THE FIVE COMMON THINKING ERRORS
IN HISTORY, NEWS, and LITERATURE
by Noah Mitchell
Non Sequitur
from the Washington Post
Reported on August 15, 2006 in the Washington Post Online, a "senior administration official" who spoke anonymously, made a non sequitur in his thinking. He began his reasoning with the statement, "[Democrats] do not have the understanding or the commitment to take on [the] forces [of Terrorism]." This is one of his convictions, hopefully supported in some way by experience and evidence. His second statement was that John Kerry's "law enforcement approach" to combating terrorism by governments sharing intelligence and identifying suspicious customers in such places as banks "doesn't work." His conclusion, however, has little to do with these statements. He says,
"The idea that the jihadists would all be peaceful, warm, lovable, God-fearing people if it weren't for U.S. policies strikes me as not a valid idea."
Neither John Kerry nor any other Democrats cited said anything about jihadists being "peaceful, warm, etc...," and certainly no one claimed that the U.S. policies had an affect on the mentality of the "jihadists." The policies are simply designed to prevent attacks from occurring, not changing the mindset of the attackers.
False/Vague Premises
from Much Ado About Nothing
In Shakespeare's "Much Ado About Nothing," Claudio acts under the false premise that the woman of his affection, Hero, has been cheating on him with the evil Don John's henchman Borachio. Don John decieved Claudio, showing him Borachio and Hero's maid expressing affection and telling Claudio that Hero's maid was, in fact, Hero herself. Claudio's resoning looks something like this:
Premise: To marry an unhonorable and unchaste woman would be a disgrace to me.
False Premise: Hero is an unhonorable and unchaste woman.
Conclusion: I should not marry Hero.
Under this premise, he publicly shames Hero on their wedding day.
Ad Hominem
from NewsHounds
Reported in July 2004, John Kerry stated that he personally rejected abortion but gave his support for women's "right to choose." David Asman, the host of a show on FOX, asked Republican guest Sheri Annis,
"Does this put John Kerry in the camp of the anti-abortion crowd? "
Annis: Well, it shows that John Kerry feels he needs to drum up more support with traditional social conservatives. That's what it means.
Asman: Let me just stop you right there, Sheri. So, you're saying it's JUST a political strategy? This doesn't come from anything heartfelt from John Kerry?
Annis agreed, and the two succeeded in diverting the viewer's attention from John Kerry's statements to his personal integrity. An alalysis may look something like this:
Premise: Kerry says he is pro-choice but personally discourages abortion.
Premise: Kerry is a politician and wants public support.
Conclusion (ad hominem): Kerry is speaking against his conscience.
Begging the Question
from an online archive of federal court cases
In the "Cuzran" case, Nancy Cuzran's decision to refuse life-saving nutrition was upheld because she was "competent" when she made the decision, though when it would be carried out, she was not. Judge Rehnquist pointed out that the plaintiff's argument begged the question:
Premise: Nancy Cuzran was incapable of making an informed decision.
Conclusion: Nancy Cuzran is incompetent.
Why, then, is she incapable? Because she's incompetent. The argument lacked significant, further evidence or argument.
Red Herrings
from FallacyFiles.org
In an interview, Doctor James Dobson asked a person who suffered from HIV about his stance on safe sex. The guest in the interview clearly labeled safe sex to be "dangerous." However, when posed with the question,
"Why, apart from moral considerations, do you think teenagers should be taught to abstain from sex until marriage," he responded with a red herring that may provide the illusion of a solid answer:
[N]ot one of 800 sexologists at a recent conference raised a hand when asked if they would trust a thin rubber sheath to protect them during intercourse with a known HIV infected person. � And yet they're perfectly willing to tell our kids that "safe sex" is within reach and that they can sleep around with impunity.
Regardless of whether his response, when separated from the question at hand, is true or not, he merely uses the word "sexologists" and tries to mask personal trust of scientists with actual, concrete, perhaps scientific evidence for abstinence. The interviewed person says nothing about abstinence or marriage in his response. He simply says that sexologists wouldn't trust a condom to prevent the transfer of HIV.