A Handbook of LogicalFallacies

Table of Contents1. AD FIDENTIA2. AMBIGUOUS COLLECTIVE3. ANTI–CONCEPTUAL MENTALITY4. APPEAL TO IGNORANCE5. ARGUMENT FROM INTIMIDATION6. ARGUMENTUM AD POPULUM7. ARGUMENTUM AD VERECUNDIAM8. ASSUMPTION CORRECTION ASSUMPTION9. BAREFOOT

10. BARKING CAT11. BEGGING THE QUESTION12. BOOLEAN13. CHERISHING THE ZOMBIE14. DETERMINISM15. DISCARDED DIFFERENTIA16. DONUT17. ECLECTIC18. ELEPHANT REPELLENT19. EMPHATIC20. EXCLUSIVITY21. FALSE ALTERNATIVE22. FALSE ATTRIBUTION23. FALSIFIABILITY24. FALSIFIED INDUCTIVE GENERALIZATION25. FANTASY PROJECTION26. FLAT EARTH NAVIGATION SYNDROME27. FLOATING ABSTRACTION28. FROZEN ABSTRACTION29. GOVERNMENT ABSOLUTIST30. GOVERNMENT SOLIPOTENCE31. GRATUITOUS INCULPATION32. GRAVITY GAME33. GREEK MATH34. HOMILY AD HOMINEM

35. I–CUBED36. IGNORING HISTORICAL EXAMPLE37. IGNORING PROPORTIONALITY38. INSTANTIATION OF THE UNSUCCESSFUL39. JOURNALISTIC/POLITICAL FALLACIES40. MEATPOISON41. MEGATRIFLE42. MISPLACED PRECISION43. MOVING GOALPOST SYNDROME44. NULL VALUE45. OVERLOOKING SECONDARY CONSEQUENCES46. PIGEONHOLING47. PERFECTIONIST48. PRETENTIOUS49. PRETENTIOUS ANTECEDENT50. PROOF BY SELECTED INSTANCES51. PROVING A NEGATIVE52. RELATIVE PRIVATION53. RETROGRESSIVE CAUSATION54. SELECTIVE SAMPLING55. SELF EXCLUSION56. SHINGLE SPEECH57. SILENCE IMPLIES CONSENT58. SIMPLISTIC–COMPLEXITY59. SPURIOUS SUPERFICIALITY60. STOLEN CONCEPT61. SUPRESSION OF THE AGENT62. THOMPSON INVISIBILITY SYNDROME63. UNINTENDED SELF–INCLUSION64. UNKNOWABLES65. VARIANT IMAGIZATION66. VERBAL OBLITERATION67. WOULDCHUCK

The Fallacies1. AD FIDENTIA

(Against Self–Confidence) If youcannot directly refute someone’sprinciples, you strike indirectly

with an attack on their confidence inthose principles. Question theircertainty of the principles’validity:

"How can you be sure you’reright?"

2. AMBIGUOUS COLLECTIVE

The use of a collective termwithout any meaningful delimitationof the elements it subsumes. "We,""you," "they," "the people," "thesystem," and "as a whole" are themost widely used examples. Thisfallacy is especially widespread anddevastating in the realm of politicaldiscussion, where its use rendersimpossible the task of discriminatingamong distinctively different groupsof people.

(The term "as a whole" is anassertion that a group of peoplesomehow becomes an entity endowedwith attributes other than thoseattributes possessed by an aggregateof individuals. It would be better touse the expression "composite" than"as a whole," as this preserves theawareness that the group is merely acollection of independent elements.)

Social problems are difficultiesresulting from the interactions ofgroups of people. Before a socialproblem (or indeed any kind ofproblem) can be solved, it isimperative that the problem beprecisely identified. To identify asocial problem, you must delineateexactly the groups of people who areinvolved in that problem. TheAmbiguous Collective fallacy preventsthis identification.

An antecedentless pronoun is anexample in the singular of theAmbiguous Collective fallacy.

I often challenge those who committhis fallacy to eliminate from theirdiscussion all general collectiveterms, and each time they want to usesuch a term to use instead aprecisely delimiting description ofthe group the term is intended tosubsume. Very few people are able todo this.

One reason this fallacy is soprevalent and difficult to deal withis that it is built into the Englishlanguage. Consider the question "Doyou love anyone?" The ambiguityarises from the fact that the word"anyone" can denote either of twocompletely different meanings:

1. An individual, specifiablehuman being. A single, particularperson, in the sense that there issome one person whom I love.

2. A non–selected unitary subsetof the human race, in the sense thatI love whichever person happens to bein my proximity.

Here are some examples of theAmbiguous Collective fallacy:

"Last November, 77% of us voted infavor of term limits."

In this statement, who exactly arethe "us"? The speaker wants to conveythe idea that term limits are verywidely supported, but if in fact the77% refers only to those who voted,the supporting subgroup may well be aquite small percentage of the total

population.

"We need to train doctors to teachus how to get and stay healthy."

In this statement, who are the"we" and who are the "us"? Is thespeaker trying to promote socializedmedicine by advocating governmentcontrol of the medical schools? Whenhe says "we need to" does he reallymean "the government should"? and isthe "us" merely a subtle way ofsaying "me"? South Africa sanctionsas an example of the consequences inreal life of the ambiguous collectivefallacy:

"I imagine you support yourgovernment’s sanctions against SouthAfrica?"

"Of course. Every decent persondoes."

What about disinvestment ofAmerican business from my country,you are all for that too?"

"I campaigned for it on campus. Inever missed a rally or a march."

"Even if it means a million blacksstarve as a direct consequence? Yourplan is similar to trying to converta country by withdrawing all yourmissionaries and burning down thecathedral. You forced your ownbusinessmen to sell their assets atfive cents on the dollar. But itwasn’t the impoverished blacks whopurchased those assets. Overnight youcreated two hundred new millionairesin South Africa, and every one ofthem had a white face! That’smaliciously stupid! We would be

grateful to you if your efforts hadbeen failures!"

Perhaps the most widely–knownexample of the Ambiguous Collectivefallacy is the statement:

"Government of the people, by thepeople, and for the people."

In this statement "the people" hasthree distinctly different meanings:

One group of "the people" (thevictims, or producers) are ruled byanother group of "the people" (thebureaucrats, with their action arm,the police) in order to achieve thegoals of another group of "thepeople" (the politicians).

Here is an excellent demonstrationof the significance of the AmbiguousCollective fallacy (from THE TENTHOUSAND by Harold Coyle):

Dixon was ready. "Who,Colonel Stahl, would you bebetraying?"

Stahl looked at Dixon witha quizzical look on his facebefore responding.

"Why, I would bedisobeying my orders. I wouldbetray Germany."

Dixon switched tactics.Leaning forward for dramaticeffect, he looked intoStahl’s eyes as he spoke witha clear, sharp voice. "WhoseGermany Colonel Stahl?Chancellor Ruff’s Germany,the Germany of his dreams and

ambitions? The Parliament,who are at this very minutedebating the constitutionalright of Chancellor Ruff’sauthority and actions? Themayor’s Germany, one ofworking people and theirfamilies who have had no sayin the past weeks overChancellor Ruff’s provocativeactions and unreasonabledemands upon my government?Or your Germany – atheoretical Germany thatknows only blind duty toorders and traditions? Who,Colonel, will you bebetraying?

The concept that a soldier ishonor–bound to obey Orders withoutquestion allowed the German Army tobe drawn into helping the Naziscreate the nightmare that ledultimately to the death of millionsof Germans and the near totaldestruction of Germany.

3. ANTI–CONCEPTUAL MENTALITY

The anti–conceptual mentalitytreats abstractions as if they wereperceptual concretes. It regards aconcept as a self–contained given, assomething that requires no logicalprocess of integration anddefinition.

This syndrome is motivated by thedesire to retain the effortless,automatic character of perceptualawareness, and to avoid the mentalindependence, effort and risk oferror that conceptual integrationentails. In the anti– conceptualmentality, the process of integration

is largely replaced by a process ofassociation.

The anti–conceptual mentalitybreeds an identification with anddependence upon the group, usually agroup united by such concrete traitsas race, sex, or geographicalproximity. The moral universe of suchpeople consists of concretesubstitutes for ethical principles:customs, traditions, myths, andrituals.

The anti–conceptual mentality isincapable of abstracting fromconcrete differences among people andformulating general principles ofcommon human rights, or commonstandards for judging an individual’smoral character and conduct. Itssense of right and wrong is anchorednot in reason but in loyalty to thetribe and its practices. Thesolidarity of the tribe is sustainedin part by xenophobia – thus thebigoted racism frequently manifestedby these people.

For the anti–conceptual mentality,relativism is the only possiblealternative to tribal prejudicebecause for him the refusal to judgeis the only alternative to judging byconcrete–bound criteria. If one doesnot think in terms of principles, onehas no way of distinguishing thoseaspects of human conduct andcharacter that are essential fromthose aspects that are optional.

4. APPEAL TO IGNORANCE

Assertions based on what we do NOTknow: "No one knows precisely whatwould happen if a core was to melt

down." and the compounding ofarbitrarily asserted possibilities.

What COULD happen is what ispossible. The burden of proof is onthe skeptic to provide some specificreason to doubt a conclusion that allavailable evidence supports. It isnot true that "coulds" and "maybes"are an epistemological free lunchthat can be asserted gratuitously.The case against the skeptic is thatdoubt must always be specific, andcan only exist in contrast to thingswhich cannot properly be doubted.

5. ARGUMENT FROM INTIMIDATION

(The Virtue of Selfishness,chapter 19)

"Only the most degenerate, morallydepraved, cretinous imbecile couldfail to see the truth of myargument."

Usually, however, this is somewhatmore subtle:

"It would be unwise to exclude thepossibility that my surmise iscorrect."

To dare is to challenge someone toperform an action as proof of hiscourage. This is the behavior of apitiful little creature with theaspirations of a tyrant but withoutthe power to compel. Since you do nothave the power to compel, you attemptto swindle him into the acceptance ofyour goals and the use of yourjudgements as the standard for hisactions.

You trick him into performing the

action by impugning his character.This is a form of the Argument fromIntimidation.

6. ARGUMENTUM AD POPULUM

(bandwagon fallacy) "All societiesrequire military service. We are asociety. Therefore we should requiremilitary service."

7. ARGUMENTUM AD VERECUNDIAM

The appeal to authority.

Whose authority? If an argument isto be resolved by such an appeal, theauthority must be one recognized byboth parties. A justice system whichdoes not recognize the rights of theindividual will not provide asatisfactory authority. The only waythe appeal to authority can be aviable means of conflict resolutionis if both parties can agree on acompletely neutral, objectiveauthority to decide the issue. Wheredoes one exist? Only in the facts ofreality.

Who decides? In all issuespertaining to objectivity, theultimate authority is reality – andthe mind of every individual whojudges the evidence by the objectivemethod of judgment: logic.

8. ASSUMPTION CORRECTIONASSUMPTION

He assumes (implicitly) that Iwill correct his mistakenassumptions.

9. BAREFOOT

(See Rothbard, FOR A NEW LIBERTY,Chapter 10) – "If government didn’texercise control over themanufacture, distribution, price andsale of shoes we would all gobarefoot!" If "shoes" doesn’t suityou, just substitute "police" or"fire protection" or "mail delivery"or anything else the governmentclaims to provide.

Nothing the government claims toprovide cannot be provided in a morehumane, just, and economical mannerby free associations of individualpeople.

10. BARKING CAT

(From "Free To Choose" by MiltonFriedman) What would you think ofsomeone who said, "I would like tohave a cat provided it barked"? Yourstatement that you favor a governmentprovided it behaves as YOU believedesirable is precisely equivalent.The political principles thatdetermine the behavior of governmentagencies once they are establishedare no less rigid than the biologicalprinciples that determine thecharacteristics of cats. The way thegovernment behaves and its adverseconsequences are not an accident, nota result of some easily correctedhuman mistake, but a consequence ofits nature in precisely the same waythat a meow is a consequence of thenature of a cat.

11. BEGGING THE QUESTION

An assertion that implies and/oruses its answer.

"Why should you be good topeople?" (He expects me to be good tohim by responding to his question.)

"We must institute the deathpenalty to discourage violent crime."(He assumes that capital punishmentdoes in fact discourage crime.)

12. BOOLEAN

Choosing to view a continuum asrepresented by only its extremities.It consists in dividing a range ofoptions exhaustively into the twoextremes and then insisting that achoice be made between one or theother extreme, without regard to anyof the intervening alternatives. Anexample would be to insist that if aman does not behave like a genius hemust therefore be a moron. A moresubtly dangerous example is theattitude of a person who has anaversion to the necessity of definingone’s terms. She may attempt to avoidthis necessity by maintaining that"defining every single term used in adiscussion would result in such atedious and turgid presentation thatcommunication would be impossible."What she ignores is the interveningalternative of defining only theterms that are SIGNIFICANT to thediscussion.

In fact, some phenomena areBoolean by nature and some areGaussian. Human intelligence isGaussian, the Law of Identity isBoolean. The Excluded middle isanother name for what I call theBoolean Fallacy.

13. CHERISHING THE ZOMBIE

Touting the existence oreffectiveness of an idea that hasbeen dead for a long time.

"The forthcoming election could bethe big turning point in theLibertarian Party’s electoralsignificance." The LP has been apolitical zombie since 1980 but he isstill cherishing it.

"The President’s statement castsdoubt on the administration’scredibility." The Zombie is the ideathat the administration has anycredibility.

Chief Justice Warren Burger: "Wemay well be on our way to a societyoverrun by hordes of lawyers, hungryas locusts." The Zombie is the self–blinded belief that America has notalready become such a society.

14. DETERMINISM

(The Objectivist Newsletter, May1963) – "The doctrine of determinismcontains a central and insuperablecontradiction – an EPISTEMOLOGICALcontradiction – a contradictionimplicit in any variety ofdererminism, whether the allegeddetermining forces be physical,psychological, environmental ordivine. In fact, Man is neitheromniscient nor infallible.

This means: (a) that he must workto ACHIEVE his knowledge, and (b)that the mere presence of an ideainside his mind does not prove thatthe idea is true; many ideas mayenter a man’s mind which are false.But if man believes what he HAS tobelieve, if he is not free to test

his beliefs against reality and tovalidate or reject them – if theactions and content of his mind aredetermined by factors that may or maynot have anything to do with reason,logic and reality – then he can neverknow if his conclusions are true orfalse...But if this were true, noknowledge – no CONCEPTUAL knowledge –would be possible to man. No theorycould claim greater plausibility thanany other – including the theory ofpsychological determinism."

One of the catches to determinismis that you cannot argue with it. Toargue is to make an attempt to inducesomeone to alter the actions orcontent of his mind. The deterministenters the argument with the claimthat such alteration is impossible –that he has no power to volitionallychange his state of consciousness. Hesays, and means literally, "My mindis made up – don’t confuse me withthe facts!" But at the same time, thedeterminist always counts on the freewill he argues against, because hehopes to persuade YOU that HE isright; and to be persuaded is tochoose freely between two or morecompeting options.

The fundamental question of freewill does not involve Man’s physicalbehavior but his psychologicalbehavior. It concerns Man’s abilityto control the functioning of his ownmind.

The argument is frequently heardthat hormones control behavior. Thisis not quite true. Although hormonesdo have a controlling effect on muchanimal behavior, we humans have anorgan whose size and functional

significance enables us to overridethe influence of hormones on ourbehavior: the cerebral cortex.Indeed, it is the size andsignificance of this organ thatprimarily differentiates us from ourfellow animals. In human beings,hormones don’t exactly controlbehavior, what they do is providemotivation for the behavior. It is mymind that chooses whether or not Iwill act according to thatmotivation.

Under justice, individuals areheld to be responsible agents for theacts that they commit, and they areheld responsible for the consequencesof those actions. Under all the formsof determinism you can’t havejustice, because individuals are notheld to be causal agents. Instead,they are regarded as billiard balls,as entities who are merely actedupon, and therefore helpless in doingthe things they do.

On the Determinist premise, menare not merely unfit for freedom,they are metaphysically incapable ofit since they do not have fundamentalcontrol over the choices made intheir minds. Political issues becomematters of pure pragmatism: there isno right or wrong, but only effectiveor ineffective techniques of socialmanipulation.

Biologists have tacitly assumedthat when they have understood theoperation of each molecule in a nervemembrane, they will understand theoperation of the mind. But both thedigital and the analog paradigms ofcomputation make it clear that thisassumption is wrong. After all, a

computer is built from a completelyknown arrangement of devices whoseoperation is understood in minutedetail. Yet it is often impossible toprove that even a simple computerprogram will calculate its desiredresult or, for that matter, that itwill even terminate.

Wilder Penfield explored the brainwith electrical probes. Bystimulating different parts of thebrain he could cause a subject toturn his head, blink his eyes, movehis limbs and a host of other things.But though he could make thepatient’s hand move he could nevermake the patient feel that he hadWILLED the hand to move. Penfieldfound that the effects ofconsciousness could be selectivelycontrolled by outside manipulation.But however much he probed, he couldnot enter consciousness itself. Hecould not find the mind and invadeits autonomy.

15. DISCARDED DIFFERENTIA

Define by using the Genus only.

16. DONUT

A form of false alternative. Itinsists that all donuts be dividedinto two piles: large donuts andsugar donuts.

17. ECLECTIC

Eclecticism consists of selectingthe good parts from a set of ideasand discarding the bad parts. Butthis process implies that you alreadyknow how to do the selecting, and

have a standard of judgment to usefor evaluating the ideas.

If you in fact do, then there isno problem and eclecticism is a validintellectual process. But if youapproach a set of ideas from a stateof ignorance, you are notintellectually equipped to pick andchoose from among them. You could notknow whether what you accepted istrue or false.

Herein lies the danger ofeclecticism – if you are going topick and choose you must already haveenough knowledge to do the selecting.

18. ELEPHANT REPELLENT

"Hey, mister, you better buy abottle of my Elephant Repellent. Ifyou don’t buy it, the elephants willcome into the neighborhood andtrample you! My proof that this stuffreally works is that there are noelephants around here." for "ElephantRepellent" substitute the word"Government" and for "elephants"substitute the word "crime" or"Russians" or "poverty" or "chaos" oranything else the government claimsto prevent.

Nothing the government claims toprevent cannot be prevented in a morehumane, just, and economical mannerby free associations of individualpeople.

All statists use one or both ofthese fallacies. A good example, andan illustration of the motiveunderlying their use, can be found inthe Commentaries of WilliamBlackstone:

"...the whole should protect allits parts, and that every part shouldpay obedience to the will of thewhole; or, in other words, that thecommunity should guard the rights ofeach individual member, and that (inreturn for this protection) eachindividual should submit to the lawsof the community; without whichsubmission of all it was impossiblethat protection could be extended toany."

Under the spurious claim that theState will "guard the rights of eachindividual" Blackstone demands theirobedient submission. In reality, therights are never guarded but theslavery is always imposed.

19. EMPHATIC

To emphasize one element of a setat the expense of other equallysignificant elements. Or to placeemphasis on a spurious aspect of asituation. You see this when peoplereact violently to comparativelyminor troubles but are seeminglyunshaken by really serious ones. Itis a sort of being at a loss for aproportionate emotional reaction – ashivering at shadows.

20. EXCLUSIVITY

Trying to make an idea of limitedapplicability extend in its coverageto the inclusion of an overly largerange: "All human experience can beexplained by a study of energyflows."

21. FALSE ALTERNATIVE

Assuming that only one alternativeexists in a given situation, when infact, other and usually morefundamental alternatives exist also.This is frequently expressed by thequestion, "What other explanationcould there be?"

22. FALSE ATTRIBUTION

The Straw Man syndrome. Present afalse description of your adversaryand then base your repudiation onthat description. You caricature aposition to make it easier to attack:

Objectivism advocates infanticide,therefore Objectivism is evil.

If we allow abortion in the firstweeks of pregnancy, it will beimpossible to prevent the killing ofa full–term infant.

If the state prohibits abortionseven in the ninth month, it will soonbe telling us what to do with ourbodies around the time of conception.

The defendant must be foundguilty; otherwise, it will be anencouragement for other men to murdertheir wives.

As a justification for yourproposal, you present yoursupposition of adverse consequences.

23. FALSIFIABILITY

Also known as the Appeal toIgnorance Karl Popper: A conjectureor hypothesis must be accepted astrue until such time as it is provento be false.

Popper maintains that scientistsapproach the truth through what hecalls "conjecture and refutation." Inactuality, scientists approach thetruth not through conjecture andrefutation, but through conjectureand CONFIRMATION – the demonstration,by means of careful experiment, thata hypothesis corresponds to the factsof reality.

This impatience with ambiguity canbe criticized by the phrase: absenceof evidence is not evidence ofabsence.

Until the phenomenon is provenTRUE there is no obligation to baseyour attitude toward it on theassumption that it MIGHT be true. Ifthere were such an obligation, thenyou would be obliged to give seriousconsideration to every crackpotnotion that has ever been putforward.

Falsifiability can be a valuableintellectual tool: it can help you todisprove ideas which are incorrect.But it does not enable you to proveideas which are correct.

See PROVING A NEGATIVE

24. FALSIFIED INDUCTIVEGENERALIZATION

Restrict a wide abstraction to anarrow set of particulars and thenconclude that an attribute of theseparticulars must be definitive of theabstraction, thus negating the entireprincipled structure underlying theabstraction.

A similar fallacy is that of

equating opposites by substitutingnonessentials for their essentialcharacteristics. Conservatives alwaysdo this when they claim to beObjectivists or libertarians.

25. CONTEXT IMPOSITION FANTASYPROJECTION

An attempt to impose his ownintellectual or moral context onanother person by someone who hasclosed his mind to reality andmanufactured a fantasy, then expects(or if he is a tyrant, demands)others to share it and help himsustain it. He ignores the objectiverealities of the situation,concentrating instead on subjectiveperceptions that are false. (See thedefinition of Social Metaphysics inthe DICT file.)

"If you were terminally ill, youtoo would advocate lifepreservation." "There are no atheistsin foxholes."

[While cringing in the foxhole,the atheist realizes fully that hedoes not believe in God: What sort ofbloody–minded deity would let thecreatures he created perpetratesomething like this? ]

Imposition of the Slave Mentality:"Aren’t you thankful that they allowthis?" [I am expected to limit myselfto the context of "their"allowables.]

The proper answer is, "No, I amresentful that they forbid otherfreedoms I should possess."

They behave as though by naming

your opinion in advance they willmake you unable to alter it.

They have a six–inch knife andhave stuck it four inches into me.Should I be thankful they have notshoved it in the final two inches? Orresentful that they have shoved it infour inches? [I am expected to accepttheir behavioral context and to judgemy situation from within thatcontext.]

"Let ’em eat cake!"

26. FLAT EARTH NAVIGATION SYNDROME

Devoting a lot of time and energyto solving problems that don’t exist,such as figuring out ways to navigateon a flat earth. Generalizing from ahypostatization. Looking for an easyway out of a dilemma that does notexist.

Theology is a study with noanswers because it has no subjectmatter.

27. FLOATING ABSTRACTION

(Barbara Branden’s lectures,Principles of Efficient Thinking –lecture #4) A generalizationsubsuming no particulars.

28. FROZEN ABSTRACTION

(The Virtue of Selfishness,chapter 10) Substituting a particularconcrete for the wider abstract classto which it belongs – such as using aspecific ethics (e.g., altruism) forthe wider abstraction "ethics."

29. GOVERNMENT ABSOLUTIST

This is the person who makescomparative judgments (usually ofpeople’s behavior) that are based noton any moral or ethical principle butare made by reference to a government(invariably his own government). Theconsequence is to make a spuriousdistinction between two people (orgroups) who in fact manifestidentical behavior.

Tom Clancy: "Terrorists don’trelate to the people around them asbeing real people. They see them asobjects, and since they’re onlyobjects, whatever happens to them isnot important. Once I met a man whokilled four people and didn’t bat aneye; but he cried like a baby when wetold him his cat died. People likethat don’t even understand why theyget sent to prison; they really don’tunderstand. Those are the scaryones."

What Clancy cannot see is that anypoliceman or any soldier of anycountry manifests exactly the samebehavior that Clancy has condemned asterrorism.

William Buckley: "The Cold War isa part of the human condition for solong as you have two social phenomenawhich we can pretty safely denominateas constants. The first is a societythat accepts what it sees as thehistorical mandate to dominate othersocieties – at least as persistentlyas microbes seek out human organismsto infect. and the second phenomenon,of course, is the coexistence of asociety that is determined NOT to bedominated or have its friends

dominated."

Buckley does not realize that aSoviet analyst would make preciselythe same identification that Buckleyhas made, but with the rolesreversed.

30. GOVERNMENT SOLIPOTENCE

The claim that if the governmentis not doing something about aproblem, then nothing CAN be doneabout it. ONLY the government cansolve society’s problems.

31. GRATUITOUS INCULPATION SPURIOUSCAUSATION

"The consumer will have to pay thebill for the oil spill."

"Scientists are responsible forthe danger of nuclear war."

"The advance of modern medicineunderlies the present populationexplosion."

"Henry Ford is responsible for airpollution."

"Taxpayers are forced to financepolicies that many of them wouldoppose."

The taxpayer does not do thefinancing – the government does. Thestatement implies that the taxpayeris performing some positive action,when in fact he is the passivevictim.

These seem to be variants of thePOST HOC fallacy. The selectedelement is contributory but is

certainly not a sufficient cause. Anattempt is being made to transferblame onto someone who is onlymarginally (or not at all)responsible. See Chapter 3 Expense.

Related to this is the Confusionof Correlation and Causation:

A survey shows that more collegegraduates are homosexual than thosewith lesser education; thereforeeducation makes people gay.

Children who watch violent TVprograms tend to be more violent whenthey grow up. [But did the TV causethe violence, or do violent childrenpreferentially enjoy watching violentprograms? Very likely both are true.]

Before women got the vote, therewere no nuclear weapons.

32. GRAVITY GAME

This consists of demanding that anidea be proven over and over againindefinitely before its validity isacceptable. (The name was conceivedwhile watching an infant throw hertoy onto the floor over and over andover again.) An open mind does notgrant equal status to truth andfalsehood. Nor does it remainfloating forever in a stagnant vacuumof neutrality and uncertainty.

33. GREEK MATH

The inability to discriminate ascale delineating greater and lesserpositives from a scale delineatinggreater and lesser negatives. Thisinability results in considering alesser negative to be a positive.

("My government is a good government– because it’s not as bad as othergovernments.") I call it the GreekMath fallacy because the Greeks didnot have the mathematical concept ofzero – that which separates positivequantities from negative quantities.

See RELATIVE PRIVATION

34. HOMILY AD HOMINEM

Appealing to a person’s feelingsor prejudices, rather than hisintellect, with a trite phrasedesigned to reinforce a subjectiverather than objective view of asituation. If the homily is notaccepted in answer to the situation,the next thing that will be done isto attack the person’s characterrather than answer his argument.

35. I–CUBED

You assume that your adversary isIgnorant, Incompetent, and/orInexperienced and then impose thiscontext on the discussion. I almostalways encounter this fromastrologers, who admonish me to"examine this before you reject it!"They always assume I have not doneso.

36. IGNORING HISTORICAL EXAMPLE

People who do not look into thefuture beyond the end of their nosealso do not look into the past beyondyesterday (and sometimes not eventhat far). If they did, they wouldreadily see that the previousimplementation of their schemes wasinvariably a failure. Not only do

they fail to see that their schemeWILL BE a failure, they fail to seethat it HAS BEEN a failure.

37. IGNORING PROPORTIONALITY

"You are safer walking down a darkalley than sitting in your livingroom with friends, because mostmurders are committed in the victim’shome by his acquaintances." Thisignores the fact that most peoplespend much more of their time at homethan walking down alleys.

Some journalists bias theirreports by expressing outcomes interms of relative changes rather thanof absolute numbers. Thus, reportersof one experiment claimed a 19percent reduction in coronary deathsamong men treated with drug Alfa whenin absolute numbers there was only a1.7 percent difference between thetwo groups: from 9.8 percent of theuntreated group (187 of 1,900) to 8.1percent of the treated group (l15 of1906). Similarly, reporters ofanother trial which used the drugBeta, described an absolutedifference of 1.4 percent as a 34percent relative reduction.

38. INSTANTIATION OF THEUNSUCCESSFUL

To insist on implementingsomething which is known to havefailed. "What we need is governmentcontrol of the economy!"

39. JOURNALISTIC/POLITICAL FALLACIES

Weasel words – calling warssomething else – "police actions" or

"pacification." Euphemisms for warare one of a broad class ofdistortions of language for politicalpurposes. Talleyrand said, "Animportant art of politicians is tofind new names for institutions whichunder old names have become odious tothe public." (Or have been shown tobe failures.)

Some subtle methods of mediadistortion: the use of emotionallyloaded images. The limitation ofdebate to "responsible" options. Theframing of dissident viewpoints inways that trivialize them. Thepersonification of complex realities(Saddam =" Iraq). The objectificationof persons ("collateral damage"). Theisolation of events from theirhistorical context. (By taking aperson’s statements out of theirhistorical context and judging themby present–day standards, thejournalist or politician effectivelyhides the real author under a mask ofcaricature.)

Remember that journalists andpoliticians must look for strong,quick impact, so they avoid thethoughtfully analytical and thecerebral, which take too much timeand mental effort.

40. MEATPOISON

The National Association ofScholars proclaims, as the twoforemost items in its platform forreforming the academic community ofAmerica, its aims to:

"enhance the quality and contentof the curriculum"

"resist the ideological misuse ofteaching and scholarship"

The NAS seems oblivious to thefact that these aims are merely twosides of a coin, and that what theycall "enhancing the quality andcontent of the curriculum" theiropponents will call "the ideologicalmisuse of teaching and scholarship."One man’s Meat is another man’sPoison.

41. MEGATRIFLE

Take a small, inconsequentialeffect and magnify it to become all–encompassing in its supposedinfluence. These are people whosefear of the snake in the grass is sogreat that they are unable to see thebear that is about to eat them.

When somebody gets all upset oversomething that makes no practicaldifference, you are dealing with aperson whose world exists only withinher mind (and the minds of hersignificant others) rather thanoutside it. So don’t bother asking"What difference does that make?" Youwill generally find that verbalassurances are the only way to calmher down. Repeated verbal reassuranceplays the same verification role inthe mind of a subjectivist thatrepeated experiments plays in themind of an objectivist.

42. MISPLACED PRECISION

The museum guide says the dinosaurskeleton is 90,000,006 years old –because when he was hired six yearsago he was told that it was 90

million years old.

The time for the Olympic 30–kilometer relay race, which takesalmost an hour and a half to run, ismeasured to one one–hundredth of asecond.

43. MOVING GOALPOST SYNDROME

"Computers might be able tounderstand Chinese and think aboutnumbers but cannot do the cruciallyhuman things, such as..." – and thenfollows his favorite human specialty– falling in love, having a sense ofhumor, etc. But as soon as anartificial intelligence simulationsucceeds, a new "crucial" element isselected (the goalpost is moved).Thus the perpetrators of this fallacywill never have to admit to theexistence of artificial intelligence.

The proponents keep changing theirdefinition, presenting you alwayswith a moving target that you cannever get hold of. Rand referred tothis as trying to grasp a fog.

44. NULL VALUE

A statement (or question) thatgives (or elicits) no cognitivelymeaningful information: "Are youhonest?" If he’s honest, he’ll say’Yes’ – but if he’s a liar, he’ll say’Yes’ You learn nothing in eithercase.

45. OVERLOOKING SECONDARYCONSEQUENCES

To consider only the immediateresults of an action, ignoring the

long– term effects. Along with thisis the fallacy of Pigeonholing.

46. PIGEONHOLING

An attempt to subsume somethinginto a frame–of–reference that is toosmall to incorporate the thing.

You call me a name so you don’thave to see me – you just see thename that you call me.

Tyrants have a need to call otherpeople names; it soothes theirconsciences when they exerisecoercion. Oppression of peopleoffends their Christian values; butit is no crime to tyrannize a "wog"or a "raghead." It is the nature oftyranny to reduce its victims tonames of disparagement.

47. PERFECTIONIST

"I’ll stick with what I have, nomatter how bad it is, rather thanswitch to something that is better –but not perfect."

I once knew a woman who refused touse any contraceptive. She was in hermid–20s and was sexually active withher boyfriend. Her rationale for thisrefusal, which she stated in a veryclear and explicit manner, was that"no contraceptive is 100% reliable,therefore none of them is acceptableto me."

(I knew her only briefly and wasnot present to observe the long–termconsequences of this idiocy.)

Other such rationales forrejecting change include:

Reification of the Possible, whichis to regard a possible outcome asbeing a foregone certainty, whenmaking an evaluation of a cause.

Reification of the Existent, whichconsists of the claim that onepossible outcome of a scheme mightlead to a state of affairs thatalready exists under the presentcircumstances.

We take risks every day of theweek. When buying a house, forinstance, you know you may have tospend money to repair it someday, butyou don’t go live in a cave insteadin order to avoid the risk. Youaccept the risk because the benefitsoutweigh it. But the word "outweigh"implies an act of self–responsiblejudgment, and what the person whouses the Perfectionist fallacy istrying to avoid are self–responsibility, judgment, and risk.

48. PRETENTIOUS

Here the speaker assumesomniscience with respect to thesubject under consideration. Heassumes also that he speaks for theentire human race.

"We don’t know what life is" (orinsanity, intelligence, etc).

"We can’t conceive of personaldeath."

"My contention must be truebecause we can think of noalternative mechanism as a cause forthis phenomenon."

Just because your eyes are shutdoesn’t mean the sun has been turnedoff.

If you believe so, then yourbelief system has locked you into alow level of awareness about asituation that has been resolvedeverywhere except in your own mind.

49. PRETENTIOUS ANTECEDENT

Having made a brief reference to,or speculation about, a phenomenon,he later asserts that the phenomenonhas now been fully explained.Although the direct evidence hepresents is extremely thin, he laterassumes that his thesis has beenestablished with certainty.

50. PROOF BY SELECTED INSTANCES

Many years ago I awoke inthe dead of night in a coldsweat, with the certainknowledge that a closerelative had suddenly died. Iwas so gripped with thehaunting intensity of theexperience that I was afraidto place a long–distancephone call, for fear that therelative would trip over thetelephone cord (or something)and make the experience aself– fulfilling prophecy. Infact, the relative is aliveand well, and whateverpsychological roots theexperience may have, it wasnot a reflection of animminent event in the realworld. After my experience Idid not write a letter to an

institute of parapsychologyrelating a compellingpredictive dream which wasnot borne out by reality.That is not a memorableletter.

But had the death I dreamtactually occurred, such aletter would have been markeddown as evidence forprecognition. The hits arerecorded, the misses are not.Thus human natureunconsciously conspires toproduce a biased reporting ofthe frequency of such events.If enough independentphenomena are studied andcorrelations sought, somewill of course be found. Ifwe know only the coincidencesand not the unsuccessfultrials, we might believe thatan important finding has beenmade. Actually, it is onlywhat statisticians call thefallacy of the enumeration offavorable circumstances.

(Source: Richard Feynman)

(Counting the hits and ignoringthe misses.)

Another example is the TexasSharpshooter effect: a man shoots atthe side of a barn and then proceedsto draw targets around the holes. Hemakes every shot into a bull’s–eye.For example: if an epidemiologistwere to draw a circle around thegreater Boston area, he would find anincidence of leukemia comparable withthe rest of the USA. Draw a circlearound Woburn and he’d find a

worrisome elevation. Draw a circlearound the Pine Street neighborhoodand he’d find an alarming cluster. Isit a real cluster? Or is he justdrawing bull’s–eyes where he foundbullet holes? A large professionalorganization once surveyed itsmembers on a variety of topics. Oneof the questions on the poll was "Didyou vote in the last societyelection?" When the responses to thisquestion were compared with theactual voting records, the pollstersnoted a large discrepancy – thepercentage of respondents who saidthey had voted was significantlylarger than the percentage of societymembers who actually had voted.

Of course! Those who responded tothe survey were a self–selectedsubgroup of the general membership:those members who are more likely toparticipate in organizational affairssuch as voting and polling. "They say1 out of every 5 people is Chinese.How is this possible? I know hundredsof people, and none of them isChinese."

And then there is the optimist whoexclaims "I’ve thrown three sevens ina row. Tonight I can’t lose!"

And President Dwight Eisenhowerexpressing astonishment and alarm ondiscovering that half of allAmericans have below averageintelligence.

51. PROVING A NEGATIVE

(The Objectivist Newsletter, April1963) "Proving the non–existence ofthat for which no evidence of anykind exists. Proof, logic, reason,

thinking, knowledge pertain to anddeal only with that which exists.They cannot be applied to that whichdoes not exist. Nothing can berelevant or applicable to the non–existent. The non–existent isnothing. A positive statement, basedon facts that have been erroneouslyinterpreted, can be refuted – bymeans of exposing the errors in theinterpretation of the facts. Suchrefutation is the disproving of apositive, not the proving of anegative... Rational demonstration isnecessary to support even the claimthat a thing is possible. It is abreach of logic to assert that thatwhich has not been proven to beimpossible is, therefore, possible.An absence does not constitute proofof anything. Nothing can be derivedfrom nothing." Doubt must always bespecific, and can only exist incontrast to things which cannotproperly be doubted.

52. RELATIVE PRIVATION

To try to make a phenomenon appeargood, by comparing it with a worsephenomenon, or to try to make aphenomenon appear bad, by comparingit with a better phenomenon. SeeGREEK MATH.

Consider junkfood. A verynutritionally–conscious person has arather low opinion of junkfood. Butwhat would be your attitude toward agreasy hamburger if you hadn’t eatenfor three or four days? You canmalign junkfood because yournutritional standards are high enoughto permit you to do so. But anEthiopian would like nothing better

than to have access to MacDonald’s,Hardee’s or Wendy’s and, in fact,such access would be the best thingthat could happen to the Ethiopian.Because you have alternatives thatthe Ethiopian does not have, he is ina position of relative privation whencompared to you.

In just the same way, the peoplewho labored in sweatshops at the turnof the century were in a state ofrelative privation when compared toyou. Because your alternatives aredifferent (and much better), thesweatshop seems to you to be anabomination, but in fact thesweatshop was immensly preferable tothe alternatives available at thattime.

"Eat your carrots! Just think ofall the starving children in China.""I used to lament having no shoes –until I met a man who had no feet."The real danger from this lastexample of the fallacy is that ifpeople believe that their ownsituation really is ameliorated bysuch a comparison, they willnaturally conclude that their ownsituation can, in practice, actuallyBE ameliorated by MAKING somebodyelse worse off! This is whatunderlies the behavior known as"beggar thy neighbor."

"I know of no assumption that hasbeen more widely and totallydisproved by actual experience thanthe assumption that if a few peoplecould be prevented from living well,everyone else would live better." ...George Kennan.

53. RETROGRESSIVE CAUSATION

An interview with a young womanwho had seven children – all of them"crack babies":

Interviewer: "Didn’t you everthink about the effect your drug usewas having on your children?"

Woman: "Yeah, that thought enteredmy mind now and then. Whenever itdid, I got high so that I wouldn’thave to think about it."

The cause (drug use) has an effect(remorse). She invokes the cause inorder to eliminate the effect. Thusthe effect acts retrogressively toinduce further implementation of thecause.

54. SELECTIVE SAMPLING

"The death rate among Americansoldiers in Vietnam was lower thanamong the general population." Butthe soldiers in Vietnam were youngand healthy.

They are being compared with adata base including non–young andnon–healthy people.

55. SELF EXCLUSION

This is a form of the StolenConcept fallacy. It denies itself."Nothing makes any difference."(including this statement? ) "Musicis the only genuine form ofcommunication." (but this statement,meant to be a communication, is notmusic) "True knowledge is impossibleto man." (but this statement is meantto be knowledge) "There are noabsolutes." (except this one, of

course) "Words have no validity.""One should not make judgments." (butthis statement is itself a judgment.)

"There are questions whose truthor untruth cannot be decided by men;all the supreme questions, all thesupreme problems of value are beyondhuman comprehension." ... Nietzsche

David Kelley: "To assert ’what isknown depends on the knowledge of it’is to offer that very thesis assomething known, and therefore as astatement that subsumes itself. Butthis is manifestly not what theproponent of the thesis intends. Thatfacts depend on our belief in them,he implies, is objectively true, afact of reality about consciousnessand its objects, made true by thenature of things, not by hisbelieving it.

Otherwise he would have to allowthat objectivity is a fact for theobjectivist. He would have to allowthat the primacy of consciousness isboth true, because he believes it,and false, because the objectivistdenies it. [The Marxist multi–logicdialectic does indeed assert thisvery notion.] To avoid this, he mustassert that the objectivist is wrong,which means asserting the primacy ofconsciousness as a fact he himselfdid not create.

He thereby contradicts his ownthesis. It is an inner orperformative contradiction, like thatof the person who denies the axiom ofaction – the denial itself being anaction."

If I say, "Anything is possible" I

must admit the possibility that thestatement I have just made is false.

Anything is possible, right?

No. It’s not possible for you tobe wrong when you claim that anythingis possible.

56. SHINGLE SPEECH

Agglomerating several differentsuperficial aspects of a subject, inhopes that the resulting verbalstructure will be comprehensible. Theaspects presented may be important,but they are treated topically, nothierarchically – as talking points,not building blocks in a structuredargument. There is no sense offundamentality, no sense of whichconcepts are primary and whichderivative, no sense of which onesexplain, justify, or depend uponwhich. and there may not even be anyinterconnection among them.

57. SILENCE IMPLIES CONSENT

Consent to what? Just what is it Iconsent to when I do NOT vote? To thepolicies of Bush? To the policies ofClinton? To the policies of Marrou?To the policies of all those whoseprincipled disagreement with theelectoral system precludes theirparticipation in it?

The process of implicationcontains a causal relationship. Forone thing to imply another thing,there must be a causal sequencebetween the two things. People whomake the assertion "silence impliesconsent" never propose any chain oflogical connection between the

silence and the consent. Preciselyhow does consent arise from silence?How can dead men be said to consentto anything?

If my silence does imply consent,then how far does that implicationreach? If I am silent about one sideof an argument, and also silent aboutthe other, and contradictory, side ofthe argument, then what implicationcan be drawn concerning my consent toeither side? Am I considered toconsent to all things about which Iam silent? Even those about which Iam completely ignorant? To the factthat someone in Calcutta beats hiswife? If I must express disapprovalof all things to which I do NOTconsent, for fear of reproachresulting from my silence about anyof them, there would not besufficient hours in the day for sucha plethora of expressions as would berequired for me to preserve myhonesty and impartiality.

58. SIMPLISTIC–COMPLEXITY

If someone comes up against alarge bundle of particular facts, buthas no general principles with whichto integrate those particulars, andis not in the habit of thinking inprinciples, the multiplicity of factswill appear so complex to him that hewill not be able to deal with thesituation analytically. This is whyto many people ethical issues seem anightmare tangle of unansweredquestions, a moral labyrinth. Youwill hear them say:

"This is too complex a situationto yield any easy solution!"

"Unfortunately, no easy answersexist. The solution to the problemwill turn out to be as complex as theproblem itself."

"That’s a simplistic view of acomplex situation."

When somebody makes one of theseassertions, he means that he doesn’tperceive any principle under which tosubsume all the specific consequencesof the violation of that principle.For him the world is indeed toocomplex – he has no way to sortfacts, to identify theirdistinguishing characteristics, andto grasp the fundamentals underlyingthem. Without any integratingprinciples he just cannot cope. Hissolution will be an Ad Hoc solutionthat will fail to address more than afew of the particulars. He willmanifest a Descriptive (rather thanAnalytical) intellectuality. (Thisperson believes that his descriptionIS an analysis.) He does not think inprinciples, but focuses his attentionon the presentation of specificphenomena only.

Complexity does not make somethingunintelligible, any more than thecomplexity of the symptoms of adisease makes the cause of thosesymptoms unintelligible. What makesthe phenomenon unintelligible is theattempt to analyze it withoutreference to fundamental principle –to a unifying cause. Only cognitiveabstraction offers a method forthinking about complicated issues ina precise way.

By resorting to particularizingrather than generalizing, pragmatists

are left floundering in a mire ofcomplexity. The contention thatprinciples are simplistic is aspurious one; it is only by means ofprinciples that man is able to retainand make use of the vast storehouseof knowledge relevant to any givenissue. Concretes by themselves aremeaningless, and cannot even beretained in the mind for long;abstractions by themselves are vagueor empty. But concretes subsumed byan abstraction acquire meaning, andthereby permanence in our minds; andabstractions illustrated by concretesacquire specificity, reality, thepower to convince.

People who don’t think inprinciples will not be able to seethe principles underlying aphilosophy. Usually, all they will beable to see is the behavior ofindividuals who call themselvesadherents of that philosophy.

59. SPURIOUS SUPERFICIALITY

When a disputant insists onintroducing irrelevantconsiderations, ignoring hisopponent’s logic and evidence. Hecannot grasp the whole of the issue –or the principle underlying it – sohe focuses on some small part(usually just one word) and directshis rebuttal to an attack on thattiny bit which is all he canperceive. He views things through hisspecialized eyes, extracts a part ofthe truth and refuses to see more,sometimes quoting your leastsignificant statements, in order tomake it appear that you have saidnothing better. When something is too

strange or complicated to deal withdirectly or comprehensively, heextracts whatever parts of itsbehavior he can comprehend andrepresents them by familiar symbols –or the names of familiar things whichhe thinks do similar things.

"What do you mean by ––––––?"Where –––––– is any word included inyour presentation, usually a quiteordinary word which your opponentuses without any difficulty in othercontexts.

Some Ad Hominem arguments probablyhave the same source: He can’t seeyour ideas so he directs his rebuttalat your person. Or will simply starttalking about something he CANunderstand – the result being ajarring change–of–subject in thediscussion.

He seizes upon one instance andconstructs a generalization from it:

Observing that I don’t like clams,he concludes that I have an aversionto sea food in general. She seessomething happen once or twice andconcludes that it is a regularly–occuring phenomenon.

These responses are notconsciously deliberated, but resultfrom his inability to perceive thefocal idea of the discussion. Hisonly alternative to one of theseresponses would be bovine immobility– unless he possessed a sufficientdegree of intellectual acumen torealize his lack of comprehension,and a sufficient degree of self–esteem to admit to it.

60. STOLEN CONCEPT

(The Objectivist Newsletter, Jan1963) Using a concept while ignoring,contradicting or denying the validityof the concepts on which it logicallyand genetically depends. "Allproperty is theft." "The axioms oflogic are arbitrary." (something isarbitrary only in distinction to thatwhich is logically necessary.) "Allthat exists is change and motion."(change is possible only to anexistent entity) "You cannot provethat you exist." (proof presupposesexistence) "Acceptance of reason isan act of faith." (faith has meaningonly in contradistinction to reason)

61. SUPRESSION OF THE AGENT

"During the economic crisis,millions of people were thrown out ofwork." Who threw them out? The firstanswer to this would probably be,"their employers." The statementcertainly invites the readers toinfer this. But in fact, government,which destroyed the unfortunateworkers’ industries by means oftaxation and regulation, is thecausal agent that the passiveconstruction of the statementsuppresses or banishes from the mind.

Dehumanization of the Action:"During the first two years ofGarcia’s administration, the economygrew rapidly." This sentenceestablishes a strong, thoughimplicit, causal connection betweenGarcia’s interventionist programs andgood economic news. "But inflationescaped the government’s control andthe economy soon began to contract."

Economic developments are nowpictured as things with their own,non–human, principles of action. Theyare not caused by anything thathumans like Garcia do, but proceed ontheir own way.

62. THOMPSON INVISIBILITY SYNDROME

(Atlas Shrugged Part3 Chap8pg1076) Someone so far removed fromyour frame of reference that he ispsychologically invisible.

63. UNINTENDED SELF–INCLUSION

The whole problem with theworld is that fools andfanatics are always socertain of themselves, butwiser people so full ofdoubts. — Bertrand Russell

(Source: Bertrand Russel)

Why didn’t he put "I think" at theend of it? By omitting the "doubt–qualifier" Russell is unintentionallydescribing his own attitude.

64. UNKNOWABLES

(The Objectivist Newsletter, Jan1963) "That which, by its nature,cannot be known. To claim itunknowable, one must first know notonly that it exists but have enoughknowledge of it to justify theassertion. The assertion and thejustification are then incontradiction. To make the assertionwithout justification is anirrationalism."

Branden’s argument implies thatthe unknowable must be a particular,

specifiable entity. I maintain thatit can be merely an aspect ofexistence that consciousness cannotperceive.

To assert that all things can beknown is to imply that existence issubsumed by consciousness.

I claim that there areunknowables. Not any particular,specifiable unknowable items (forthat would indeed be thecontradiction Branden noted above),but merely aspects of reality thatare unperceiveable. For example: youcannot simultaneously perceive bothsides of your cat. My justificationfor this assertion is the primacy ofexistence over consciousness.

Thus Quantum Indeterminacy is agenuine phenomenon. It is the closestwe can come to specifying an aspectof reality that is truly unknowable:the simultaneous perception ofposition and momentum.

65. VARIANT IMAGIZATION

Generating dissimilar images fromsimilar concepts. Certain kinds ofcrops, such as corn, are "harvested",but other kinds, such as trees, are"slashed" or "devastated". Who wouldforbid farmers to "harvest" a crop ofbeets? But who would willingly allowmen armed with chainsaws to"devastate" the ecology?

66. VERBAL OBLITERATION

"When did I say that?" There is akind of denial of the past involvedhere. Unless you can specify theexact moment I made a certain

statement, then I insist that I nevermade that statement. For a clever(and bewildering) retort reply:"About 20 minutes past 2 on Thursdayafternoon." The alteration of historyby personal decree is done by thesort of person who tries to rewritehistory in your mind, just as herewrites it in his own mind as timegoes on.

67. WOULDCHUCK

If you take the old tongue–twister: "How much wood could awoodchuck chuck if a woodchuck couldchuck wood?" and make a slighthomonymous substitution: "How muchwould could a wouldchuck chuck if awouldchuck could chuck would?" youarrive at a label for a certain kindof dissertation made by people whoare trying to "prove" an idea forwhich they have no factualcorroboration, or who are simplytrying to obliterate the distinctionbetween the actual and the potential.

This is a description of much ofscientific belief before the time ofGalileo. For instance, it wasbelieved that if you dropped a 5–pound rock and a 10–pound rocksimultaneously, the 10–pounder WOULDhit the ground first because, beingheavier, it WOULD therefore be pulleddown harder and WOULD thereforetravel faster. Notice the use of theword "would" in those statements.This expression of conditionalprobability is chucked around asthough it were an assertion offactual reality. Implicit to suchstatements is the assumption thatwhat seems plausible is therefore

true and requires no further proof.

I became acutely aware of this"WouldChuck" phenomenon while readingthe Tannehills’ book, "The Market ForLiberty." The entirety of Part2,which sets forth in detail their viewof a free–market society, consists ofthe WouldChuck argument. Here is atypical example:

"This insurance would be sold tothe contracting parties at the timethe contract was ratified. Before aninsurance company would indemnify itsinsured for loss in a case of brokencontract, the matter would have to besubmitted to arbitration as providedin the contract. For this reasonthere would be a close link betweenthe business of contract insuranceand the business of arbitration."

Sounds plausible, doesn’t it?Yes... However, no proof of theseconjectures is offered. They arenothing more than unsubstantiatedhypostatizations.

They always say: "This is whatwould happen if..."

They never say: "This is what doeshappen when..."

The former is based on surmise,the latter is based on fact.

The proponent of a scheme, throughthe use of the WouldChuck fallacy,can articulate a comprehensiveframework within which theimplementation of his scheme seemsundeniably plausible. But if theframework itself has no otherfoundation than this WouldChuck

supposition, the whole scheme restson a very shaky basis. He has aplausible argument for everything,but no detailed answers to anything.This type of presentation can oftenturn an un–informed audience into amisinformed one.