Fallacies and War

[Lord Sander]

Found this article linked on Kung Fool.
Thought it was interesting considering how much attention is given to logical fallacies on SD.net.

[Mr Bean]

Decent if it did not end up with an appel to populairty and a appel to ignorance fallicys nevermind the two Hasty Generlizations and the Red-Herring

[Darth Wong]

Decent if it did not end up with an appel to populairty and a appel to ignorance fallicys nevermind the two Hasty Generlizations and the Red-Herring

Could you list the precise quotes that you're referring to? Mentioning worldwide animosity toward the US is not an appeal to popularity fallacy if it is not used to prove the main point, which it is not in this case.

You've been saying there's circumstantial evidence that Saddam has WMD; if this is true, then he appears to be unaware of it, since his argument hinges on the basis of the claim that there's no evidence whatsoever. However, that's not so much a fallacy as a lack of comprehensive information. And I'm not sure where the hasty generalizations and red herring are; could you point them out?

[Mr Bean]

And I'm not sure where the hasty generalizations and red herring are; could you point them out?

Will do

One of the favorite methods of the current administration is a false dilemma. This is when only two choices are given when, in reality, there are more options. Right after 9/11 you heard, “You are either with us or against us,” in the fight against terrorism. Actually, countries can be both against terrorism and not an ally of the U.S. More recently, many countries are showing that they are both against a pre-emptive war and against the current Iraqi regime.

Hasty Generlization here as the only Country in the UN that oppose the War would be France and Belgium(Two out of two hundred is not Many) Russia is not aginst war they are aginst going without everyone agreeing(As is China)

We are also hearing we must attack Iraq or Saddam will develop weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and threaten the world if we do nothing. Other options of monitoring with inspectors and containment are just flatly discounted. Are we to believe that Saddam could develop nuclear weapons while the world has him under a microscope?

Acutal, Contaiment can't work because Iraq Possess everything he needs(From Uranium to the nessary Metalwork, the only problem he has is he can't enrich the uranium he needs yet and why he's been nativly manfuacting the same machines used in the Mahatten project, he's has not succesful built them yet as far as we know, but its an engineering not a materials problem so containment won't work )

Just recently, the President suggested the U.N. should vote for war or face irrelevance. The U.N. will not disappear just because most of its member countries disagree with George W. Bush

Agian two Countrys do not make many

We hear Iraq hasn’t shown that they do not have WMD, therefore they do.

Incorrect, They have not shown they don't have WMD therfor they are in material's violation of Resoultion 1441 and action must be taken

The real burden of proof is on the party making the claim. The U.S. and/or U.N. must prove that Iraq has WMD. It is impossible for Iraq to prove that they don’t.

Incorrect Agian, The Burden of Proof is on Saddam to find and destroy all the WMD he has and do so publicy, Its very easy to demosrate you don't have WMD would you not agree Wong?

Thats like Demosrating I don't have a Piano on my roof...

On Iraq, we hear how Saddam will develop WMDs and give them to terrorists who will then use them on America. While this is one possible chain of events, it hardly justifies a pre-emptive attack on a sovereign nation.

Red-Herring, The fear is that Saddam will use the WMD to Blackmail the rest of the Middle East, Not that he will give them to terrriosts, thought that is also a minor fear

The current talk about France by many Americans is a perfect example. It is not only childish, it distracts from the real issues. France is not obligated to go along with every American idea because we saved them from Nazi Germany 60 years ago.
[/qutoe]
Hasty Generlization, Most people diss France(though some might aurgue and succesfuly so that that is true)

President Bush also often calls Saddam Hussein a murderous, evil man who can’t be trusted. While true, this name-calling does not prove that Saddam has any ability to threaten the world.

Red-Herring the question is why we should remove Saddam from power not what he is capable of

(Thats another question)

They also mention Iraq’s use of chemical weapons against Iran in the 1980’s. They again leave out that we supported Iraq at that time in their war against Iran, and basically ignored the use of WMDs at that time.

Past on Presant Fallicy, Mine own little Invention, Because We did not do anything about it then, We can't do anything about it now

I’m sure they would be happy to tell the U.S. what they wanted to hear if it hastened the destruction of the Iraqi regime and they could return to their homeland. More to the point, chief weapons inspector Hans Blix said his men had examined some of the trucks and found them to be food-testing labs.

Out-Right Lie, Blix has never visted any Mobile Sites be it the Mobile Labs nor the Missle Launchers, That is FACT in the Blix report

And furthermore begs the question, Why Make MOBILE FOOD Tasting Labs? Does that not strike you as the least bit odd?
Not even a good lie

Is there any solid evidence that Iraq still processes weapons of mass destruction and has ties with terrorist groups? A few audio tapes and fuzzy satellite photos are not proof.

Three Words:Cuban Missle Crises

President Bush has said that if Saddam and his generals “take innocent life, if they destroy infrastructure, they will be held accountable as war criminals.” Isn’t the United States about to take innocent life and destroy infrastructure?

Red-Herring, Unless Bush orders the Annilation of Denver, We are not trying to kill Civilians

Now America is viewed with suspicion, fear and anger. When millions of the world’s citizens protest American aggression, why does our president just shrug?

Acodote, In all those who protested in the world wide marchs less than .007% of the Worlds Population was represted

Now it was strewn with Logic Fallicys but..
Hmm now why did I say it ended with a Appeal to authority? Must have been late that night

[Darth Wong]

You should beware over-eagerness to classify things as logical fallacies. It is possible to make a statement based on false or incomplete or inaccurate data and come to an erroneous conclusion without actually committing a logic fallacy.

Hasty Generlization here as the only Country in the UN that oppose the War would be France and Belgium(Two out of two hundred is not Many) Russia is not aginst war they are aginst going without everyone agreeing(As is China)

That's not a hasty generalization. He says "many countries"; he does not say all.

Acutal, Contaiment can't work because Iraq Possess everything he needs(From Uranium to the nessary Metalwork, the only problem he has is he can't enrich the uranium he needs yet and why he's been nativly manfuacting the same machines used in the Mahatten project, he's has not succesful built them yet as far as we know, but its an engineering not a materials problem so containment won't work )

I agree that if left to his own devices, Saddam may be able to eventually develop a nuclear weapon. But at the same time, he is not committing any fallacies by pointing out that it will be extremely difficult for him to do so while under heavy scrutiny.

The U.N. will not disappear just because most of its member countries disagree with George W. Bush

Agian two Countrys do not make many

You are disagreeing with him on the facts; that is different from identifying actual fallacies in logic.

Incorrect Agian, The Burden of Proof is on Saddam to find and destroy all the WMD he has and do so publicy, Its very easy to demosrate you don't have WMD would you not agree Wong?

Thats like Demosrating I don't have a Piano on my roof...

Actually, it would be more like demonstrating that you have no piano anywhere, which is considerably more difficult to do if you have a great deal of property (eg- an entire country). And it would be impossible to prove beyond a doubt; at best you could allow comprehensive searches.

On Iraq, we hear how Saddam will develop WMDs and give them to terrorists who will then use them on America. While this is one possible chain of events, it hardly justifies a pre-emptive attack on a sovereign nation.

Red-Herring, The fear is that Saddam will use the WMD to Blackmail the rest of the Middle East, Not that he will give them to terrriosts, thought that is also a minor fear.

The actual logic fallacy there would be a strawman fallacy, since he is misrepresenting the argument by saying that they think the weapons are a threat to the US rather than the rest of the Middle East.

The current talk about France by many Americans is a perfect example. It is not only childish, it distracts from the real issues. France is not obligated to go along with every American idea because we saved them from Nazi Germany 60 years ago.

Hasty Generlization, Most people diss France(though some might aurgue and succesfuly so that that is true)

Again, beware over-eagerness to classify a fallacy. He stated the fact that "many Americans" are speaking in extremely negative tones about France, which is demonstrably true. He never claimed that every American is doing this.

President Bush also often calls Saddam Hussein a murderous, evil man who can’t be trusted. While true, this name-calling does not prove that Saddam has any ability to threaten the world.

Red-Herring the question is why we should remove Saddam from power not what he is capable of

I don't see why this is a red-herring. He's talking about part of the justification for war (the fact that Hussein is a really bad guy) and saying that it's mere rhetoric and does not establish the genuine threat.

They also mention Iraq’s use of chemical weapons against Iran in the 1980’s. They again leave out that we supported Iraq at that time in their war against Iran, and basically ignored the use of WMDs at that time.

Past on Presant Fallicy, Mine own little Invention, Because We did not do anything about it then, We can't do anything about it now

Ah, I see what you were talking about when you mentioned this elsewhere. I think that's a misinterpretation of his intent. He's not saying we can't do anything about WMD now because we gave them to him; he's saying that Iraq's use of WMD in the past should not be used as proof that they are an unusually dangerous and unreasonable state, since we supported him in that action so by extension, America would be the unusually dangerous and unreasonable state.

Out-Right Lie, Blix has never visted any Mobile Sites be it the Mobile Labs nor the Missle Launchers, That is FACT in the Blix report

And furthermore begs the question, Why Make MOBILE FOOD Tasting Labs? Does that not strike you as the least bit odd?

Not even a good lie

Bad facts can indeed invalidate a conclusion, and may be doing so in this case, but I'm just saying you shouldn't call them logic fallacies, because that's not what they are.

President Bush has said that if Saddam and his generals “take innocent life, if they destroy infrastructure, they will be held accountable as war criminals.” Isn’t the United States about to take innocent life and destroy infrastructure?

Red-Herring, Unless Bush orders the Annilation of Denver, We are not trying to kill Civilians

Actually, the correct logic fallacy here would be the "tu quoque" fallacy, also known as the "you too" fallacy. Hussein's crimes are not mitigated by the fact that the Americans have also committed what might be regarded as war crimes by that standard. Mind you, it DOES leave open the possibility for a separate discussion on whether Americans are war criminals or whether Bush is using a ridiculous standard for war crimes since the deaths of civilians and destruction of infrastructure are staples of modern war, so he should have said that differently.

Now America is viewed with suspicion, fear and anger. When millions of the world’s citizens protest American aggression, why does our president just shrug?

Acodote, In all those who protested in the world wide marchs less than .007% of the Worlds Population was represted

That is not a logic fallacy either; he simply states that millions of people are protesting. The real problem with this statement is the fact that it's basically rhetorical, ie- it doesn't make a concrete point.

Now it was strewn with Logic Fallicys but..
Hmm now why did I say it ended with a Appeal to authority? Must have been late that night

I would say that if you're going to attack that article, you should do so on the basis of its facts, not its logic.

[Mr Bean]

You should beware over-eagerness to classify things as logical fallacies. It is possible to make a statement based on false or incomplete or inaccurate data and come to an erroneous conclusion without actually committing a logic fallacy.

I will do my best to keep that in mind from now on

That's not a hasty generalization. He says "many countries"; he does not say all.

Hasty Generalization is only commited when you incudled everyone? So if I say, "Most Americans own double wide trailers and enjoy the fine art of Beer drinking" its not a hasty gen?

Saddam may be able to eventually develop a nuclear weapon. But at the same time, he is not committing any fallacies by pointing out that it will be extremely difficult for him to do so while under heavy scrutiny.

To be fair, both North Korea and South America managed to devople Nukes despite the presance of UN Inspectors(South America gave thiers up)

You are disagreeing with him on the facts; that is different from identifying actual fallacies in logic .

Noted

Actually, it would be more like demonstrating that you have no piano anywhere , which is considerably more difficult to do if you have a great deal of property (eg- an entire country). And it would be impossible to prove beyond a doubt; at best you could allow comprehensive searches.

I could however provid Records of my Accounting and prove I had niether the money nor the reasoures to purchase a piano and also contact Piano makers and dealers and demsrate that none of them had sold me a piano

The actual logic fallacy there would be a strawman fallacy, since he is misrepresenting the argument by saying that they think the weapons are a threat to the US rather than the rest of the Middle East.

I think I can sum this up best by saying
DOH

He never claimed that every American is doing this.

Is that the Key? You must claim every single memeber of a group in order for it to be a Hasty Gen?

He's talking about part of the justification for war (the fact that Hussein is a really bad guy) and saying that it's mere rhetoric and does not establish the genuine threat.

According to the Bush Sr/Clinton Doctrine, If your Evil its enough of a reason to remove you, weather you just evil towards your own citizins does not matter

Ah, I see what you were talking about when you mentioned this elsewhere. I think that's a misinterpretation of his intent. He's not saying we can't do anything about WMD now because we gave them to him; he's saying that Iraq's use of WMD in the past should not be used as proof that they are an unusually dangerous and unreasonable state, since we supported him in that action so by extension, America would be the unusually dangerous and unreasonable state.

Right as I mentioned eariler its a logic fallicy as those folks who supported Saddam 84' are not the same folks in power

Bad facts can indeed invalidate a conclusion, and may be doing so in this case, but I'm just saying you shouldn't call them logic fallacies, because that's not what they are.

Noted, I will be more careful in the future


Alright I goofed on this one, I was over-eager to classify things as logic fallicys, I got my points right but I got the terms wrong and classifed things as logic fallicys just because they where wrong, I'll be more careful in the future about this sort of thing