plays to our basest instincts and so works on the stump.

    Beyond the mispronunciations, one of my strongest memories of W is and will be his 'introduction' of "revisionist historians" in response to the many decrying the futile WMD search in Iraq as failing the justification for the war.  I think he followed it with "I like to call them."  His vocal and physical demeanor in stating this was very much like a child who learns a new word and thinks it makes him look smart to throw it out when he can.  He was clearly showing that this phrase was brand new to him and he was very proud to put it to use and he had that smart-ass smile (the one that covers up immense intellectual insecurity) that says, "See how smart I am?  I know what those words mean."

    That was when I gave up any open mind about whether he was an evil genius or useful idiot.  How could the president of arguably the most powerful nation on earth be so intellectually isolated and unread as to not have come across that term in his 60 years?  It beggars belief!

    by lgrooney on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:25:56 PM PDT

•  What can we do?

  Unfortunately, short of making sure that the best & brightest among us are the ones running for office.  However, not to denigrate candidates, those individuals are often not the same ones running for office. So, we need to pick the best and the brightest from among those choosing to run but, if they aren't exceedingly quick witted AND intelligent, it won't help much.

  Here's the reason why these fallacies are successful in spoken debate or forums where time or the ability to respond specifically may be limited:

  1. people build connections in their heads in an effort to bring order to the chaotic world around and, therefore, the weak man argument doesn't seem problematic to most because the substitution is not out of the contextualized group;

  2. even if an listener, reader, opponent, interlocutor, etc., is a very smart individual, they may be so flummoxed by the illogic in the argument that they are trying to figure out what it is about the argument they don't understand in order to develop an appropriate response and there may not be sufficient time to point out the illogic AND respond in a manner that turns the argument into something logical and then shoot it down;

  3. if the responder attempts to point out the logical weakness in the argument they may come across as overly pedantic, i.e., too intellectual and therefore out of touch with most people, AKA the actual target of the illogical argument;

  4. when the time comes to answer, the responder may not yet have detailed the logical problem and may not be able to respond appropriately thus seeming to lose the argument; and, inter alia,

  5. if the responder attempts at a later time to deconstruct the illogical argument it will be a lost cause as initial impressions (see 1 & 4) are the building blocks of emotions and weak thought.

  by lgrooney on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:14:44 PM PDT