Picture Barack Obama Falling Out of a Palm Tree

Can I point something out, just to keep my hairline from receding? Here it is: there is such a thing as a logical fallacy which is, in and of itself, a fallacy. Sort of.

Very often, web denizens toss out Latin phrases which are names for recognized logical fallacies, and then they sit back all smug, thinking they’ve won the argument. Which never happens on the Internet regardless of how right you are, unless of course you’re me. Even then, I’m the only one who agrees that I’m right, which doesn’t matter, because I’m right about that, too.

Here’s the particular fallacy I’m thinking about: argumentum ad hominem. It means you attack the person instead of the man. The inverse or converse or whatever of this is “appeal to authority,” which means you cite some big bloviating authority and claim his apparent agreement with your sniveling blog comment makes you right.

You know what? Ad hominem arguments are often–maybe usually–totally valid. Maybe not in the strictest technical sense, but in application. And like Mr. Spock used to say, “A difference that makes no difference is no difference.” Which isn’t actually true, but let’s go on.

I’ll give you an example. Charles Manson walks into your house with a severed head in his hand, and he says, “You should put all your money in soybean futures, because the Chinese are going to outlaw oral contraceptives, and they’re going to need a lot of tofu.”

Now, you realize right away that this argument is crap. Why? Because you’re an expert on soybeans and the Chinese birthrate? No. Because Charles Manson is an idiot, and nothing he says should be taken seriously. Implicit in your reasoning–which is perfectly sound–is a heavy-duty ad hominem argument. A logic professor might get his sexually ambiguous drawers in a knot and point out that Charles Manson’s argument could be correct, and that you haven’t really refuted it. Who cares? You’re right, and you have better things to do than argue with Charles Manson.

Appeal to authority works the same way. Today I put up Youtubes of Jim Rogers, one of the world’s most successful and sophisticated investors, as evidence of Barack Obama’s economic foolishness. And I impugned the Obamessiah’s crazy approach to fixing the recession by pointing out that he is not a skilled investor.

Jim Rogers is an authority on money. My imaginary logic professor can whine all he wants; anything Jim Rogers says about money automatically carries weight. His reputation may not prove he’s right, but it makes listening to him much, much smarter than listening to Barack Obama.

The legal system recognizes the fact that a person’s qualifications determine the weight of his statements. Am I appealing to authority again? Maybe, although like Bumble said, “The law is a ass. A idiot.” If you look at the Federal Rules of Evidence, you’ll find that they heartily endorse argumentum ad hominem and appeal to authority. For example, only people whose credentials are proven extraordinary are allowed to testify as experts. On the other hand, a person who can’t prove his credentials is shut out not because of the validity of his testimony, but because of his nature.

We also have ethical rules that reflect the same basic idea. Example: usually you shouldn’t represent codefendants in a criminal case, because they may come to have adverse interests. Then when you argue on behalf of one, you may let the other one down. So you’re supposed to push your clients to hire separate attorneys, OR, much more importantly, to sign a paper saying they know the risks and still want to give you all their money. That’s actually true; I’m not saying it the way the bar associations like to see it presented, but it’s correct. You can represent two people with conflicting interests as long as you inform them and get them to agree. Anyway, without consent, you are presumed to be ineffective when arguing on their behalf, not because of the merits of your arguments and decisions (which probably don’t exist at the time the conflict arises and therefore can’t be evaluated), but because of your position as an advocate for both defendants. The system PRESUMES you will do or say something stupid.

Pointing out recognized logical fallacies (or, more often, what you mistakenly think are logical fallacies) doesn’t really win arguments most of the time. It’s a cheesy way to help you avoid arguing in the first place. It’s a cop-out, unless it’s so obvious that your objections are valid that you can be excused. I think most logic, in the real world of soft and unknown variables, is ultimately fuzzy. Things like intuition and emotion aren’t always unproductive. Sometimes they get you to the truth faster than your puny reasoning skills. It’s a lot more convincing to stay in the game than to hop up and down screeching “TU QUOQUE!”, which nobody even understands.

It’s like another cheap tactic, which always makes me chuckle. You post this: “SOURCE? LINK?”

Right, I’m supposed to spend a week Googling, in order to back up, say, my assertion that peas are better for you than rat poison, or my claim that Canada is bigger than Thailand. How much did you research in order to come up with “SOURCE? LINK?” You didn’t research at all. That’s the whole reason you typed it. You’re lazy, and you know putting people on the defensive is easier than making a real argument. Isn’t it? Well, isn’t it? Prove it’s not. SOURCE? LINK?

See what I mean? No matter what the other person is saying, you can always say “SOURCE? LINK?” Even when it’s clearly inappropriate.

Argument is overrated, anyway. As a means of getting to the truth, it scores pretty low. I mean the kind of argument that involves short, informal exchanges. Like debates. When two people argue and one wins, very often, all it proves is that he argues better than the other guy. O.J. Simpson told me that. No, he didn’t, but he knows it. He tried to push it a little farther than he should have, but it worked for him against Chris Darden and Marcia Clark. I think the best way to get at the truth is for people to put their pitches in written form, in great detail, and let other people look at them. This way, they get to think more about what they say. They don’t get flustered and lose arguments because they’re too mad to think.

Anyway, Barack Obama is the Gilligan of economics. Time will prove me and Jim Rogers right.