|
Make
Reasons
Relevant
One of the important criteria for good arguments is relevance. This is because people who cannot see that your reason is relevant to your conclusion usually will not be persuaded by it. So it's important to make clear how your rcasons.and conclusion connect up with each other. Reasons are logically relevant to their conclusions when the truth of the -reason affects the truth of the conclusion. But people sometimes see things as personally relevant when there's no logical connection. Since logical truth relations are often difficult to determine, we need a clear understanding of how relevance works in actual arguments. So in this chapter we'll examine some arguments in which reasons that are relevant help to prove their conclusions and also look at some arguments in which reasons that appear relevant but aren't are used to manipulate people into accepting unwarranted conclusions. These arguments, which are called fallacies of relevance, fail due to problems in the relation berwm, the reasons and. copciusiop.
EXAMPLES OF RELEVANT AND
IRRELEVANT REASONS
Suppose that Alan and Maribeth are on their way to play tennis together for the first time. If Alan wanted to gain a slight psychological edge, he might give Maribeth the following argument:
You know, I hope you don't mind losing. You see, I'm sure to
win because I'm wearing an extremely expensive new tennis outfit.
Now this argument probably would not convince Maribeth that Alan is sure to win, because there's no evidence of a close connection between expensive clothes and winning at tennis. That is, since people who wear expensive outfits often lose, and people who wear old gym shorts often win, there doesn't seem to be a relevant connection between the cost of your clothes and your chances of winning. To make this argument more effective with reasonable people, Alan would have to show that there is a connection between expensive clothes and winning, and explain what that connection is in a convincing way. Maybe he could try to show that wearing expensive clothes improves people's confidence so much that their skills improve enough to ensure their winning. But since this probably isn't true, it shouldn't persuade a reasonable person either.
So Allen migh, give Maribeth another argument, such as this:
Well, I've also got another advantage that guarantees my win
ning. You see, I use the same kind of tennis balls they have at the US Open.
But again it's unlikely that Maribeth would be very intimidated, because the reason still doesn't seem very persuasive. The reason is not persuasive because both players will be using the same tennis balls, so they can't give one player an obvious advantage over the other. Besides, any regulation tennis ball, including the kind of tennis ball that is used at the US Open, will be nearly identical with any other new tennis ball: So this reason isn't relevant either, and these facts explain why. It's hard to imagine anything that would make this argument work; maybe if Maribeth were used to playing with old, mushy tennis balls that hardly bounce, Alan would have a relevant advantage if they used balls he was much more comfortable with. But that's assuming a lot of unusual circumstances as background information.
Now suppose Maribeth gets tired of Alan's attempts to manipulate her and she replies with the following argument:
It's good to hear an intermediate player trying to build up his confidence. Usually when people realize that I'm the #3 ranked women's singles player in the world, they get a little intimidated. I'll probably win, but at least maybe we can have a good match.
Here, the conclusion is that Maribeth will probably win, and the reason is that she's the 13 ranked women's m.n's singles player in the world, whereas Alan is only a mediocre intermediate. If Alan is reasonable and she's telling the truth, he should be pretty worried, because being ranked #3 is very good evidence that she’ll probably win. This is because WTA rankings depend on such relevant things as how many matches you've played and won, who your opponents were, and so on. And to be ranked 13 means you've defeated many players who are far better than Alan is. So if he understands the relevance of these points, he is very likely to be convinced.
RELEVANCE AND
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The moral of these examples is that arguments are most effective with reasonable people when they offer true information that is relevantly connected to their conclusions. If the connection between your reasons and conclusion is not obvious background information, you will need to make it clear by providing supplementary explanations. While all arguments presuppose some background information (see Chapter 7), relying on your audience to find the connection between your reasons and conclusion all by themselves can be risky. It is a much better strategy to supply any connecting information your audience might need to understand the relevance of your reasons.
Here are several examples of arguments in which the relevant connecting explanation appears in parentheses:
You should rent with Thrifty Rent-a-Car. We guarantee the lowest rates in the business. (One important consideration in choosing a car rental company is low rates.)
The average person will change jobs seven times during his working life and change careers at least twicc. So more people should major in liberal arts areas. (Majoring in liberal arts areas helps prepare people broadly enough chat they can make successful job and career changes.)
Animals have nervous systems that are very similar to those of people. So it's immoral to use animals for painful experiments that do not benefit them directly. (Animals probably experience pain, and it's immoral to subject anything to painful experiments unless it benefits them directly.)
You will notice that the closer the connection between the reason and the conclusion, the less controversial the connecting information needs to be. And the less controversial the connecting information is; the more convincing the argument becomes. Most reasonable people have little difficulty seeing the relevance of cost in deciding what car rental company co pick. Many college students, however, do not understand the relevance of liberal arts courses to being prepared for career changes. And probably even fewer people see the connection between the type of nervous system something has and the morality of doing experiments on it. This is why the connecting information in these examples has to be more detailed and may involve some controversial statements. (Is it necessarily immoral to do painful experiments on something that doesn't benefit directly? This is a question of value that reasonable people may disagree over. So probably even more argument will be needed to make the nervous system-morality argument successful.)
PERSONAL RELEVANCE VERSUS LOGICAL RELEVANCE
Arguments in which the relevance of the reasons to the conclusion depends on true information, or information that is well justified and generally accepted without further elaboration, can be considered good arguments, at least as far as the criterion of relevance is concerned. Bur some arguments make use of reasons in which the relevance to the conclusion depends on false information, or information so unusual or controversial that the strength of the argument is undermined. Yet some of these arguments still convince people. Often, this is because if people believe false things, they may conic to accept a conclusion, even though they would be unreasonable to do this. We need to examine this issue further.
Let's go back to the tennis ball example, the argument that I'm sure to win because I'm using the same kind of tennis balls as the US Open uses. Suppose you have a lucky tennis ball-one that you've won with in the past. And suppose that you have the strange (false) belief that you can't win unless you play with your lucky tennis ball. Would that make my argument about tennis balls logically successful? The answer is no. This is because even though you personally might be influenced by my argument, there is no interpersonally reliable connection between the truth of my reason and the truth of my conclusion. Instead, the supposed connection depends on a personal belief you have that is false, and which people in general will not share.
This case illustrates an important distinction, between personal relevance and logical relevance. A sentence is personally relevant for someone if it would tend to influence that person's beliefs, feelings, or attitudes. But a sentence is logically relevant to a given conclusion (for anyone) if the truth of that sentence affects the probability that the conclusion is also true. Note that whereas personal relevance is always subjective and relative to some particular person (because it depends on that person's own beliefs, feelings, and attitudes), logical relevance is objective (doesn't depend on personal opinions, feelings, or attitudes). If something is logically relevant for someone, it's logically relevant for everyone because truth relations are interpersonal, nor individual. Of course, people may disagree about whaes true. And people may have various contributions to make as they work toward finding out what’s true. But that doesn't change the fact that the yardstick for truth is not for individual adjustment according to our individual wishes.
Here are some additional examples that show the differences between personal relevance and logical relevance.
Jane thinks aliens have kidnapped all American politicians and replaced them with mindless robots. This is why she accepts the following argument: Aliens have visited the earth, so everyone should always ignore American politicians. "Aliens have visited the earth" has no logically relevane connection to "Everyone should always ignore American politicians." It's only Jane's strange (and groundless) belief that makes it seem personally relevant to her.
At an expensive restaurant, Alan reasons: That man is wearing a polyester suit, so he’ll be surprised they don’t serve hot dogs here.” This is because Alan thinks anyone who has ever worn a polyester suit has bad taste and that everyone who has bad taste prefers hot dogs to any other menu item. Of course Alan's beliefs are false, since the man need not prefer (let alone order) hot dogs. But Alan's reasons have personal relevance for him, however ridiculous they are in reality.
Andres is furious at the officials of the Detroit Pistons/Chicago Bulls basketball game he's watching because they keep calling Michael Jordan for traveling. But Andres believes that Michael Jordan can do no wrong. So he concludes that the officials are throwing the game to Detroit.
Because of the distinction between personal relevance and logical relevance, we are now in a position to see how some arguments can go wrong. When arguments offer personally relevant but not logically relevant reasons to support their conclusions, reasonable people should not believe those conclusions. Arguments that do not offer relevant information, or fail to make the relevance of their reasons dear by relying on true connecting information, are bad arguments.
Traditional logic books call arguments in which there is no relevant connection between reasons and conclusions non sequiturs. In real life, however, no one gives such arguments as "Invest 54,000 in the Big Bucks Mutual Fund; our brochure was typeset in Oregon" because reasonable people generally don't see "having been typeset in Oregon" as a relevant consideration when they're deciding where to invest their money. Instead, people usually offer reasons that have an emotive or associative connection, rather than a logically relevant connection, to their conclusions, relying on people's emotions to substitute for effective reasoning. Arguments that work this way are called fallacies of relevance
AVOID FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE
What all fallacies of relevance have in common is that they offer reasons which have no connection of evidential support to the conclusions they're used to persuade people of. The fallacies rely on various feelings or attitudes to inspire belief. There are three common kinds of fallacies of relevance: appeals to emotion, appeals to irrelevant association, and appeals to irrelevant authority. In this chapter, we will examine only appeals to emotion and association. Appeals to irrelevant authority, will be covered in Chapter 11.
Appeals to Emotion
All logically improper appeals to emotion make wrongful use of strong feelings, substituting them for dear reasoning and reasonable evaluation of evidence. It is very important to see that not all emotional appeals are fallacies, only the ones that substitute emotion for evidence are fallacies. It is perfectly proper to put your arguments in terms that appeal to people's hearts as well as their minds. The problem we're concerned with here arises only when the appeal to people's hearts replaces an appeal to their minds. There are fallacies of relevance (emotion) that correspond to each of the strong human feelings, but some are more common than others. Here are some common examples.
Appeal to Pity When a student asks fora better grade because his car broke down, or because if he gets a "D" he'll lose his scholarship, he's committing appeal to pity, a fallacy of relevance that substitutes feeling sorry for someone for good reasons. (Car breakdowns and losing scholarships are not relevant to assessing the academic quality of a student's work.)
There are many examples of appeals to pity. We are all familiar with the sad faces of children like those in the Rescue the Children ad in Figure 6.1, appealing to us to donate money to the organization sponsoring them. As a means of arousing our lazy consciences, such pictures can perform a perfectly valid function. They become falla- cies when the sorrowful pictures are all that is offered to justify the appeal for funds. Hem are some considerations that reasonably should be relevant to determining whether or not to contribute to Rescue the Children.
• Will these children benefit from your gifts?
• How, exactly, will your contribution be used to benefit them? (e.g., clothes? ... food? . . . education? ... employment? ... employment for their parents?)
• What percentage of the funds contributed is spent on administrative costs, advertising, and the like, as compared with other, similar agencies?
If he were yuor Child — would you let him starve? Rashmi Is only one of a thousand homeless waifs begging for a little food In the Aft streets of left At aught, when he trim to sleep in We cardboard hovel, cold and hunger will tonnent. his frail body. But you m help children like Rashmi. For only $20 a month you can shine a ray of hope Into his dark life. So please hurry. Every day thousands of children die of neglect and malnutftn. $20 to Rescue the Children, It's not much, but It can make a world of difference.
Figure 6.1
Next, think about the example in Figure 6.2. Here, as in Figure 6.1, the appeal to pity is probably based on a feeling of parental affection (why is it that impoverished suffering adults appear less often in such ads than attractive but suffering children?), and it urges contri¬butions to the United Way. The same rational considerations just.' mentioned cam relevant here as well, but here the appeal to emotion is also used so ignore a particularly difficult moral question, namely, "Should we. morally, say 'yes'to funding extremely expensive neonatal life support, as opposed to making the same investment in school hunch programs, public health, or care for the elderly?" The answer to this question of value, which vve as a society cannot avoid facing, will be very difficult. But merely assuming that babies have a better moral claim because they're pitiable prevents us from thinking about this problem. in a rational way.
Appeal to Sex In another widespread but irrational means of per-suasion, the appeal to sex, an association or suggested link4e is established between a sexually attractive image and a belief other¬wise unrelated to it. Some of the more blatant cases of appeal to sex occur when models in swimming suits or low-cut coveralls appear in auto parts ads, but stylish looking men in Armani suits selling pantyhose or perfume are also appealing to sex. In Figure 6.3, Ms. Magazine has assembled a collection of ads that attempt to sell boats Ad watches (among other things) through sexual appeals.
Some television ads appeal to sex to sell beer, as do Coors "Silver Bullet," Budweiser, and Michelob Dry ads, which imply that there is some close connection between being surrounded by extremely attractive people and drinking their products. And in spite of taking their ads off the air, cigarette companies often find ways to appeal Ao sex in movies, for example. After all, one picture of Michael Douglas (in Black Rain) or Kathleen Turner (in Body Heat) smoking Marl* boros sends a far more powerful message than does a shelf full of th4 Surgeon General's reports (at least, the tobacco companies hope so)4
The point, and what makes these ads and images irrelevan appeals to sex, is chat whatever reasons might have been given f buying shirts, boats, beer, and watches are replaced by various` images of sexual satisfaction that are psychologically but not rarion4` ally connected with buying these products. Since that is no reason suppose that buying any of them is directly connected with sexu experience, being influenced in this way represents fallacious reaso ing if there is any reasoning going on at all.
However, it is worth pointing out that not all ads which feature attractive people, even if they are flirting with each other or cel bracing their own attractiveness, are necessarily appeals to sex. Ma cosmetic ads, for example, feature beautiful women and attracti men, sometimes in poses some people would consider suggesti But such ads may not appeal to sex if the products they adverci are relevantly connected to a person's attractiveness. Also, reme bee that appeals to sex directed toward men will typically feartug women in seductive poses, Whereas 'thine 'directedtoward women, will usually feature men. Thus, an attractive woman modeling make-up to women consumers is not as likely to appeal to sex as if she were selling dirt bikes to men.
Appeal to Fear A motivator as strong as sex is fear, and chose %vho threaten, explicitly or implicitly, in place of reasoning relevantly, commit the Macy of appeal to fear. In the cartoon in Figure 6.4, Motley's persuasiveness regarding the mouse's diet is surely not primarily rational, nor is the parent's or boss's who deals with dis-agreement by pointing out, "if you don't like it, get our!" Also, many American politicians have relied on fear to justify their unwillingness`. to agree to arms control treaties with the Soviet Union.
Appeal to Anger The appeal to anger relies on the fact that people who are angry will often not require a rational demonstration that their anger is properly directed. Hitler, for example, effectively usce., the appeal to hate to pass from "That man is Jewish" to "That man' should be killed," just as many racists have used it to argue from "That woman is black" to "That woman has no rights." Recently, a number of Islamic leaders have used the anti-Western anger and feel-ings of persecution felt by many Moslems to justify policies for which no rational defense exists, such as terrorism and kidnapping hostages.
Appeal to Hope Another fallacious emotional argument is the appeal to hope, in which the gap between the reason and the conclusion is bridged by playing on people's ctrong optimistic desires. Quacks who sell fake "cures" to people suffering from chronic dis-eases often try to manipulate their clients' desperation to cover the lack of evidence that their bracelets, ionizers, electromagnetic field generators, and other rubbish will actually cure anyone. Similarly, chose who advertise dramatic weight losses by diet pills or other effortless means are playing on the hopes of their customers rather than offering evidence ence about the effectiveness of the pills or whatever. And scare lottery ads appeal to hope when they argue that you should buy lottery tickets on the grounds that you might win, covering up the fact that your actual odds of winning are very small.
Appeal to Excitement A final emotional appeal is the appeal to excitement. This fallacy of relevance occurs when the arguer uses that fact or possibility of people being excited or enthusiastic about something as a reason to believe it. Car and appliance dealers often advertise appeals to excitement ("Sunday— for 12 hours only—make a deal during the greatest sale in history!") as a substitute for relevant evidence that their prices are lowest or their service is superior. Politicians and religious revivalists often rely on the effect of mob emotion to convince people to believe them. And sensational magazines, such as the National Enquirer, similatly offer no proof of their dramatic stories beyond their entertainment value, relying on people's taste for excitement to substitute for intelligent appraisal of truth.
Appeals to Irrelevant Association
Not all fallacies of relevance involve emotional appeals. Some rely on irrelevant association, the willingness of people to see things as con- nected when they aren't. Two kinds of irrelevant association are particularly common. They are arguments of simple irrelevance -and appeals to ignorance.
Arguments of Simple lirelevance When people give reasons that may have some topical association with the conclusion but have no evidential relation to it, they are using arguments of simple irrelevance. A city commissioner who argues that the community can afford to build a new swimming pool because the old pool is too small and the neighborhood children need "wholesome summer recreation" is committing this fallacy because pool size and children's needs are not relevant to the city's finances. So is the parent who argues that his children's tastes in gym shoes are too expensive on the grounds that the shoes are more expensive than those the parent bought for himself.
Argument from Ignorance The other common fallacy of association is argument from ignorance. Arguments from ignorance can take two forms. One is an argument that since something has not been proved to be false, it must be true. The other is an argument that since something has not been proved to be true, it must be false. A believer in astrology who argues that the stars strongly influence people's lives since no one has ever shown they don't' firse form of -this, fallacy. The smoker who tries to convince herself chat smoking isn't rcidly chat harmful because no one has ever conclusively demonirraccd a true cause-and-effect relation.bcrween smoking just by itself and lung cancer is committing the second form of argument t from ignorance.
The catalog of fallacies of relevance can be extended indefinitely. You can probably think of other examples, now that you have the basic idea. Bear in mind though, that the foregoing fallacies are only a small sample of the infinite ways in which reasoning can go wrong. To avoid these fallacies, then, does not guarantee that your reasoning is rationally defensible or that you have not been deceived. What is far more important is to remember and observe the criteria for good argument, one of which is that a rational person will be persuaded by relevant information. Always keep in mind that you need to make sure the connection between your reasons and your conclusion is very clear.
SUMMARY
One of the requirements fora good argument is that the reasons must be. relevant to the conclusion. Something is relevant to something else in the logical sense when the truth of one has a bearing on the truth of the other. Put another way, reasons need to have a clear, evidential connection with what they are reasons for. When people offer reasons that have no connection of evidential support to the conclusions they're used to persuade other people of, they are using fallacies of relevance. In this chapter, we looked at two kinds of fallacies of relevance. The first type, improper appeals to emotion, makes wrongful use of strong feelings (e.g., pity, anger, sex), substituting them for clear reasoning and reasonable evaluation of evidence. The second type relies on irrelevant association, the willingness of people to see things as connected when they aren't.
EXERCISE I
You are a member of the admissions committee, evaluating applications for two positions in next year's law school class. There are three applicants. Noti-are squired to. consider the probabUity..of each prospective student's success in law school and the law school's need for a representative and diverse student body. For each of the follow¬ing statements, decide whether it is or should be considered relevant to determining who to admit. Be prepared to cxpJ.!In why, in ca,-i case. Then write a short letter to the dean, explaining who you want to admit and why.
1. Amy graduated with a 4.0 GPA in philosophy, with minors in political science and English.
2. Khalid is a vegetarian.
3. Carolyn decided to apply to law school when she couldn't get a graduate fellowship in history.
4. Amy has always wanted to be a lawyer, arguing "cases" with her father when she was a child.
5. Khalid's GPA is 3.87, he majored in economics, and his LSAT (Law School Admission Test) scores were in the top 10 percent.
6. Carolyn was editor of her college newspaper.
7. Amy's parents both received advanced degrees. Her father has an M.B.A. and her mother has an M.D.
8. Khalid has listed your school as his third choice.
9. Carolyn is a minority student who comes from an extremely disadvantaged home.
10. Amy has two children for whom she is the sole means of sup-port. (Her parents refuse to have anything to do with her.)
EXERCISE II
Determine whether any fallacies of relevance occur in the following arguments. If so, use the available information, add what yo need, and give a better argument for the same conclusion. Note: it may be difficult to give a good argument for some of these conclusions. In that case, explain why.
1. The Soviet Union has consistently supported terrorist revolutions throught the world. Its official ideology still endorses violence against democracies, including the United States. Whatever the current Soviet !cadetship says, we risk annihilation if we agree to reduce our military forces.
2. The power of the Energy Crystal can focus your own healing energies to relieve suffering that medical science cannot reach. Harness the power of your inner light today for only $39.95.
3. Professor, during the first part of this class I was living with a bunch of rowdy guys who never studied and I had to miss a lot of classes because they were always using my car. I know I haven't done so well so far, but I really need to pass this class to stay eligible.
4. Father's Day comes only once each year. And you were thinking of buying him an inexpensive scotch? Isn't he worth the best? Glendornoch.
5. Senator, I want you to know that we environmentalists have carefully monitored your voting record, and it hasn't been too favorable to the environment. I think our organization might be willing to forget that if you come out strongly against the proposed nuclear plant.
6. Can we afford to fund the All-City Summer Basketball Tour-. ncy? We can't afford not to. Our children need good, clean summer recreation.
7. No one has convincingly proved that being able to write well necessarily affects a person's career. So there's no good reason to expect graduates of this college to pass English competency tests for graduation.
8. Who is sapping America's economic strength? Crummy welfare cheats! Who is taking your hard-earned tax dollars to buy drugs and Cadillacs? Crummy welfare cheats! Who is taking a free ride on the backs of us working people? Crummy welfare cheats! So who should we cut off without a penny? Crummy welfare cheats!
9. I will not deny that I have made some mistakes during my long career of public service. Videotape doesn't lie. I did rake the money. But I want you to remember one thing. I have been the victim of a cruel government vendetta. The FBI has been out to get me for years. So I am confident that the jury will find me not guilty. 10 President Bake:, your contract is coming up for renewal next year, and the board will be looking over your decisions very carefully. Now I notice you're thinking of caving in to those faculty radicals who want you to slash the sports budget. I'd think again if I were you.
10. President Baker:, your contract is coming up for renewal next year, and the board will be looking over your decisions very carefully. Now I notice you're thinking of caving in to those faculty radicals who want you to slash the sports budget. I'd think again if I were you.
11. Although some twenty space probes have been launched by scientists from the United States and other countries, none has so far found evidence of extra-terrestrial life forms. \Ve should therefore conclude that the search for alien life is futile.
12. Discuss the appeal made by Columbia House (a record/CD dub) to get people to sign up.
13. Find and bring to class an ad that you think appeals to sex. Be sure you can explain why the image in the ad is not relevantly connected to the product it advertises.
14. Discuss the U.S. Council for Energy Awareness ad in Figure 6.5, on the following page.
| 