In this episode
Seven logical fallacies, one short press exchange.
Full Transcript & Analysis
Arguing, ideally, is an honest and sincere exploration of the truth between two or more parties.
Ideally. Of course, ideally is not what happens.
Shockingly, people don't always communicate honestly or truthfully, and not always with that virtuous exploration in mind. When they have a goal they're determined to achieve, they'll pursue it by whatever means are available.
They'll poison the conversation into muddled paths, ridicule your claims, or attack you directly. Sometimes, they'll get a high score and do all of them in one go.
Like in today's episode of "The World in Arguments", where we take one argument shaping the world and analyze it, so you can understand the world around you better, one argument, one episode at a time.
Today's argument is spoken by U.S. President Donald Trump, in response to CNN reporter Kaitlan Collins' questions on the Epstein files.
Every time from now on, when we hear a logical fallacy in the recorded clip, I'll add a "video game coin sound effect" just to hint at what is coming next. Try to pause and catch the fallacy yourself.
What is a logical fallacy? Good question. It is an error in reasoning. When invalid arguments are used, or irrelevant points are introduced without any evidence to support them, that's where we know we have one.
You probably heard the coin sound a lot of times, right? Well, because today's one isn't really an argument per se. It contains arguments, but as a whole, it functions more like a "How Not to Argue Honestly 101."
I wanted to begin the show with an example like this, not only because of the topic's significance, but for another reason. Before we begin to analyze good arguments, it helps to view some bad ones. That way, you can start recognizing the flawed patterns yourself, and most importantly, why they are flawed, and why they could be used.
These are common tactics; everywhere. And sadly, they're effective. If you don't know how to spot them, you'll fall into them. Even if you do know them casually, you'll often hear a response, feel that something is wrong, but not be quick enough to name it or handle it properly.
That is why it is worth starting from here. So let's analyze the logical issues, clip by clip.
A red herring is a piece of irrelevant information introduced into an argument to distract from the actual question being asked.
"Did you read those new files that were published by the Department of Justice? I have a lot of things I'm doing. A lot of things I'm doing, I don't know." Donald Trump — Response to CNN's Kaitlan Collins
To start things off well, we begin with a classic red herring. The question is a clean yes/no: have you read the new files? The reply is that Trump is essentially "busy" — an unrelated thing to point out. It doesn't answer the question; it changes the subject.
The argument from ignorance (ad ignorantiam) is the fallacy of claiming that something must be true because it has not been shown to be false — or false because it has not been shown to be true.
"You mentioned two names. I'm sure they're fine…" Donald Trump — Response to CNN's Kaitlan Collins
Just because you haven't heard something, you can't use that absence as evidence to draw a safe conclusion. "I'm sure they're fine" is not an argument; it is a guess made from a lack of information.
An appeal to popularity (argumentum ad populum) is the fallacy that a claim must be true because it is widely believed, widely reported, or has received broad attention.
"…otherwise it would have been major headlines." Donald Trump — Response to CNN's Kaitlan Collins
The same clip does double duty. Treating headlines as evidence — "public attention equals truth" — is an appeal to popularity. Just because something is not appearing in headlines does not mean it is not happening. For obvious and nuanced reasons, you cannot safely conclude that what is popular is the truth.
Whataboutism is a rhetorical tactic that deflects a question or accusation by invoking a counter-grievance — typically unrelated or only loosely related — rather than answering the point on the table.
"Well, they're also unhappy with the fact that they thought they released too much. You know, I heard that." Donald Trump — Response to CNN's Kaitlan Collins
Here, an opposing viewpoint is presented without any justification for whether and why the opposition holds any validity at all. It's another foggy tactic: "some people are unhappy the other way" does not address the question of transparency, and it does not claim to.
A false dichotomy (or false dilemma) is a fallacy that reduces a range of possibilities to only two options, framed as mutually exclusive, when in fact more options exist.
"Time for the country to get on to something else…" Donald Trump — Response to CNN's Kaitlan Collins
Regardless of where the legal process stands, the transparency question remains. The reply frames a false either/or: either we keep talking about this, or we move on as a country. People, of course, can and should care about multiple things at the same time.
Begging the question (petitio principii) is the fallacy of assuming the conclusion of an argument within one of its premises — making the reasoning circular.
"Now that nothing came out about me… other than it was a conspiracy against me." Donald Trump — Response to CNN's Kaitlan Collins
This clip also contains an unsupported extraordinary claim. When a claim is extraordinary — say, that ghosts exist — very strong evidence is required before anyone should trust it. Here no evidence is offered for a claim that is both extraordinary and the thing in dispute. Instead, the premise and the conclusion prop each other up.
The circular structure
Premise: Nothing came out about me.
Conclusion: Other than it was a conspiracy against me.
The premise and conclusion need each other to survive; no further evidence is given. This is begging the question: the conclusion of an argument is assumed in one of its premises.
To give you some mental space, let's recap. We can conclude the first part of the episode here. The intent for all the above was one: to fog the conversation. All these fallacies are different, but since no clear answers were given to the question, they imply that there was an attempt to switch the topic, muddle the flow, and essentially change the subject.
However, the reporter asked again. The president proceeded with another tactic: ad hominem attacks. Let's call them personal attacks.
An ad hominem is an argument that attacks the person making a claim rather than the claim itself. The attack replaces the argument, rather than engaging with it.
"You are the worst reporter. No one to see. CNN has no ratings because of people like you. You know, she's a young woman. I don't think I've ever seen you smile. I've known you for 10 years. I don't think I've ever seen a smile on your face. You know why? You know why you're not smiling? Because you know you're not telling the truth…" Donald Trump — Response to CNN's Kaitlan Collins
All of this had nothing to do with arguments; it was a multi-front attack, both to the reporter and to the organization. These are ad hominem attacks, and they are important to recognize right away, because they switch the conversation rapidly. If you were to defend against them, you would be discussing something completely different.
Can an ad hominem ever be justified? Possibly, when the attack is very tightly connected to the subject. I argue that this was not the case, and this was an unjustified attack. Whatever the intent, the function is the same: derail the question and discredit the questioner.
My reasons to believe so: President Trump has a track record of these attacks as a common tactic, the conversation was justified given the importance of the subject, and the attacks themselves have nothing to do with it. If you have trouble imagining that last premise, consider: would Trump react the same way if a reporter from FOX News asked the same questions?
That is a great way to combat these tactics in general. Let them roleplay against themselves. Ask what would happen if the same argument came from someone they truly respect, or agree with.
While they are masked as arguments, they are not. These are tactics that can be used by anyone. And sometimes, they can be used even without a clear malicious intent. How many times have you fought with a close friend or significant other, for example, and used an ad hominem attack out of anger or frustration?
We humans are biased creatures. We fall into these biased traps very regularly, either as listeners or as speakers. Pretty much, there's no one who is safe.
As for the Epstein files, people deserve the truth. And the victims deserve justice. To make this a reality, it would help if we could all learn to argue a little bit more. To demand what's needed, and not be swayed away by wrong arguments and biases: both from others' and ours.
See you in the next episode. For now, take care, and thank you for sticking to the end.
If you want to support the show, follow it wherever you listen to it, and if you know someone who'd enjoy it, send it to them. Any feedback on how to improve is very welcome. Next episode will be two weeks after the publish date of this one.