CHAPTER 9, PART 2

Sage's Journal
Atlanta, GA
August 9, 1988

Advertisements are a good example of presenting claims through nonargumentative persuasion. The typical ad must convey its message within seconds, so advertisers rely on the quick gimmicks available through nonargumentative persuasion, rather than supported claims, to sway the listener/reader.

…people are often swayed by nonargumentative persuasion, because it's easier to react to a message laced with an emotional association than to actually think about the reasons to support the claim presented. By itself, nonargumentative persuasion isn't a sufficient reason to reject or accept a claim…

One type of nonargumentative gimmick is the appeal to prejudice. Appealing to our fears and prejudices is a well-known way of attempting to influence without offering support. … For example, a powerful speaker such as Adolf Hitler may claim it is necessary to kill Jews and other minorities in order to eliminate a threat, but he does so without offering support or proof of how those minorities are harmful. Millions of noncritical thinkers were fooled by Hitler's nonargumentative persuasion, and the world was thrown into war. Only by critically thinking can you avoid being fooled by nonargumentative persuasion.

…a tricky person may try to hide their use of an appeal to prejudice with a euphemism. Euphemisms are words or phrases that soften negatively charged language, even though the meaning remains the same. … For example, a modern racist might use the euphemism "selective social reduction" instead of saying, "kill dem niggers" or "fuck up whitey." Racism sounds more respectable with the right language, which of course is the nonargumentative trap the critical listener/reader wants to avoid.

…similar to a euphemism is the innuendo -- a negative suggestion about something or someone. If someone says, "Tony stopped stealing," that is an innuendo suggesting Tony was a thief without actually calling him one.

Another nonargumentative gimmick, similar to the innuendo, is the loaded question. A loaded question springs from one or more false assumptions. … If someone asks you, "When did you stop stealing?" when in fact you've never stolen, that's a loaded question based on the false assumption that you were a thief. … Be sure to challenge the loaded question. Otherwise, you affirm the underlying false assumption.

…still another nonargumentative gimmick is called a stereotype. A stereotype is a false claim about a large group of people that share a characteristic, usually gender or religion. To stereotype means to impose some trait on every member of that group. Stereotyping is wrong, and a critical thinker rejects stereotypes, because every member of a large group of people never shares a uniform belief or nonphysical trait. … For example, the claim "all women are good moms" is a stereotype, because some women are not moms, and some moms are not good.

…the use of ambiguous words may be a nonargumentative gimmick. Certain ambiguous words such as "perhaps," "possibly," and "maybe" are used dishonestly to provide the presenter a way to later change the meaning of their claim, if necessary. Ambiguous words used on purpose are termed weasel words…

Not every use of an ambiguous word is dishonest. Some words could be considered weasel words in one claim but not in another, so the trick is to determine the reason for the use of the word. … If the presenter is only qualifying his or her claim because some aspect of it is unknown, then the use of such words is less likely a weaseling one. If the presenter has used an innuendo or is trying to set up a way to escape from a claim that later proves false, then the use of ambiguous words is more likely a weaseling one. … When presented with a weasel word, you need to evaluate the speaker, the context, and the subject before you evaluate the claim itself.

…expressions such as "studies show," "it's obvious," and "I heard" are used to suggest that there's evidence or authority for a claim without actually citing the support. These kinds of expressions are called proof surrogate, because they're not real proof for the claim asserted, only a substitute. There may be real proof for the claim somewhere, but until the proof is presented, the claim remains unsupported…

An exaggeration is another way to construct an unsupported claim. This technique is so well-known it has its own name: hyperbole. A claim that goes way beyond what is required to make a statement is probably hyperbole. … Two popular ways hyperbole is used include exaggerating in a positive way to endorse, and exaggerating in a negative way to mock. When presented with hyperbole, readjust the exaggeration before evaluating the claim. …for example, suppose someone tells you, "Of course you wouldn't hurt yourself getting high. Nobody ever gets hurt just getting high." This is a hyperbole -- an exaggeration to endorse getting high -- and it's logically false, since people have certainly gotten hurt, even killed, while high.

…another way to manipulate the listener/reader is to be selective regarding the amount or type of support provided with the claim, since our attitudes and actions are largely shaped by the information we receive. Again, the best defense against being manipulated is to be well-informed. … If you're well-informed, or can become well-informed regarding a particular issue, you're less likely to be deceived by someone who hasn't presented all the evidence. It's easy to manipulate a person who's uninformed or undereducated. That single sentence shows why knowledge and wisdom are so vital to a successful life.

"That was a good lunch," says Sage.

Professor DeLuz and I agree. Between eating, talking, and writing, we spent about three hours in our booth. Because we stayed so long, Sage leaves a large tip for our waiter, Gaymeon, who we learned is working his way through college at Southern Tech. His family owns the small restaurant, and all his siblings work there. His parents moved from Jamaica a few years earlier so their children could get formal educations in the United States. Gaymeon is the first of his family to attend college. He said it's hard work, because he's always busy, but his parents are definitely achieving the goals they set for their family. As he told us about his family, I became jealous, but then I remembered I have Sage, and my jealousy vanished.

"Peter," Professor DeLuz says, "have you ever been to the King Center?"

"Uh-uh," I reply.

"Well, it's just a few blocks down Auburn Avenue. We can walk over there and sit outside awhile instead of being cooped up in my office." Sage and I agree.

As we walk toward the King Center, Professor DeLuz tells us of the street called Sweet Auburn, where Dr. King grew up. We walk by the old Top Hat Lounge where Louie Armstrong and Aretha Franklin played. He describes the Big Bethel Church and its vertical JESUS SAVES sign climbing the steeple. The sign, like a landlocked lighthouse, used to be visible for miles but is now blocked by taller buildings. We cross Auburn Avenue and pass the Wheat Street Baptist Church, built back when Auburn Avenue was called Wheat Street. On the next block, we stop in front of the famous red brick building on the corner of Auburn Avenue and Jackson Street -- Ebenezer Baptist Church.

"This church has strong ties to both the King family and the civil rights movement," Professor DeLuz explains. "This is the church where Dr. King's grandfather and father were pastors. This is the church that Dr. King was co-pastor of in the 1960s, and it's the birthplace of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. Ebenezer is also a sad place. This is the church where Dr. King's body was brought after he was assassinated in Memphis, and here his mother was assassinated as she played the music for a Sunday service."

Next to Ebenezer is the The King Center. We walk toward Freedom Hall and then follow the sidewalk around the reflecting pool that surrounds the memorial tomb of Dr. King, on which Sage tells me is written: "Free at last, free at last. Thank God Almighty, I am free at last." We find a bench near the tomb and sit quietly; conversation would be intrusive.

Finally, Professor DeLuz is bold enough to speak. "Peter, what do you know about Dr. King?"

"What I learned in school," I reply. "I know he was a preacher and led protests. I also know he gave speeches, and was killed because he worked to make the Dream available to blacks."

"Well, a little anyway. OK. A lot has been said about Dr. King, but what I think is so amazing is that he successfully used pseudo-reasoning to overcome pseudo-reasoning. That's not logical to me, because usually you correct pseudo-reasoning with critical thinking."

Professor DeLuz explains that Atlanta was a segregated city in 1929, the year Martin Luther King Jr. was born. The city, like the Southern states surrounding it, had Jim Crow laws-laws designed to segregate black people from white people. These laws, made by white racists, were based on the invalid claim that any white person was better than any black person. These laws made life difficult for blacks, both physically and emotionally. As a young man, Martin Luther Jr. lived under these laws and experienced firsthand the harm they caused for blacks, whites, and the country as a whole.

As an adult, Dr. King worked to overturn the Jim Crow laws. The methods that worked best to overcome these laws were not sound arguments. They were nonargumentative tactics, such as boycotts, sit-ins, marches, and appeals to sympathy. For example, segregated buses were eliminated after long boycotts, voting rights were restored to blacks after marches, and segregated restaurants were eliminated after sit-ins. From Professor DeLuz's perspective, boycotts, marches, and sit-ins are not support for the claim that Jim Crow laws were based on false claims, but we could not deny these tactics worked after all else had failed.

Sage's Journal
Atlanta, GA
August 9, 1988

…we often accept and reject claims based on irrelevant factors, such as our feelings. To do so is to commit the error of pseudo-reasoning. The error of considering a claim based (even partially) on feelings is obvious once you realize that whether a claim is true or false has absolutely nothing to do with your feelings about that claim. …a claim is true or false no matter how you feel about it, so don't make the task of evaluating a claim more difficult by considering your feelings.

Despite the error of evaluating claims based on feelings or other irrelevant factors, it's so common to do so that the more popular types of pseudo-reasoning errors have names. We'll review these so that you know what to guard against.

…someone may add irrelevant information to a discussion to distract you from making a good decision. The irrelevant information is called a smokescreen or a red herring. … For example, suppose you and a friend are arguing about who among your classmates is the best ballplayer, and your friend states that your choice isn't as good as his choice, because your choice does not play in games scheduled on the Sabbath. Your friend's statement is a red herring- a mere distraction that has no basis in the discussion-because whether one places their faith above their desire to play has no bearing on whether or not they are the more talented player. Critical thinkers discard all smokescreens and base their decision only upon relevant factors.

Subjective fallacy describes the situation where a person asserts that a claim may be acceptable for someone else, but it's not acceptable for that person. … For example, you may state: "It's OK for you to believe cigarette smoking is harmful. I choose not to believe." In that situation, you think the truth is subjective-OK for another person but not yourself. Subjective fallacy is nothing but faulty reasoning, because either a claim is true or it's false; a claim can't be false for one person and true for another.

…two related types of pseudo-reasoning are the appeals to belief and peer pressure. Someone may attempt to deceive you by asserting "everybody believes" what they are trying to get you to accept. Similarly, someone may attempt to deceive you by naming people who reportedly accept what that person is trying to get you to accept. …by itself it's not enough that others accept a claim or act in a certain way. Therefore, don't allow yourself to be deceived to follow others without an adequate explanation.

…scare tactics, used by others to scare us into accepting a claim or changing our behavior, are a form of pseudo-reasoning. Throughout his adult life, Dr. King was threatened in an effort to scare him away from criticizing the Jim Crow laws. But the threats did not alter what Dr. King said he knew to be true "No lie can live forever." …neither the threat nor the resulting consequence is a sufficient reason for accepting a claim, because a scare tactic isn't logically related to the validity of a claim. Remember: No claim is any more true or false because it comes with a threat.

Similar to using scare tactics, others may ridicule you in their attempt to manipulate. …during the lunch counter sit-ins of the 1960s, racists threw food at and poured drinks over Jim Crow protesters in an effort to stop the protesters from criticizing the unfair laws. Then the racists made fun of the way the protesters looked, seated at counters or tables and covered in food. Ridicule, like having food thrown at you, is uncomfortable, but it's not a sufficient reason to accept unsupported claims such as those that formed the basis of the Jim Crow laws.

Another form of pseudo-reasoning is termed two wrongs make a right. This is used when attempting to justify the claim that it's all right to do something harmful to another person, or not do something helpful, because that person would behave the same way toward you. … Here is an example: You're a motorist of a certain nationality, passing a stranded motorist of a different nationality. You decide not to stop and help because you think, If that were me stranded there, she wouldn't stop and help. In fact, you don't know whether she would stop to help you or not, but it doesn't matter. Even assuming she would not stop to assist you, that fact by itself does not support your reason for not assisting them.

…still another type of pseudo-reasoning is called an appeal. With an appeal to pity, the speaker attempts to evoke your sense of compassion. With an appeal to spite, the speaker attempts to evoke your sense of anger. While compassion and anger may be strong motivators and good reasons for making a decision, neither are valid substitutes for proof of a claim. With an appeal to vanity, the speaker is attempting to flatter you into a decision. Your like or dislike of the speaker isn't a valid substitute for accepting or rejecting the validity of their claims.

Another two hours pass sitting by the reflecting pool. A steady stream of visitors parade by. Eavesdropping on their conversations, I divide them into groups: older blacks-Soldiers of the Dream-who experienced the civil rights movement, here to pay tribute to a modern Moses; younger blacks-Children of the Dream-explaining to the Grandchildren of the Dream the struggles of past and present; and disinterested students of all colors on a field trip. As for me, the tragedy of Dr. King's murder is made clear by Professor DeLuz's explanation of a lack of critical thinking as the root of so much sorrow.

"Let's head back, if you don't mind," Professor DeLuz interrupts himself. "I have to pick up my son from soccer practice."

"That's fine," says Sage. We walk while Professor DeLuz continues his lesson.

Sage's Journal
Atlanta, GA
August 9, 1988

…in the 1960s racists didn't like what Dr. King was saying. But rather than think critically about his claims regarding the unequal treatment of equal humans, these racists rejected his claims, because the claims came from a source they disapproved, namely a black man. …critics attacked Dr. King himself, not his claims, pointing to his faults and weaknesses as reasons to reject his arguments. Attacking the source, rather than considering the validity of his or her claims, is a form of pseudo-reasoning termed ad hominem -- a Latin phrase which means "to the man."

When we doubt the credibility of a source, we should be careful before we accept a claim from that source, but our doubts about the source should not be the sole reason for rejecting claims, just as our familiarity with the source should not be the sole reason for accepting a claim. …when we decide a claim based entirely on our opinion of the source, as people did by rejecting Dr. King's claims only because he was African American, we commit the error of ad hominem thinking.

Another pseudo-reasoning error is to present a false or distorted version of a claim, called a straw man. The distorted version is like an opponent made of straw that's easy to attack and defeat. …because the straw man is a false version of the actual claim, it undermines the credibility of the person who made the original claim, who must not let the straw man go uncorrected.

…another pseudo-reasoning error is the fake dilemma. The fake dilemma is best illustrated by the following scenario: Suppose you're asked to choose which of two claims are true, and you know the second claim is false. Does that mean that the first claim is true? No, of course not! Just because one is false does not mean the other is true. Both claims may be false. That's the trap: not realizing either claim may be false, or true, depending on the situation.

…a common type of pseudo-reasoning error is named the slippery slope. Those who don't want to begin a particular course of action paint the picture of an exaggerated result should someone pursue the particular course of action, thus the slippery slope. … For example, racists who did not want to change the Jim Crow laws tried this type of argument when they claimed the country's social order would fall apart if Jim Crow laws were abolished.

…last example of pseudo-reasoning is called begging the question. Begging the question is a kind of circular explanation where someone attempts to assert a claim is true by saying, in effect, that the claim is true because, look here, the claim is true. … For example, saying blacks are inferior to whites because Jim Crow laws say blacks are inferior is simply begging the question.

We walk back to the Georgia State campus, and stop in the plaza next to the building that Professor DeLuz's office is in when he says, "OK, we've covered about as much critical thinking as I can remember today and, frankly, I'm now brain-dead."

"Me too," I reply.

"Whoa, no whining," Sage jumps in. "I've been listening, talking, and writing as long as you've been talking and you've been listening. If anyone around here is going to complain, it's going to be me."

Professor DeLuz laughs and says, "you haven't changed, Shade. Fifteen years later, and you won't let anyone around you be a slacker."

"Amen," I say. "But I didn't know you two have known each other that long."

"Sage didn't tell you how we met?"

"Another time, Ayo."

A brief silence precedes Professor DeLuz's reply. "You've been a good listener and student, Peter, and I have something I'd like to give to you. If you two will wait here, I'll be right back."

"OK," I reply.

Sage and I wait silently in the Urban Life Center lobby for a few minutes until Professor DeLuz returns. "Here's what I want to give you, Peter," he starts. "It's my copy of one of the better textbooks I've ever owned, Critical Thinking by Brooke Moore and Richard Parker. It does a great job explaining critical thinking, and covers a lot more than I discussed today. Plus it has practice exercises you can work. Now believe me, you've got to go over this stuff and do these exercises, because the only way to become a good critical thinker is to practice."

"Thank you," I say as he hands me the book.

"Do you have someone that can read it to you and help you with the exercises?"

"Uh-huh. The school provides me a reader, Miss Amanda."

"Bién. Well, ask Miss Amanda to read this to you and help you with the exercises. After some practice making good decisions, you'll be amazed how much more secure and in control of your life you'll find yourself. I'll call every few weeks to check on your progress, so you can't blow this off."

"Uh-uh. I won't," I promise.

"Ayo," Sage says, "thanks very much. I certainly owe you for this one."

"No you don't, Shade. If anything, I still owe you. Peter," he says as he places his hands on my shoulders and leans into my face, "the Spanish have a proverb: 'A Diós rogando, y con el mazo dando.' Any idea what that means?"

"No."

"Pray to God, but hammer away."

Chapter 9, Part 1

Socratic Method questions for Chapter 9

Understanding the Guide