Logic and Rhetoric: Misadventure in the Search for Truth at Free Republic (posted Nov. 6, 2001)

Essay by self | 6 November 01 | AndyJackson

[tpaine]

--- "let me just say that I support the idea of a legitimate, just, and, yes, even moral war. I believe such a war can and should be declared when the security of the citizens of the United States is directly at risk. After all, the primary job of the federal government, contrary to the modern teachings of liberal and neo-conservative collectivists, is to provide for the common defense of the nation. If the security, liberty, and lives of its citizens are threatened, the government has a sworn duty to eliminate that threat."

[pretty clear to me]

[general_re]

Ya know, the original Andy Jackson would have just f***ing shot the guy and been done with it ;)

[AndyJackson]

I had better things to do than read it.

I appreciate the deep thinking that went into this. Why are you here then?

[AndyJackson]

I like playing with them first.

[general_re]

It's not a shortcoming of FR, but a shortcoming of society - people in general aren't trained to recognize obvious logical fallacies. Argument ad populam, ad verecundiam, fallacies of presumption (complex questions seem to be a popular one these days), et cetera, et cetera, all pop up regularly.

It got me to thinking - you know how PBS gives out little tote bags and CD's and such during their pledge drives? Maybe FR should give out thank-you gifts to donors. I'm thinking that donating at a certain level should get you a complimentary copy of Copi & Cohen's "Introduction to Logic" ;)

[AndyJackson]

Brevity is the soul of with spake Polonius, the most tedious empty windbag in all of Shakespeare.

Tell me, is the soul of wisdom also brevity, or are you just after a fast quip and on to the next post without a wit of thought?

[AndyJackson]

I already took this apart above. I would suggest that you try to rewrite this in simple declarative sentences in subject, verb, object word order in the active voice. You will find it difficult. After all, the primary job of the federal government, ...is to provide for the common defense of the nation. This is wrong. We daily pledge to liberty and justice for all. Our founding documents promise life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as well as provide for the common defense. I have left out the contrary to the modern teachings of liberal and neo-conservative collectivists which is so imprecise and gratuitous as to be empty of meaning.

[tpaine]

You 'took apart' nothing. You just nit-picked it to an irrational, nearly insane degree.

- Rant on, this is really getting amusing.

[AndyJackson]

Good idea, though given the general disparagement of logic here I don't think many would read it.

Also, regarding the above question, the author has already tarred and feathered himself and run his sorry soul out on a rail. Is that enough?

[AndyJackson]

You 'took apart' nothing.

I know I took apart nothing. This nihilist wrote nothing.

[AndyJackson]

You just nit-picked it to an irrational, nearly insane degree.

Ok, let me try once again.

First you have to take out the excess words to make it into a "simple" declaratives stentence. The primary job of the federal government, ...is to provide for the common defense of the nation.

Now that we have reduced it so that it is clear, we can see that it is wrong. It is wrong because of the argumentative "the primary." The jobs of the government as enumerated in our founding documents are many things of which the common defense is one. It is not all or even foremost, though libertarians try to reduce it to this in an effort to turn everything else over to the lawyers to be settled in suits at law. [This is a joke, but it is one advanced by the libertarians not me].

[x]

David Hackett Fischer's book Historians' Fallacies is certainly a very good book. People may disagree with Fischer but he exposes a variety of historical fallacies from across the spectrum.

These "interlineal" dissections, really don't work, though. Nobody has the patience to follow them. Better to try to summarize an argument and give a few choice quotes than to reproduce the whole thing with you comments interspersed. Also, people are allowed some emotionality and poetic licence in making their points. If you find the wind or the stuffing in the argument, it counts for little. If you find some logical fallacy at the heart of your adversary's argument, that counts for much more. Right now, though, arguments about how things are count for less than arguments about what we should do now -- though philosophically these two kinds of questions are harder to separate than many believe.

[AndyJackson]

I agree with almost everything you say. I had a purpose in the interlinneal analysis, however irritating it is to follow. I wanted to understand how the author manages to turn himself from an antiabortionist to a nihilist, which is a startling transformation from something to its polar opposite. Rhetorical flourish and poetic license are absolutely essential to good writing. WFB or George Will at their best pull this off without delluding themselves. The problem is when the rhetoric distracts the author and the reader from the errors in logic.

[Dr. Frank fan]

I would just like to say that I appreciated the effort and work it took for you to dissect the above piece; I believe it was completely worthwhile. My irritation at wading through the (often entertaining, actually) "interlineal" dissection, which is somewhat inevitable, was outweighed by my irritation at the creeping knowledge that very little, if any, of the things I write would stand up to the same scrutiny.

I suspect that this fear lies behind many others' criticisms of your effort, in this thread. That is only a suspicion, of course.

[AndyJackson]

Thank you for the kind words. I really doubt that your writing is so bad. First you have written in a clear style that eliminates many of these errors. Second, most of us don't let our rhetoric carry us so far along on the winds of obvious falsehoods or do so many logical summersaults that in the end we have turned into what we know we are not. Often I read what I have written and find I don't understand a word of it. Sometimes diagramming it is the only way to get myself out of my own muddle.

[Dawntreader]

Wow AJ...thanks so much. I'm still laughing! It's just what I needed to start off my morning.

Oh....wait a second....your post was actually serious? My bad...

[Demidog]

There was nothing fraudulent about it. You spent over a thousand words and so far have failed to address the point. Like a child plugging his ears and singing "la la la la la la la la I can't hear you!"

Funny.

[Demidog]

You're wrong by the way. The primary job of the government really is national defense.

It is the only reason a federal government is necessary. States could more than aptly handle most of the rest of the federal functions if the federal government didn't exist.

This isn't simply relegated to border defense. It also includes defense of our individual liberties. Granted, the feds were never given even one tiny bit of power to encroach on individual rights nor were the states, but the judiciary, along with the executive and legislative branches are supposed to all work in concert to defend our rights and borders.

That this task has been abandoned is a point well made by Lee and one completely ignored by you.