William Atkinson - The Essential Works of William Walker Atkinson - 50+ Books in One Edition

V. Arguing the ignorance of the opponent . This form of false argument consists in claiming that a proposition is correct because the opponent cannot prove the contrary . This is in defiance of the rule regarding the Burden of Proof, and of the Presumption, as explained in a preceding chapter. It is the basest of all arguments, and yet is quite popular with some speakers. A moment’s clear thought should serve to expose the fallacy. As Brooks says: “The fact that we cannot find a needle in the haystack is no proof that it is not there.” A failure to prove an alibi is no proof of the guilt of a person accused of crime, but lawyers agree that nothing so prejudices a jury against a prisoner as the failure to sustain a claimed alibi. As Jevons well says: “No number of failures in attempting to prove a proposition really disprove it,” and equally true is it that no number of failures to disprove a proposition really prove it. It is a favorite trick of some debaters to impudently claim: “I state that so-and-so is true, and you cannot prove that it is not! ” This kind of argument would tend to prove that the moon was made of green cheese, simply because no one could prove that it was not . An understanding and application of the rules of Burden of Proof and of Presumption gives one the key to the situation.

VI. Arguing beside the point . This false argument consists in evading the point at issue. For instance, one asserts that A is a thief , and holds that he has established his proposition by evidence that A is a liar , and that as all thieves are liars, etc., in defiance of the fact that one may be a liar and yet not be a thief, and that, at any rate, A is accused of theft and not of lying. The writer has a personal recollection of a case in which a woman of the demi monde was accused of theft. No evidence whatsoever, direct or circumstantial, was adduced to show her connection with the alleged theft, but the prosecuting attorney tried to introduce extended evidence that the woman was a prostitute, and that as prostitutes often steal, the presumption was that she was a thief, etc. It is needless to say that the court ordered the discharge of the prisoner. We hear arguments of this kind in politics, as for instance, the argument that because a man was a good general, therefore he will make a good president. Or, that because a man is honest he will necessarily prove a good executive. To this class of false arguments belongs that cited by Hyslop as follows: “Church and State are good institutions; therefore, Church and State should be united.” The false argument in this last case is in the assumption that because “Church and State are good institutions ” may be proven, therefore is proven that “Church and State should be united.” The real point to be proven, is either that “ All good institutions should be united,” or else the separate proof that “Church and State should be united.”

VII. Arguing in a Circle . This form of false argument consists in “assuming as proof of a proposition, the proposition itself.” For example the argument: (1) The Demopublican party is honest because it advocates honest principles; and (2) that certain principles are honest because they are advocated by the Demopublican party. Or that: (1) My church is the true church, because it was established by God; and (2) it must have been established by God, because it is the true church.” Another instance is that of the quack physician who informs the father of a dumb girl of the cause of her trouble, as follows: “Nothing is more easy than to explain it, it comes from her having lost the power of speech.” Or the explanation that “We can see through glass, because it is transparent.” Or, “it is warm because it is summer; it is summer because it is warm.” Hyslop says: “The fallacy of reasoning in a circle occurs mostly in long arguments where it can be committed without ready detection. In such cases as are given above, the fallacy is perfectly obvious. But where it occurs in a long discourse it may be committed without easy discovery. It is likely to be occasioned by the use of synonyms which are taken to express more than the conception involved, when they really do not .”

VIII. Arguing by “Begging the Question.” This form of false argument consists in the unwarranted assumption of the premise upon which the argument is based. For instance, the example: “ Good institutions should be united ; Church and State are good institutions; therefore Church and State should be united.” In this instance, the premise “Good institutions should be united” is boldly assumed without proof or agreement . Hyslop explains: “It is not merely the failure to prove one’s premises that constitutes the fallacy of Begging the Question. The failure must be one which occurs when proof is needed or demanded, and this is when the premise in turn is treated as a conclusion to another argument. Hence the begging of the question occurs only when the attempt to prove a proposition involves the assumption of it in a premise that the hearer or opponent does not admit. * * * It is most frequent in arguments with others, because the one condition of proof or conviction in such cases is that the opponent, reader, or friend admit the principle upon which the conclusion is to be established, while the subject himself may not require proof at all for his conviction, as he already accepts the proposition. But we cannot prove to another a truth with premises that he does not admit. He simply charges ‘begging the question’ because he is not obliged to admit in the conclusion what he does not admit in the premises.”

Arguing in a Circle is really one form of Begging the Question, although it differs in some respects from the more common forms of the latter. Begging the Question is a common practice of some debates, particularly in political discussions. Who has not known the orator, who solemnly and earnestly asserted: “It is a fact admitted by all, that,” etc.; or “It is a truth disputed by none, that,” etc.; or, “The wise of all ages and all lands, have held that,” etc.; or, “The common experience of the race has demonstrated, beyond the possibility of doubt, that,” etc.;—all of which is false argument, although the statement itself may be true—particularly aggravated instances of Begging the Question. There are also certain words and terms which have acquired a meaning, perhaps unwarranted, which prejudices one against anything to which they seem to be applicable, although there is no proof against the thing in question, nor even, in many cases, any proof that the quality indicated by the unpopular term is objectionable. Jevons calls these words and terms, “question-begging epithets,” and says: “We should always be on our guard against being misled by them. It is a good proverb which says, ‘Give a dog a bad name, and hang him.’”

IX. Argument by Arousing Prejudice . This form of false argument consists in an appeal to the passions and prejudices of the hearers, rather than to the intelligence and judgment. It is a favorite form of false argument in political addresses, and often in jury trials. It is the principal weapon of demagogues. Brooks says of it: “It does not prove anything, but may lead the judgment or actions of the people, and is therefore a fallacy. Such an argument is not improper when the conclusion arrived at is believed to be a correct one; but is illegitimate when the conclusion is wrong in itself, or when he who urges it does so hypocritically. Considered as an argument, it is always a fallacy, and should be used with great care and an upright conscience.” Marc Antony’s address over the body of Cæsar, as given by Shakespeare, is an excellent example of this form of false argument.”