William Atkinson - The Complete Works of William Walker Atkinson

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.”

Hyslop says, regarding Inference: “We cannot infer anything we please from any premises we please. We must conform to certain definite rules or principles. Any violation of them will be a fallacy. * * * There are, then, two simple rules which should not be violated. (1) The subject-matter in the conclusion should be of the same general kind, as in the premises . (2) The facts constituting the premises must be accepted, and must not be fictitious .”

If we may be pardoned for venturing an additional rule after these of the two eminent authorities just mentioned, we should say: Beware of too hasty generalization; beware of false generalization . Because one woman is a coquette, it is not just to accuse all women of a tendency to indulge in flirtation. Because one man has lied to you, it is not just to assert that “all men are liars.” Because one Irishman has red hair and blue eyes, it is not right to generalize that all Irishmen have fiery locks and violet eyes. Because you may handle a large blue-bottle fly with impunity, it does not follow that you can do the same with a bumble-bee which is about the same size, flies in a similar manner, and makes about the same kind of noise. Hasty generalization is the sign of an untrained mind—children are particularly addicted to it. And argument based on hasty generalization is often false by reason of its false premises. Argument, like the house in the parable, must be built upon the solid rock of a valid premise, and not on the shifting sand of fictitious and unaccepted premises arising from hasty generalization and inference. If the foundation is false, the structure is false. Be sure that your fundamental facts are right—then “go ahead.”

Table of Content

THE FIFTH step in Argumentative Discourse is that known as the Appeal to the Emotions . To many this may appear to be outside of the true province of the Argument, and in the nature of an unwarranted artifice by means of which the understanding is clouded by the force of feeling. But it must be remembered that the majority of people really employ their reasoning faculties to a comparatively limited degree, and that they are dependent to a considerable extent upon the moving force of their feelings or emotions in forming a judgment or in taking action. It has been said by thoughtful men that the majority of the race employ reason merely as a means of justifying their feelings or excusing their actions, instead of as a means of determining judgment and action. They fail to observe the rule laid down by Caird that: “That which enters the heart must first be discerned by the intelligence to be true . It must be seen as having in its own nature a right to dominate feeling and as constituting the principle by which feeling must be judged.”

It has been said that “men do not seek reasons —they demand only excuses to justify the feelings and actions.” Halleck says: “Belief is a mental state which might as well be classed under emotion as under thinking, for it combines both elements. Belief is part inference from the known to the unknown, and part feeling or emotion. Wherever the proof of anything is not absolute, but where the probability seems to our minds to be of the strongest kind, we are said to believe . We can absolutely prove much that has occurred in the past. It is not a matter of belief, but of absolute knowledge, that a certain building was burned, that a certain man died, that it rained yesterday, that there was ice last winter. When we come to consider the future, we are thrown more or less on a state of belief. From the thought processes involved in comparing and inferring, we find ourselves feeling more or less sure that certain things will happen in the future. Ask a farmer who is sowing a certain crop if he is absolutely sure that sufficient rain will fall for the crop, and he will reply that he is not sure, but that he believes that there will be rain. * * * So long as the world does not stagnate, it will always act on belief in the most weighty matters, whether of religion or of business.”

The same authority also says regarding the effect of emotion upon intellectual action: “On the one hand, the emotions are favorable to intellectual action, since they supply the interest one feels in study. One may feel intensely concerning a certain subject and be all the better student. Hence the emotions are not, as was formerly thought, entirely hostile to intellectual action. Emotion often quickens the perception, burns things indelibly into the memory, and doubles the rapidity of thought. On the other hand, strong feelings often vitiate every operation of the intellect. They cause us to see only what we wish to, to remember only what we wish to, to remember only what interests our narrow feelings at the time, and to reason from selfish data only * * * Emotion puts the magnifying end of the telescope to our intellectual eye where our own interests are concerned, the minimizing end when we are looking at the interests of others.”