False appeals, flaws and fallacies
About ten years ago, a colleague and I were asked to look into the possibility of introducing a new subject to our school. The subject was called, ‘Critical Thinking’. We dutifully went away and read the specification, divvied up the work and started putting together a draft scheme of work. Unfortunately, the subject never got off the ground, (I can’t remember why), but the research I did on, ‘false appeals, flaws and fallacies’, has stuck with me ever since.
Every time you hear a politician or salesperson speak, they are almost guaranteed to use at least one of a small number of strategies to put their point across or win an argument. A bit like miss-placed apostrophes on signs, once you’ve learned about them, you see them everywhere.
For example, ‘false appeals’, involve attempts to bolster a shaky argument by appealing to, for example, emotion, authority or popularity. A false appeal to emotion attempts to engage our emotions rather than giving evidence or justification. Appealing to authority involves quoting an ‘expert witness’, which is fine as long as the witness’s views are properly represented and in context. Finally, invoking the popularity of a measure is often used as a powerful justification or proof of truth - which it is not.
The statement made by Rishi Sunak in his spending review on 25th November illustrates these points. First he appeals to emotions, “To protect public sector jobs at this time of crisis and ensure fairness between the public and private sector I am taking three steps”. Note the use of emotive language, “protect”, “crisis” and “fairness”. Next he appeals to authority, “First, taking account of the pay review body’s advice we will provide a pay rise to over a million nurses, doctors and others working in the NHS”. Next, he quickly delivers the filling of what one colleague refers to as a ‘shit sandwich’, including an allusion to protecting jobs to make it easier to stomach. “Second, to protect jobs, pay rises in the rest of the public sector will be paused next year”. Finally, an appeal to popularity, “But third we will protect those on lower incomes. The 2.1 million public sector workers who earn below the median wage of £24,000 will be guaranteed a pay rise of at least £250. What this means is that…. the majority of public sectors will see their pay increase next year”.
By the end of this speech, public sector workers should feel re-assured that the majority of them will get a pay rise and that they will all be protected by a government taking hard decisions on the basis of expert advice. It was a consummate performance from a skilled politician. Thank you Rishi.
Flawed arguments are another group of strategies for winning an argument with names like, ‘Straw Man, Tu Quoque and False Dilemmas’. Let’s allow Rishi to help demonstrate again, this time in an interview on Sky News with Kay Burley, (26/11/20), justifying the cut in the UK’s foreign aid budget from 0.7% of GDP to 0.5% of GDP.
Sunak, “We’re going to have peacetime record levels of borrowing and debt, the economy is in…”
Burley, “… Doesn’t mean we should turn our backs on others does it?”
Sunak, “I don’t think anyone could characterise our level of support as ‘turning our backs’. We’d be spending more as a % of GDP then France and Canada, the US, Japan, Italy … all of these other countries that spend far less than we do, if you had them here would you say to them … “You guys are making a choice not to do what we’re doing [spending 0.5%]”. And I stand here very proud of this country’s contribution to tackling the world’s most difficult problems, helping the world’s poorest and making a difference on issues like climate change…”
This extract illustrates a number of flawed argument techniques. Firstly, ‘Straw man’ describes a flawed argument that deliberately distorts the argument of an opponent e.g. when Kay Burley infers that Rishi Sunak is ‘turning his back on others’. Sunak then indulges in a ‘Tu Quoque’ line of arguument. This translates from the Greek as ‘you too’ and has a modern equivalent in ‘two wrongs don’t make a right’. It is exemplified in Sunak’s list of other countries who are spending less than the UK. Finally, Sunak presents a false dilemma by pointing out all the things the UK is doing well in, (helping the poor, climate change), which may be true but are, however, unrelated to the foreign aid bill.
None of this is to criticise Rishi Sunak. Indeed, it amply demonstrates his mastery of debate and argument. It’s not his fault that he is rather good at being a politician. It does demonstrate the benefit of a little understanding of debating and argument methods. These critical thinking skills help you to spot more easily when someone is trying to pull the wool over your eyes and they may also help you to win an argument or two in the future. It would be to everyone’s benefit if they could be incorporated more widely into the school curriculum. Perhaps we would then have more informed national discussion of these critical issues.
