© Roger M Tagg 2010
Welcome to FROLIO – a new attempt to merge philosophy and the "semantic web" . This website is under continuing development.
This is a more serious set of crooked argument tactics than Schopenhauer's, although there is some overlap (see the column titled "Schop"). It comes as part of a book written to help students avoid falling into other peoples' traps when conversing or reading, and encouraging them to question dodgy statements or other tactics that they may come up against.
| Seq | Trick | Counter | Schop |
|---|---|---|---|
| T1 | Use emotionally toned words | Interrupt with a neutral, un-toned translation: "What you are actually saying is ..." | |
| T2 | Say "all" when only "some" is true | Insert "all" explicitly and show that this is false | |
| T3 | Only quote selected instances that support the argument | Point out opposing instances; reduce it to a matter of statistics, which the other person hasn't got | |
| T4 | Extend opposing view beyond what opponent actually thinks (misrepresent opponent's view) | Re-iterate one's more moderate position | S1 |
| T5 | Evade refutation of one's argument, e.g. saying "the exception proves the rule" | Demonstrate the unsoundness of such a tactic | |
| T6 | Divert to a side issue that is less relevant, easier to defend, or just a joke | Re-state the original issue | S29 |
| T7 | Claim a proof of one's position by a flanking but inconsequent argument which other persons are more likely to accept | Ask what the connection is | |
| T8 | Dismiss this issue (X) as being of less consequence than issue Y - so we should direct our energies to Y instead | Agree that we should address Y, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't address X | |
| T9 | Claim that one's position is a good one because it is a mean between two extremes | Point out that this doesn't by itself justify the position, and that opposing views could equally be represented in this way | |
| T10 | Say that something follows logically, when the premises are doubtful or even untried | Say that it's not the logic that is wrong, it's the facts that are being assumed | S5 |
| T11 | Use unsound logic | Paraphrase the logical argument, or apply it to another case, where its incorrectness can be more clearly seen | S24 |
| T12 | Circular argument | Ditto | |
| T13 | Begging the question, i.e. assuming what you are trying to prove | Ditto, but may have to point out what is being improperly assumed | S6 |
| T14 | Claiming something as an issue of fact, when it's really more an issue of words | Point out in what way the issue is a matter of words | |
| T15 | Represent a tautology (i.e. something that is true by definition) as a factual judgment | Point out how it is true by definition | |
| T16 | Use speculative argument, e.g. rely on something that is by no means factual or generally accepted | Point out what part of the argument is speculative | |
| T17 | Change the meaning of a term in the course of an argument | Pick up on the drifting definition, suggest a paraphrase and see if the point is still valid | S2 |
| T18 | Presenting an issue as a simple either/or, when there is a continuous series of possibilities in between | Refuse to accept either alternative, and say why there is a continuum of possibilities; or give an example with another situation | |
| T19 | Using continuity to throw doubt on the fact that there is still a big difference between two extremes | Say why the extremes still have a real difference; or that on this line of argument, one would say that one can't distinguish white from black | |
| T20 | Use biased definitions, or badger opponents about their definitions | Show that there could be many shades of definition, and one really needs to use those definitions widely accepted | |
| T21 | Repeated affirmation of the same point, either in exactly the same words (repeating slogans) or slightly paraphrased | Point out that this is just a tactic, not an argument | |
| T22 | Use a confident manner | As above, or try ridicule | S36 |
| T23 | Pull rank, claim prestige or better knowledge | Challenge the speaker, test if he/she can back up the claims, or just gets tetchy | S30 |
| T24 | Falsely claim credentials | If practical, point out the false claims; if not, reserve judgment | S36 |
| T25 | Imply prestige by using (pseudo-) technical jargon | Ask modestly for explanation of the jargon terms | |
| T26 | Ridicule anyone challenging or asking questions | Be ready to explain why the challenge is fair | |
| T27 | Asking questions like "surely you accept that ….?", or drawing out damaging admissions | Refuse to be drawn | |
| T28 | Appeal to mere authority | Consider whether the authority claimed is valid and relevant | |
| T29 | Overcoming resistance to a doubtful proposition by starting off with a few easily accepted ones | Be prepared for such a tactic, don't give way too soon | |
| T30 | Present a doubtful proposition in a way that appeals to the thought habits and prejudices of the addressees | Paraphrase the proposition in a new context | |
| T31 | Use generally accepted folk theorems, predigested thought patterns, oversimplifications etc as premises in argument | Good-humouredly point out why it isn't as simple as that | |
| T32 | Claim that no decision can be made, as there are arguments on both sides ("academic detachment") | Point out that "no action" is just as much a decision, and may have no less serious consequences than following either of the 2 alternatives | |
| T33 | Argument by mere (i.e. casual) analogy | Examine where the analogy breaks down, or things are different | |
| T34 | Argument by forced analogy (i.e. not really suitable, but deliberately chosen) | Propose other analogies that might support different conclusions | S12 |
| T35 | Angering an individual opponent hoping that he/she will then lose control and make points that can be shot down easily | Keep one's cool, however much the provocation | S8, S27 |
| T36 | Special pleading, i.e. applying arguments to one situation which one would not use in other situations | Apply the same arguments to the other situations which would lead to consequences the other person would not go along with | |
| T37 | Commend a proposal to someone "because it has the best consequence for you personally" (or vice versa) | Recognize one's own prejudices and interests, and separate them from the issues that are really at stake | |
| T38 | Attribute motives or prejudices to one's opponent, brand their arguments as "rationalizations" | Point out that such things do not affect whether the real issue is true or false, right or wrong, better or worse etc | |
| A few extra thoughts: | |||
| Appeals to prejudice need a "them" | |||
| The sources of prejudice are hidden from consciousness | |||
| One's memory may be distorted by one's prejudices | |||
| Prejudices may cause us to suppress unwelcome facts |
Index to more highlights of interesting books
Some of these links may be under construction – or re-construction.
This version updated on 6th April 2010
If you have constructive suggestions or comments, please contact the author rogertag@tpg.com.au .