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

X. Argument of Abuse . This form of false argument is based on abuse of the opposing speaker, or browbeating of an opponent. The ancients called it the “Argument of the Cudgel,” because of its resemblance to the most ancient form of argument—that of beating one’s opponent with a club, or a resort to fisticuffs, both being favorite forms of argument in some circles. The cave-man, and his modern prototype favors the plan of argument which consists of beating into submission those who differ with them in opinion. Jevons says: “An attorney for the defendant in a lawsuit is said to have handed to the barrister his brief marked, ‘No case; abuse the plaintiff’s attorney.’ Whoever uses an argument which rests, not upon the merit of the case, but the character or position of those engaged in it, commits this fallacy. If a man is accused of a crime it is no answer to say that the prosecutor is bad.” It is no argument to say in reply to a charge; that “those who live in glass houses should not throw stones;” or to answer, “you’re another!” It is a favorite method of some public speakers to answer a charge, or a proposition, by attacking the character of those advancing it. Some scientific writers have charged their clerical opponents with frequently resorting to this form of false argument, instead of meeting argument with argument. There is no excuse for this practice, by whomever employed.

XI. Argument by Complex Questions . This form of false argument consists of asking questions of the opponent, or witness, which are so worded as to entangle him in a paradox, or else to cause him to appear to make damaging statements by the application of the answer of one question to another. Often the question is so cleverly worded that an answer of either “Yes” or “No” places the answerer in a false position. For instance, the well known trick-question of the lawyer who asked the witness the question: “Have you stopped beating your mother?” to which an answer either in the affirmative or negative would have been an admission of a detestable offense. A similar question is: “Then you have turned honest?” or “You have learned to tell the truth at last, have you?” Many questions may be asked in a “double form,” so that an answer of either “Yes” or “No” will give a false impression, the only escape being to answer each part of the question separately. Brooks says of this form of false argument: “This is a low trick sometimes employed by lawyers in the examination of witnesses, with a view of puzzling them or turning their answers to a wrong account. Thus, ‘You were swayed by the love of money in the transaction?’ (meaning exclusively), to which the witness answers, “Yes” (meaning in part). Another question follows: ‘In being swayed by money you acted selfishly in the transaction?’ The utilitarian puts to us the questions: ‘You deny that virtue consists in utility!’ ‘Yes.’ ‘Then you deny that utility is a good thing.’” This form of “tripping up” one’s opponent is characteristic of those who prefer to win by “smartness” rather than by intellect. A certain form of argumentative questioning, designed to bring out points which may be attacked, is allowable and quite fair and proper—the line between the fair and unfair is very plainly marked, however.

XII. Argument against the Professions of the Opponent . This form of false argument consists in appealing from the point at issue, to the professions, principles, or previously expressed opinions of the opponent. For instance, a Freethinker or an Atheist may be defending an orthodox theological doctrine as strictly logical and consistent with correct reasoning from the accepted premises. It is no argument, or answer, against the truth of the proposition, to say “Why, you are an Atheist or Freethinker! You do not believe in the Scriptures upon which you are basing your argument!” In the same way, it is no answer or argument to assert that a defender of a Republican principle happens to be a Democrat. Nor is a drunkard stopped from logically asserting the principles of Temperance or Prohibition. The fallacy in this form of false argument lies in the fact that while the answer is valid as against the opponent , and may silence, or confuse him, and create an impression against his reasoning; it is not valid against the question at issue , or the views advocated by him—the logic of his argument is not affected in the least degree. It is not an argument ad rem , that is, directed toward the real issue, and therefore has no logical value in determining the matter. The proof of the fallacious nature of this form of argument or answer is that when the opponent changes his views, beliefs, or opinions , the argument falls to the ground, while the original points at issue are unchanged, showing that there is no logical connection between the two. Brooks says: “This fallacy is especially objectionable when we take advantage of premises which those with whom we argue allow, but which we ourselves do not believe. It is legitimate only when we wish to make our opponents doubt their premises by seeing the consequences to which they lead, or to silence an unreasoning and caviling adversary. * * * Christ often used this method to silence the cavils of the Jews, as in Matt. xxii:41–45.”

XIII. Argument of Assumed Authority . This form of false reasoning consists in appealing to the feeling or veneration, reverence, respect, or assumed authority entertained by the hearers. For example, the argument that the contention must be true for it is asserted in a certain reverenced book, or other writing; has been asserted by some venerated person, or respected person, such as: “We find it in Shakespeare;” “Plato has asserted its truth;” “Your fathers before you have always believed it;” “The president has expressed himself in favor of its truth;” “The clergy unite in affirming the proposition;” etc. Brooks says: “Thus the scholastics employed the maxim, ‘It is foolish to affirm that Aristotle erred;’ and in the same manner the conservative argues against any improvement in society or the state by referring to the opinions of the fathers of the republic. The argument may be used to prevent any rash disturbance of the social order; but it is in every case a fallacy.” Hyslop says that it “is an appeal to authority, or body of accepted doctrines. It is valid for producing conviction when the authority is accepted by the persons to whom the appeal is addressed, but it is not ad rem proof, and when not accepted by anyone is still more glaring * * *” This form of false argument must not be confused with the valid and proper reference to real authority as evidence , as for instance the opinion of expert witnesses; legal decisions of learned judges; opinions of eminent medical men; conclusions of eminent scientists; or other views of men learned in their particular lines, concerning their own respective specialties. This last mentioned class of opinions have weight as corroborative evidence or proof, and may properly be considered in forming a judgment. But the opinion of anyone does not logically prove the truth of a proposition . At the best opinion is far removed from actual knowledge of facts .

In addition to the above instances of False Argument, there are others arising from Inductive Reasoning, which being rather technical and concerned rather with Logic than Argumentative Discourse, we shall not consider here. Some of these, however, have been indicated in their appropriate place in preceding chapters. It is thought well, however, to add the following quotations from two eminent authorities:

Concerning the fallacies arising from false analogy, Jevons says: “It is impossible too often to remind people that on the one hand all correct reasoning consists in substituting like things for like things , and inferring that what is true of one will be true of all which are similar to it in the points of resemblance concerned in the matter. All incorrect reasoning, on the other hand, consists in putting one thing for another when there is not the requisite likeness . It is the purpose of the rules of deductive and inductive logic to enable us to judge as far as possible when we are thus rightly or wrongly reasoning from some things to others.”