But that's just what he says!
Jamie Whyte's little book "Crimes Against Logic"
was a fun read for subway. This book is about rhetorical fallacies, and
there wasn't much new for anybody who is familiar with logical
fallacies (although I would also want to plug my old post "And you do it too!" at this point), but it did make a few excellent points that are obvious in retrospect but at least I never thought of before.
First, the chapter "Motives" that explains that some claim can be true even though the person stating it would benefit from it, ends with the handy rule of thumb that the word "just" is a sign of rhetorical deception, since what is the difference between "saying something" and "just saying something" ? Nothing at all, except that the latter hints ominous dishonesty, with plausible deniability.
The last chapter, "Morality Fever", explains that the moral implications and consequences of some claim have no relevance to its truth value. Again this should be obvious to any thinking person, but as we know perfectly well, in many cases it is not. The chapter begins with a boyhood anecdote in which the author complains to his parents about the awful bully in the neighbourhood. The parents, apparently some kind of hippy-dippy feelgood leftists, start making excuses for the behaviour of the said bully. The author continues:
First, the chapter "Motives" that explains that some claim can be true even though the person stating it would benefit from it, ends with the handy rule of thumb that the word "just" is a sign of rhetorical deception, since what is the difference between "saying something" and "just saying something" ? Nothing at all, except that the latter hints ominous dishonesty, with plausible deniability.
The last chapter, "Morality Fever", explains that the moral implications and consequences of some claim have no relevance to its truth value. Again this should be obvious to any thinking person, but as we know perfectly well, in many cases it is not. The chapter begins with a boyhood anecdote in which the author complains to his parents about the awful bully in the neighbourhood. The parents, apparently some kind of hippy-dippy feelgood leftists, start making excuses for the behaviour of the said bully. The author continues:
"Maybe", I would protest, "but explaining why he is awful doesn't show that he isn't awful. On the contrary, it assumes he is. So why do you make these remarks as if they count against my point --- which was only that he is, in point of fact, awful?" Or words to that effect.
It is bizarre to think that you have refuted a claim by explaining why it is true. How could anyone get so confused as to think this?
Of course, we get to see essentially the same act played out daily, whenever people explain that the bad behaviour of certain defectives is not their fault and they can't help it. Later, the chapter notes that
Those who refuse to even hear an opinion from which others draw unpleasant conclusions tacitly agree that it has the alleged implications.
As
I read the book, I thought that the author is some crusty old
philosophy teacher, but then when I turned to the last page, there was
a picture of a guy about my age. As I googled his name, I found out
that he has a column in The Times. There doesn't seem to be an author archive, but based on "Genetics is a risky business" and "Some of my best friends are hopeless at sums", I would certainly want to read more observations by this guy.
Update: the author page "Jamie Whyte" contains many links to his Times columns.
Comments