Chapter 7
“You Must Not Let Them Con You! There's Too Much at Stake”

Using con tactics to win an argument was raised to a high level of skill in Athens, in the Fifth Century, BC. It constituted the core of study at a school of philosophers called the Sophists. The school's faculty concentrated on teaching young Greeks how to win arguments and debates at any price, even if it included faulty reasoning, deception, trickery, or whatever was necessary as long as the opponent was not able to discern the difference between sound and speciousargumentation.

There are lots of these fallacies of logic. Here are just a few of them. 

The con of over-generalizing
This con is common, seductive, and dangerous. Its Latin name is secundum quid, meaning “in some one respect only.” It involves assigning a characteristic to an entire group on the basis of only one or two observations. For example: A politician is convicted of taking a bribe. Therefore, all politicians are crooked; one malingering black, and all blacks are malingerers; one cowardly Italian, and all Italians are cowards; one drunken Irishman, and all Irishmen are drunkards; one grasping Jew, and all Jews are grasping; one welfare cheat, and everyone on welfare is a cheat; and so on. 

To avoid being taken in by this con, always keep in mind that “One swallow a summer does not make.”

The “thin entering wedge” con
This con is very similar to the previous one in that it also reflects over-generalizing.The major difference between the two is that the former deals with observations that lie in the past or present, and the “thin entering wedge” con (also known as the “camel's nose in the tent” fallacy or the “give him a finger and he'll take the whole hand” fallacy) deals with projecting present or past observations into the future. Here are some examples: 

If the Democrats regain control of the White House, they will spend the nation into bankruptcy. 

If the Republicans maintain control of the White House, the U.S.will know only bread lines all over the country.

If we grant this request for a variance so that the developers will be allowed to build a high rise apartment house, our city will look like mid-Manhattan in five years. 

If we ban the possession of hand guns, we'll end up like Russia.

If the argument or discussion is taking place before onlookers, which of the two antagonists will prevail, if one of them uses this con, will depend to a great degree upon how clearly and rationally the audience is thinking at the time. If it is emotionally detached, the intended victim will be favored. However, if the listeners are passionate about the subject of the debate, it's just about all over for the one at whom the attack is being directed.

And because arguments are generally packed with what are known as "ego trips," the probability that two or more disputants will peacefully resolve their differences is directly proportional to their level of verbal understanding, and inversely proportional to the number of onlookers.

An American on tour in China many years ago was distracted from his sightseeing itinerary by loud, angry shouts which seemed to be coming from a cluster of people on a side street in downtown Peking. Close investigation revealed two coolies, face-to-face, angrily shouting invectives at each other, surrounded by curious onlookers. After witnessing the altercation for a moment or two, the American turned to one of the older spectators and asked, "Why doesn't one of them punch the other in the mouth?" The old man recoiled in horror at what had just been asked him. "Oh no," he replied, "each man knows that the first one who resorts to violence will be deemed by the onlookers as being the first one to have run out of ideas."

The “What do you know about it? You're not an expert” con
Related to the ad hominem con in that it fails to address the issue that's been raised by the opponent, but deplores, denies, or ridicules his qualifications instead. 

During an edition of “Firing Line,” William F. Buckley mediated between two guests — the author of a book on the so-called Hillside Strangler and a psychiatrist who had been involved in examining one of the suspects. During the show, the author raised many questions concerning the psychiatrist's professional competence and behavior during the investigation. The psychiatrist responded at times by holding that he wasn't aware that writers are qualified in psychiatry as well as in writing. At other times, he offered that he had written several books on psychiatry, or that the methodology he had used during the examination had mirrored that of “the world's greatest authority on. . . .” Not once did he address the question or respond to the accusation. 

Science comes by observation, not by authority . . . [and] . . . whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not his intellect but rather [his] memory.  — Leonardo da Vinci

(See Chapter 9 for a fuller treatment of the con of qualification.)

The tu quoque response qualifies as a con because it leaves the assertion unaddressed — there is neither an acceptance nor a refutation of the opponent's position. 

The “cause and effect” con
The Latin name for this con is post hoc, ergo propter hoc. In English, “after this, therefore on account of this.” Just because one event precedes another event, the first is deemed to be the cause of the second; there need be no other data or rationale to support that conclusion. Chantecler, the rooster in Edmond Rostand's play of the same name, victimizes himself with this con when he says: 

I fall back dazzled at beholding myself all rosy red, 
At having, I myself, caused the sun to rise.

This is a very common con, because no thinking is necessary. And it's an easy way to feed passion and emotion. For example, in 1980, or thereabouts, some pregnant women living near the Love Canal in New York State had difficulty in giving birth. In addition, several of the babies in that group were born with defects. Subsequently, it was revealed that the Hooker Chemical Company had been dumping toxic waste into the Love Canal for years. Obviously then, it was the toxic waste that had caused the birth defects and a lot of other things as well. The news media got hold of the story and ran wild with it. Later, a panel of independent scientists went over all the studies that had been done on the incident and found that every one of them was significantly flawed. The dumping of toxic waste into the Love Canal could have caused the birth defects. But the inference that it did merely because the dumping had preceded the birth defects in time was the con. 

Right after the 1964 presidential election, a joke made the rounds about the Republican pondering the notion that his Democrat friends had been right during the campaign. They had predicted at the time that if he voted for Barry Goldwater, the United States would become involved in a war in Indochina. It turned out to be true. He had voted for Goldwater, and America did indeed become involved in a war in Indochina.

The “false analogy” con
An analogy can be a useful way to communicate an idea, thought, or concept, which is why analogies are commonly used in argumentation. Because something was true in one instance, your opponent in an argument will frequently take the position that it is true in another, because, he says, the two instances are analogous. But if one thing is to be truly analogous to something else, there must be a marked similarity or an essential resemblance between the two items. And herein lies the false analogy kind of con — the comparison offered is not a true analogy. 

Here are two examples of false analogies: 

“Reagan's decision to send aid to El Salvador, including military advisors, is sure to turn out to be another Vietnam for America.” 

“Great Britain has dangerously erred in landing an invasion force at Port San Carlos on the East Falkland Island. It's going to be another Dunkirk for her.”

The “appeal to authority” con
There is a tendency to believe that those who are held to be wise or famous cannot be wrong. Which is the basis for another common argumentation con  — the “appeal to authority” con.This con involves quoting a well-known person as support for a position. Its Latin name is ad verecundiam, or “appeal to revered authority.” Today it includes an appeal to any celebrity. Now there's nothing wrong per se in appealing to authority, but only with two provisos: 

It must be understood that the authority appealed to could be wrong; it is never certain that he is right.

The subject matter involved must be one in which the authority appealed to is deemed to be an expert. (But see Chapter 9.)

The only sensible response I've ever heard or read to the often-asked question, "What do you think will happen to stock prices in the coming months?" was one given to a reporter by J.P. Morgan on his return from a trip abroad — "I predict they will continue to fluctuate."

More recently, when asked a similar question, John Kenneth Galbraith responded to the effect that there are two kinds of forecasters: those who don't know and those who don't know that they don't know.

The “appeal to authority” con is intended to intimidate. As a defense, always keep in mind that (1) every major undertaking that failed had been orchestrated by experts and authorities and (2) all you know about a celebrity is that he or she is held to be a celebrity, nothing more. 
(Again see Chapter 9.)
 

The “figures prove” con
This con is anchored in the arbitrary manipulation of statistics to the point of absurdity. Here's how Mark Twain poked fun at it in his book “Life on the Mississippi." 

“In the space of 176 years the Lower Mississippi has shortened itself 242 miles. This is an average of a trifle over one mile and a third per year. Therefore, any calm person, who is not blind or idiotic, can see that in the Old Silurian Period, just a million years ago next November, the River was upward of 1,300,000 miles long, and stuck out over the Gulf of Mexico like a fishing rod. And by the same token, any person can see that 742 years from now the Lower Mississippi will be only a mile and three-quarters long, and Cairo and New Orleans will have joined their streets together.”

Another kind of “figures prove” con is founded on the premise that if a certain cause produces a certain effect, then twice that cause would produce twice that effect. If one vitamin capsule a day is good for you, five should be five times as good. If one martini a day is good for you, five martinis a day should be five times as good for you. Ten a day, ten times, etc. 

To protect yourself from the “figures prove” con learn to go through the following steps, mentally, of course, every time someone throws a “figures prove” kind of assertion at you: 

How does he know? 

Is there anything that should have been considered that wasn't? 

Is the working of numbers internally consistent, that is, was a scale or a base year changed, etc.? 

Does it make sense?

The “appealing to the crowd” con
In Latin, argumentum ad populum. This con is an attempt to win an argument by appealing to the masses, a mob, or a crowd, rather than by appealing to reason. It generally takes the form of  "Everybody knows that. . . .”  as in “Everybody knows that Americans are imperialists (materialists, stupid, whatever).” 

If "everybody knows" such-and-such, then it ain't so, by at least ten thousand to one. — Notebooks of Lazarus Long

The purpose of the “appealing to the crowd con” is to overwhelm you with the “sixty million Frenchmen can't be wrong” nonsense so that you won't take the time or make the effort to do your own thinking. The defense is the knowledge that there isn't anything that everyone knows. 

The “arguing in circles” con
The Latin is circulus in probando. This con involves what is supposed to be proof turning out to be nothing more than the premise restated. Hence, arguing in circles. This con is also known as begging the question. For example, 

True believers never die. 
Charlie Smith died. 
Charlie Smith was not a true believer. 
How do you know? 
Because he died.

Classical music is the best music.
What's your support for that contention? 
All the best music critics say so. 
Who are the best music critics? 
The ones who think classical music is the best.

I wouldn't want to ever make a bet like that with the good doctor, because he can't lose. No matter who I bring to him with a coronary, Dr. Friedman would most likely insist that that patient is Type A. How would he know? Well, the man had a coronary before 60, didn't he? And everyone knows that "You can't get a heart attack before 60 if you're a Type B."

The “self-evident truth” con
Every statement is an argument of some kind in the sense that it is designed to convince or persuade someone of something. It may, occasionally, be composed of one or more premises, presumably true, and a conclusion, presumably valid. An assertion presented to us in that form can be relatively easy to deal with — are the premises true or not and is the conclusion valid or not? 

However, most arguments that are advanced are done so without stated premises; all that are presented are conclusions. In many cases, there's no harm done. “I think it's going to rain” or “This ice cream is delicious” or “Bill is a nice guy” are all conclusions without any stated premises upon which the conclusions are based. In a sense, we accept them as self-evident truths; we don't demand support for the assertions made. In the case of the first statement, we see that it's overcast, that the barometric pressure is falling, that the sea gulls are hovering over land, and so on. The statement that it's going to rain appears to be a reasonable one. As to the ice cream statement, it's a matter of opinion or taste. And as far as Bill being a nice guy is concerned, perhaps, but really not worth fighting about in most circumstances. 

It appears, then, that we accept many statements as self-evident truths when there is no such thing as a self-evident truth; every statement is subject to dispute, because every one of us sees things differently. But unless we are disputatious, we tend to go along with many assertions that are made to us without support of any kind being offered. 

But there are times that outrageous assertions are made to us in the form of self-evident truths. If presented in isolation, with nothing before or after, they are generally easy to recognize and we can defend accordingly. For example, “Women are terrible drivers” or “No one works unless he has to” or “You get what you pay for.” Among most people, a statement such as any of the foregoing would start a dispute going merrily. But there is a neat little trick that some people use to discourage a ready challenge to a supposed self-evident truth; they start the statement with something like “Now everybody knows. . . .” or “As every school boy knows. . . .” or “Unquestionably. . . .” or “All intelligent people agree that. . . .” or some such statement. Thus, the “self-evident truth” con usually resembles an argumentum ad populum. It can also have a bit of ad hominem thrown in, depending upon the way it is phrased. 

Another form of the “self-evident truth” con to watch for is the one which depends for acceptance upon the words “by definition.” For example,“Europeans, by definition, are more cultured than Americans.” Now how can anyone quarrel with that contention?  If, by definition, Europeans are people who are more cultured than Americans, then it must follow that Europeans are more cultured than Americans. Right?  The big question, then, is, “By whose definition?” If two or more people agree to that definition, the statement must be, by definition, a self-evident truth, but only to those people; it may not be to others.
 

The “guilt by association” con
This argumentation con holds that two unlike persons, plants, animals, or things are equatable, because of a single common trait or characteristic or attribute or belief, depending upon what's involved. 

It has several subdivisions. There's guilt by physical association. You're seen in the company of some unsavory characters and, therefore, you've been contaminated, and are now unsavory yourself. Then there's guilt by kinship association. Your brother or wife or whoever is an alleged subversive. Consequently, you are suspect as well. The most common form of guilt by association and the most heinous, because it is frequently used to silence opposition, is guilt by verbal or philosophical association. So if you believe in government-owned housing and government-owned housing is characteristic of communism, then clearly you are a communist. Or if you write a book and it is favorably reviewed in a conservative publication, then clearly you are a conservative. 

The “special pleading” con
The con of special pleading involves the application of a double standard: one for the members of a group claiming to be underprivileged and, therefore, deserving of special consideration, and another, a much stricter one, for everyone else. The best (or worst) example of the special pleading con is in the area of group relations, in which the so-called leaders of different racial, ethnic, gender, etc. groups claim that they and their constituents should not be held to the same standards as others because of “special circumstances." For example, one of the institutions of pre-1964 America was the existence of “whites only" organizations. Since that time, such associations were either closed down or driven underground by social pressure, only to be replaced by any number of “blacks only” associations, “Chinese only” associations, “Hispanics only” associations, etc. with nary a protest from the same people who were responsible for the disappearance of the “whites only” groups.Why? because of “special circumstances.” Then someone in Louisiana formed an organization, which he called The National Association for theAdvancement of White People. Political activists, politicians, and members of the news media all over the country branded the new association as “racist,” a charge never directed at The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. 

And then there are “special considerations” in the area of college admission policies, hiring and advancement in both the public and private sectors, contract set-asides, and so forth, all based on race. Indeed, because political agitation based on the con of special pleading proved to be so profitable for racial minorities, women have also climbed aboard that bandwagon. For example, ten female high school seniors and two women's groups filed suit against the New York State Education Department in November of 1988, alleging that that body practices sex discrimination in its awarding of state merit scholarships. The New York State Education Department awards state merit scholarships purely and solely on the basis of grades that high school students achieve on college-entrance tests — the Scholastic AptitudeTest. In February, 1989, a federal judge barred the New York State Education Department from relying exclusively on the SAT to award state merit scholarships. He found that using it to select scholarship winners was unconstitutional because women tend to score lower than men on the college entrance test and, therefore, far fewer women qualify for state scholarships. 

Perhaps the best known example of the con of special pleading is the last and final Commandment put up on the wall by one of the pigs in GeorgeOrwell's Animal Farm: 

Following is a summary of the argumentation cons just covered: 

The con of over-generalizing involves assigning a characteristic to an entire group on the basis of only one or two observations. 

The con of the thin, entering wedge involves directly projecting past or present observations into the future without considering factors that could alter the direction or the magnitude of the projection. 

The con of ad hominem involves ignoring the issue and attacking the opponent personally. 

The you're-not-qualified con involves failing to address the issue that's been raised by an opponent and deploring, denying, or ridiculing his qualifications instead. 

The Oh, yeah? Well, you're one also con involves leaving an assertion unaddressed by either reversing its direction, or by focusing attention on a related but completely different issue. 

The cause-and-effect con involves assuming that just because event A preceded event B, event A must necessarily be the cause of event B. 

The con of the false analogy involves offering an item (or an event) as analogous to another item (or event) despite the absence of a marked similarity or resemblance between the two items (or the two events). 

The con of appealing to authority involves believing that those held to be wise or those who are famous cannot be wrong. 

The figures prove con involves a totally arbitrary manipulation of statistics to the point of absurdity. 

The con of appealing to the crowd involves the attempt to win an argument by appealing to the masses, the audience, a mob, or a crowd instead of appealing to reason. 

The con of arguing in circles involves offering a conclusion, which turns out to be the premise, just restated. 

The con of the self-evident truth involves stating a conclusion without first offering the necessary premises for that conclusion. 

The con of guilt by association involves holding that two unalike persons, plants, animals, or things are equatable, one with the other, because of a single common trait or characteristic or attribute or belief, depending upon what's involved. 

The con of special pleading involves the application of a double standard: one for one person or group, and another, a much stricter one, for everyone else.

IN CLOSING
The foregoing entailed a look at only the more common cons of argumentation; there are many more. Become familiar with them. Learn to spot them. And also be aware that argumentation cons usually come in very complex packages. So it's highly unlikely that you'll be subjected to only one con at a time in sequential order; it's much more likely that you'll be the target of several, nested within one another. That's the bad news. The good news is that with time and practice, you develop a discerning ear for them.