Stop enabling the right: The media just makes dysfunction worse
Our politics are a disaster because the media -- and the president -- pretend conservatives are dealing with facts
BY PAUL ROSENBERG
The study of logical and rhetorical fallacies dates back to the ancient Greeks, but for all that studying, were still overrun by themand for understandable reasons. Most fallacies derive from valid rules-of-thumb that are deeply ingrained in our thinking, but are hastily applied, or taken to be conclusive, rather than a good starting point. There are cases when there are only two choices to be hadbut not always. In that case, its the false dilemma or false dichotomy fallacy. Its valid to note that cause precedes effect, and to look for causes accordingly, to take another example. But its the rooster fallacy (aka post hoc ergo proctor hoc) to assume that the rooster crowing caused the sun to rise. Its the very utility of the underlying rules-of-thumb that makes fallacies so hard for us to shake.
Fallacies pop up all the time in the course of specific arguments, but the most broadly damaging ones can shape an entire realm of public discourse. Two such fallacies are at war in American politics today, and theyre making progress extremely hard to come by. They were at work in the recent government shutdown, and they havent gone anywhere in its aftermath, either.
Fallacy No. 1 is the false balance fallacyalso known as false compromise, argument to moderation (argumentum ad temperantiam in Latin), and the golden mean fallacy, among others. It is a major feature of our so-called serious politicians and media figures, who routinely position themselves in between extremists on both sides. Its often the case that two people in an argument each miss something valid in each others point of view. So theres a valid rule-of-thumb here in trying to see both sides. But it becomes a fallacy when this starting point becomes the end, particularly when balance or moderation becomes so important that its rigidly, even fanatically adhered to, and the clear preponderance of evidence is given no more weight than someones uninformed opinion. As Cenk Uygur put it, If CNN did sports reporting, every game would be a tie.
Fallacy No. 2 is the no true Scotsman fallacy. Unlike most fallacies, it doesnt derive from a valid rule-of-thumb, though it is connected to some more benign cognitive impulses. Typically, A says, No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. B replies, I am Scottish, and put sugar on my porridge. A responds: Ah, then you are not a true Scotsman. This fallacy commonly involves attempts to preserve purityas when Tea Party conservatives denounced those willing to compromise on shutting down the government as not being true conservatives. Appeals to purity can arise anywhere on the political spectrum, but for a variety of reasons they tend to be much more common on the right.
more
http://www.salon.com/2013/10/21/stop_enabling_the_right_the_media_just_makes_dysfunction_worse/