Can You Name That Fallacy?

April 18, 2008 8:14 AM

Is there already a precise term for the rhetorical fallacy/trick described in the following scenario: Guy A and B are arguing. Guy A makes an assertion. Guy B counters the assertion with an argument of his own. Guy A ignores the specifics of Guy B’s argument, and asserts that Guy B’s argument does not genuinely reflect Guy B’s position (i.e., Guy A says that there are certain unstated ‘real’ reasons Guy B holds the particular position he’s arguing for, and Guy A then goes on to expound on those real reasons to Guy B on his behalf).

Another common variation on this rhetorical sleight-of-hand has Guy A insisting that Guy B’s ‘real’ reasons for holding a particular position are ‘unconscious,’ and so, aren’t properly understood even by Guy B himself, although Guy A at the same time somehow possesses the ability to unpack the contents of Guy B’s ‘unconscious mind’ with laser-like clarity, all without being susceptible to any undue ‘unconscious’ influence of his own.

This seems to be a variation on the straw-man fallacy, but with an especially nasty edge, so I’m wondering if it’s already got a name, or if not, if it should.

posted by saulgoodman to writing & language (13 comments total)

Appeal to motive?
posted by adamrice at 8:21 AM on April 18, 2008

This is a form of ad hominem attack that C.S. Lewis called Bulverism.
posted by EarBucket at 8:26 AM on April 18, 2008 [2 favorites]

I'm not sure about appeal to motive--the Wikipedia article for that certainly defines it as the type of fallacy saulgoodman is describing, but if you click through to the sole reference that Wikipedia article cites, it defines appeal to motive as "to argue that a person's motives entirely justify their action" which is a different fallacy entirely. Bulverism seems to work.

(As an aside, I went poking around The Fallacy Files, normally a good source for something like this, but only got as far as deciding this was a subtype of the circumstantial ad hominem, with no specific entry there for this particular subtype.)
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 8:36 AM on April 18, 2008 [1 favorite]

The practice of debunking ideas based on alleged motivation or pop-psychology rather than on their merits is way too common. You know what I mean if you discuss politics with any regularity.

The first term I thought of is Ad Hominem ("argument against the man"), as mentioned above.

A form of this is illustrated by Godwin's Law ("As a... discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."). Seriously, try to think of the last online conversation you witnessed about a certain sitting president that didn't follow this rule ;-).
posted by jluce50 at 8:37 AM on April 18, 2008

Sounds like arrogance/bullying. "You believe X because you are misinformed. Here are all the reasons why you are wrong."
posted by gjc at 8:38 AM on April 18, 2008

Another common variation on this rhetorical sleight-of-hand has Guy A insisting that Guy B’s ‘real’ reasons for holding a particular position are ‘unconscious,’ and so, aren’t properly understood even by Guy B himself, although Guy A at the same time somehow possesses the ability to unpack the contents of Guy B’s ‘unconscious mind’ with laser-like clarity, all without being susceptible to any undue ‘unconscious’ influence of his own.

This is, unfortunately, exactly what passes for cultural criticism at the college level. Psychology and class/race "struggle" often get intertwined for no discernible reason by people with no qualifications to play psychologist. I tend to just lump it under "bullshit" along with most of the other things that come out of that sort of person's mouth. Accusations of unconscious racism (for instance) often come from people unable to articulate a real argument in sort of their position and I've always found it hilarious that such people genuinely saw themselves as able to read other people's unconscious. The fact that you've picked up on it indicates to me that you're probably already in a superior argumentative position in whatever situation brought this to mind.
posted by Inspector.Gadget at 9:00 AM on April 18, 2008

I think it's also like when someone is homophobic and you say that they don't like gay people because they are secretly or unconsciously gay. It puts the person down and dismisses his or her argument at the same time. I don't know what this is called. Note: I don't actually have a problem using this tactic against homophobic people, even though I know it's a cheap shot.
posted by annabkr at 9:17 AM on April 18, 2008

A fairly comprehensive list of common fallacies is found here.
posted by ikkyu2 at 9:31 AM on April 18, 2008

Logical Rudeness.
posted by Class Goat at 10:00 AM on April 18, 2008

Thanks for all the great responses! So it looks to be a pernicious subspecies of circumstantial ad hominem, known as Bulverism.

Yeah, I see this move being made so often, I knew someone else must have named and classified it by now. The most recent time I encountered this particular fallacy in the wild, it wasn't aimed in my direction, but it was such a magnificent specimen that I couldn't help noticing it. Someone should start a fallacy-collector's web site, where members are invited to scour the web in search of rare or especially well-developed specimens of the various rhetorical fallacies and then share their findings with their fellow fallacy-enthusiasts. Or not.
posted by saulgoodman at 10:06 AM on April 18, 2008

I have to say, reading CS Lewis' example sort of bothered me, as the set up is a wife who dismisses her husband's incontrovertible mathematical logic (regarding the properties of triangles) with "you only say that because you're a man." It makes me think that "appeal to motive" as adamrice suggested is probably more accurate, and that one should perhaps not always dismiss the so-called fallacies that fall into this category.

The straw-man version that Lewis provides makes it seem ridiculous that any argument which appealed to motive would hold any weight - clearly whether you are male or female has no bearing on the analytic nature of geometric shapes. But in real arguments, these sorts of comments come in because the perspective of the debaters is limited by their own experience and they may not be considering aspects of the situation they have not faced personally. So yes, it would be silly for Person B to think they can perfectly psychoanalyze Person A & explain everything in their unconscious. But at the same, it is silly of Person A to think that no exterior perspective can ever shed light on the limitations of their own view.

Sometimes a person does argue for certain things because they're male or homophobic or whatever - it's naive to think we can be entirely objective and separate our opinions from our experiences and interests. Bringing this up in formal debate club is inappropriate. Bringing this up in interpersonal conversation may be insightful.
posted by mdn at 2:21 PM on April 18, 2008 [1 favorite]

mdn, I don't think Lewis is arguing that opinions are independent of personal perspective. What he's saying is that you can't simply dismiss someone's opinion because of some personal quality they possess. You have to rationally demonstrate that they're wrong first; then you can go on to analyzing the reasons why they're wrong. To do otherwise is begging the question.

For example: I could argue "Of course the Pope is against using birth control. He's the head of the Catholic church, and they don't want women to have the same rights as men." But right or wrong, that doesn't really have any bearing on whether allowing birth control is a good idea or not. For that, I'd have to make my argument using facts; statistics on unwanted pregnancies and their impact on women, say.

Interestingly, Lewis had a fairly progressive (for the time, of course) position on contraception: he refused to take a position on it, as he wasn't a woman and therefore didn't feel he had the right to tell women what to do about it.
posted by EarBucket at 4:20 PM on April 18, 2008

mdn, I don't think Lewis is arguing that opinions are independent of personal perspective. What he's saying is that you can't simply dismiss someone's opinion because of some personal quality they possess. You have to rationally demonstrate that they're wrong first; then you can go on to analyzing the reasons why they're wrong. To do otherwise is begging the question.

As I say, I'm not advocating for the use of motive-checking in formal debates that start with agreed premises and a pro/con format. However, the difference in real conversations, and, I think, in useful academic dialogue as opposed to "debate club philosophy", is that the premises of important questions are often not really fully agreed to at the start - there are underlying assumptions, biases, & interpretations packed into things said and unsaid, and constantly questioning our own and our interlocuter's motives is a reasonable aspect of seeking the truth.

If someone claims they're against birth control because it's what god wants, statistics about unwanted pregnancies is not going to be meaningful. The motivations of catholicism are much more revealing. Why is it that "the Will" is such a central and important part of the church for men - controlling your body is piety for males - but a woman who tries to control her body is trying to control god's wishes? Is it because the woman is not seen as a will but as a vessel?
posted by mdn at 1:54 PM on April 20, 2008