Argument by Adjective

Wizard
[Web]

A speaker may pepper his argument with adjectives (or adverb), adding unproved assertions. This tactic draws attention away from the main argument, and as such is a form of red herring. Since the assertions have not been developed, refuting them may be difficult as well. Even if the speaker using them has not met his burden of proof, the emotional content of the adjective.

For instance, an activist or lobbyist may say, "There will be serious repercussions from this illegal bill, and I don't just mean to the political fortunes of those who hypocritically voted for it."

What "serious" means in this context is left veiled, but the real gem is "illegal", which presupposes a number of conditions. Illegality implies some (higher) authority whose precepts have been countermanded, but the bare adjective doesn't specify who that authority is, or in what way the law violates those (higher) precepts. Again, that those who voted for some law professed not to want it is left undeveloped, but the charge of "hypocrisy" raises distrust.

I'll look for other examples and update them here.

Straw Man

Relevance
[Web]

A Straw Man argument is one that attempts to refute a position an opponent hasn't actually taken. Typically the straw man will be an extreme position or, as Bruce Thompson notes, an alleged hidden agenda.

Sometimes the straw man is simply the result of a misinterpreted position. But no matter how well the straw man is defeated, the true position remains unassailed. The Straw Man can be seen therefor as shifting the burden of proof.

Bruce Thompson:

The argument misrepresents a position that it seeks to refute. By refuting the position as misrepresented, the argument creates the impression that it has refuted the position that is actually held by opponents.

Fallacy Files:

As the "straw man" metaphor suggests, the counterfeit position attacked in a Straw Man argument is typically weaker than the opponent's actual position, just as a straw man is easier to defeat than a flesh-and-blood one. Of course, this is no accident, but is part of what makes the fallacy tempting to commit, especially to a desperate debater who is losing an argument.

Shifting the Burden of Proof

Shifting the Burden of Proof is employed in two ways: by an arguer, to more easily establish a claim, and by an audience, to make it more difficult.

When employed by an arguer, too much of the conclusion is assumed, rather than being established. A special case is when (all or part of) the conclusion itself is assumed and used as a premise in the argument, which is called circular reasoning or Begging the Question.

When employed by an audience, the burden is set impossibly high. An arguer may be told that he must have a solid case proved before he can plead it.

Questions over where the burden of proof belongs (outside the legal system, which has explicit rules about it) can be easily answered with the question, "Who needs to be convinced?"

Experts Agree and the Zone of Conflict

The "scientific consensus" on a given topic cannot be trusted. The very fact that it is appealed to as consensus, and not settled fact, should serve as a warning that weakens, rather than strengthens, an argument. What the consensus of experts does do is to set the Burden of Proof on the one who would either strengthen or challenge the consensus.

There is a fallacy hidden by the legitimate workings of the research process, making it difficult to spot: a combined Appeal to Authority and Appeal to Popularity. But a chain of two fallacies is still fallacious. The number and reputation of learned people who believe a proposition may affect how an idea spreads, but popularity does not affect truth or falsehood, particularly when the experts did not arrive at their opinions independently but were themselves relying on the authority of others in the field.

In a court of law, for instance, the truth is not determined by the number of experts one can line up to agree, else the better-funded or organized side would always win. It is up to the experts to present evidence, based on their experience and knowledge. The other side counters with expert evidence of its own, and the judge or jury evaluate. It is not the number of experts that decide the case, but the quality of the arguments each side can present. If a hundred experts declare that day is dark and night is light, the judges should find with one opposing expert noting the time and pointing to an open window.

Scientific Fact and the Zone of Conflict

Similarly, scientific belief is not, or should not be, formed on the basis of the number of scientists who believe one way or another.

All science is by definition unproven on some level; each fact is only accepted, not proved in the sense that a mathematician or logician proves something. For example, we don't know the speed of light, or that momentum is always conserved, and so on, only that according to observation and reasoning based on all of our observations to date, that the accepted fact or principle is reliable. Scientists speak of 'facts', but always with the knowledge that these 'facts' can be challenged. Challenging accepted facts requires supplying evidence and reasoning to counter them. It does not mean arranging a vote on the matter.

Experts on a given topic argue about it. The breadth of their discussion on a given topic varies, usually trending from the fundamental to the esoteric with the time and depth of study applied to the topic.

The number and reputation of scientists who accept something as probable or as fact only indicates the approximate parameters of the debate that surround a given idea. This can be thought of as the Zone of Conflict, the area for a given topic outside of which the facts are largely settled among experts. New evidence, or new arguments about old evidence, can change the popularity of a proposition, and thus expand or contract the Zone of Conflict in the field of study which pertains to that proposition, but they do not change its truth or falsehood.

Exaggerated Conflict

There is a fallacy lurking underneath the 'experts agree' layer and the 'scientific fact' layer, by which some seek to discredit a scientist or lay person based on how close his ideas are to Zone of Conflict. Conversely, some like to point out that no fact is ever totally proved, and thereby invent a controversy of fact when none really exists. Stating that all things are uncertain does not challenge a fact, any more than asserting a fact makes it so.

It is an Appeal to Ignorance to claim that because of the existence of the Zone of Conflict, any claim about that topic is as likely to be true as any other. But it is an Appeal to Authority and abuse of the Burden of Proof to claim that an argument is invalid because it is outside the Zone. In general, the range of discussion that takes place on a topic says nothing about the validity of a particular argument or the truth of a particular proposition.

Since the Burden of Proof is on the one making the assertion, it is the responsibility of the one who would expand the Zone of Conflict to show that a real question exists. Conversely, properly rebuffing such an attempt requires actually showing that the matter is settled and why the question is no longer open.

(Adapted from The Inescapable Logic of Global Warming)

Burden of Proof

The burden of proof is always on the assertion. That is, to the degree that an argument rests on some premise, to complete the argument requires establishing the premise. Failing to take on the burden of proof will mean convincing only those who already agree.

One can assume a premise as obvious, and the relative importance of that premise to the argument is the degree to which the argument employs the fallacy of Begging the Question or circular reasoning.

In most cases, we use informal logic (in essays or scientific writing) to convince the reader of some case we are building. To convince all readers, we must be sure that all readers accept all of our premises, or we dismiss those readers who do not accept our premises.

Some assumed premises are left unstated: if the world continues to revolve, if the area of a circle really does equal πr², and so on. Depending on audience, subject matter, skill of the arguer, and how important a premise is to an argument, it may be left unstated or it may require extensive proof, or anything in between.

In political or theological debates, it is quite common for an argument to be built on an entire unstated framework of belief. Here again, to complete the argument requires establishing the premises.

See also Shifting the Burden