Fallacious Fallacies

For reasons totally unrelated to anything (but not quite to the level of goofing off), I was trolling Wikipedia's entries on logic -I presume they must be written by debators -and was reminded once again why I hate people who point out logical fallacies.

OK, hate is probably to strong a word -but I really dislike this debating move.

First, and I'm aware of the multiple levels of irony here, it is itself a logical fallacy as typically used. Excepting a formal logical proof, pointing out that someone's argument contains an error doesn't actually demonstrate that the argument is wrong. I'd rope this under ad hominim, but apparently it's a special form of the argument from ignorance (you can't prove your argument, therefore I'm right). But an incorrect argument doesn't change reality, so it is far more important to point out what the error is and why its inclusion actually gets us to the wrong answer (or might get us to the wrong answer). I have many examples in mind, but the one I'll use is from a conversation with Peter Lawler years ago at a Philosophy conference. He was presenting on language and communication -a topic I'm interested in -and if I recall correctly, argued that there really is no such thing as language, but rather that everyone has their own language and conversation is an exercise in mutual code-breaking. Actually, as I reflect more on it I think he probably had a point, but at the time I didn't buy it, and said that it was an important characteristic of language that it was a group identifier (I still think I have a point). An important part of Spanish is that it's spoken by Spaniards, and an important part of being a Spaniard is speaking Spanish. Dr. Lawler pointed out this was circular, which was true, but really beside the point which was that language and group identity are tightly related.

Incidentally, this comes up still in my research on groups -Social Identification theory says that social identification with a group is a two step process: 1.) Members claim identification, 2.) Group acknowledges that claim. Dr. Jennings likes to remind me that "groups" do no such thing, they're abstract concepts. This is slightly more on point than pointing out it's circular.

But back to the main point, the real reason it bugs me is that often, the person claiming a fallacy is simply wrong, often by applying a much stricter logical rule set than required, or because (and this is why I used the Lawler example) they have misunderstood the other person's point (and this is why I begin to think Dr. Lawler was more correct that I gave him credit at the time).

And this brings us to Wikipedia's example for Referent Switching.

The concept is straight forward: use one meaning of a word, and then subtly switch the meaning of the word -otherwise known as a bait and switch -in order to get to a desired conclusion. The example they use is from the Evolution-ID argument, that Evolution is a Theory.

The claim is that this is a fallacy because, in the first line, Evolution is called a Theory -meaning a scientific one, and in the second Theory is called speculative -using the colloquial meaning of Theory. Sort of like the joke about how my job can't be important because it is, as we all know, Academic.

My objection to this example (not least of which is that this is just a bad place to insert it), is that I can say with just about certainty that IDers aren't referent switching. They mean Theory in the speculative sense both times. The realization that there is a linguistic difference between how IDers mean Theory (and specifically, I mean non-experts) and how Scientists mean Theory is the reason you will now see the argument phrased "Evolution is not well tested, and therefore should be taught as a hypothesis."


But to conclude, there is a deeper reason this bugs me, and the reason I made my crack about debators at the top. This is point scoring. If you're keeping score, you're interest is not in getting to the truth, but in showing off your superior debating skills. This is arrogance, presumption, and when used to browbeat people into doing what you, as an academic, want them to do, is the type of petty treason that so enrages me.

You want to score points, run for office. We'll tally in November.