Richard PAUL & Linda ELDER - The Thinker's Guide To Fallacies. !

https://kupdf.
net/download/the-thinker39s-guide-to-fallacies-the-art-of-mental-trickery-and-
manipulation_5af73624e2b6f566531e7c7a_pdf#
The Thinker's Guide to Fallacies: The Art of Mental Trickery and Manipulation.
The Thinker's Guide to Fallacies: The Art of Mental Trickery and Manipulation.
October 16, 2017 | Author: Ahmad Hachem | Category: Fallacy, Critical Thinking, Reason,
Thought, Intellectual
60p
Short Description
By: Dr Richard Paul and Dr. Linda Elder...
Description
FREE DOWNLOAD COPY
The Thinker’s Guide To
Fallacies: The Art of Mental Trickery and Manipulation
By Dr. Richard Paul and Dr. Linda Elder
The Foundation for Critical Thinking
FREE DOWNLOAD COPY The Thinker’s Guide to Fallacies: The Art of Mental Trickery and
Manipulation
To understand the human mind, understand self-deception. Anon The word ‘fallacy’ derives from
two Latin words, fallax (“deceptive”) and fallere (“to deceive”). This is an important concept in
human life because much human thinking deceives itself while deceiving others. The human
mind has no natural guide to the truth, nor does it naturally love the truth. What the human
mind loves is itself, what serves it, what flatters it, what gives it what it wants, and what strikes
down and destroys whatever “threatens” it. The study of fallacies can be pursued in at least two
different ways. It can be approached traditionally: in which case one defines, explains, and
exemplifies ways in which unsound arguments can be made to appear sound. Or it can be
approached deeply, in which case one relates the construction of fallacies to the pursuit of
human interests and irrational desires. Using the first approach, students gain little by
memorizing the names and definitions of fallacies. They soon forget them. Their minds are left
largely untouched and therefore unmoved. On the other hand, the second approach makes
possible the acquisition of lifelong insights into how the mind – every mind – uses unsound
arguments and intellectual “tricks” to further its ends. When we look closely at human decisions
and human behavior, we can easily see that what counts in human life is not who is right, but
who is winning. Those who possess power in the form of wealth, property, and weaponry are
those who decide what truths will be trumpeted around the world and what truths will be
ridiculed, silenced, or suppressed. The mass media of the world generate an unending glut of
messages that continually sacrifice truth to “spin.” When we reach beneath the surface of things,
we find a world in which the word ‘communication’ and the word ‘manipulation’ collapse into
virtual synonyms. Students need seminal insights and intellectual tools that enable them to
protect themselves from becoming intellectual victims in a world of swarming media piranhas,
or, just as bad, from joining the swarm as a junior piranha in training. Insights and tools,
grounded in intellectual integrity, should be the ultimate aim of the study of “fallacies.” They
have been our aim in this guide.
Richard Paul Center for Critical Thinking © 2006 Foundation for Critical Thinking
Linda Elder Foundation for Critical Thinking www.criticalthinking.org
Manipulation
Contents Truth and Deception in the Human Mind ..............................................3 Uncritical

Persons (intellectually unskilled thinkers) ..........................3–4 Skilled Manipulators (weak-sense
critical thinkers) ...........................4–5 Fair-Minded Critical Persons (strong-sense critical
thinkers) .............5–6 The Concept of Fallacies of Thought...................................................6–7
Naming Fallacies ...................................................................................7–8 Mistakes Versus
Fallacies ..........................................................................8 There is No Exhaustive List of
Fallacies .............................................9–10 Faulty
Generalizations ......................................................................10–12 Analyzing
Generalizations ...............................................................13–15 Post Hoc
Generalizations .......................................................................16 Analogies and
Metaphors ...............................................................16–18 44 Foul Ways to Win an
Argument .................................................19–38 Accuse Your Opponent of Doing What He is
Accusing You of or
worse....................................................................................................................20 Accuse Him of
Sliding Down A Slippery Slope (that leads to
disaster).............................................................................................20 Appeal to
Authority...............................................................................................20–21 Appeal to
Experience...................................................................................................21 Appeal to
Fear..............................................................................................................21 Appeal to Pity (or
sympathy).................................................................................21–22 Appeal to Popular
Passions .........................................................................................22 Appeal to Tradition or Faith
(“the tried and true”)............................................22–23 Assume a Posture of
Righteousness ...........................................................................23 Attack the person (and not the
argument) ...............................................................23 Beg the
Question .........................................................................................................24 Call For Perfection
(Demand impossible conditions).................................................24 Create a False Dilemma (the
Great Either/Or) ...........................................................25 Devise Analogies (and Metaphors) That
Support Your View (even if they are misleading or “false”) ..............................................25
Question Your Opponent’s Conclusions .....................................................................26 Create
Misgivings: Where There’s Smoke, There’s Fire .......................................26–27 Create A Straw
Man...............................................................................................27–28 Deny or Defend Your
Inconsistencies .........................................................................28 Demonize His Side Sanitize Yours
.........................................................................28–29 © 2006 Foundation for Critical Thinking
www.criticalthinking.org
FREE DOWNLOAD COPY 2
The Thinker’s Guide to Fallacies: The Art of Mental Trickery and Manipulation
Evade Questions, Gracefully........................................................................................29 Flatter

Your Audience..................................................................................................29 Hedge What You
Say ...................................................................................................29 Ignore the
Evidence ....................................................................................................30 Ignore the Main Point
.................................................................................................30 Attack Evidence (That
Undermines Your Case)..........................................................30 Insist Loudly on a Minor
Point ..............................................................................30–31 Use the Hard-Cruel-World
Argument (to justify doing what is usually considered
unethical). ...................................................................31 Make (Sweeping) Glittering
Generalizations.............................................................31 Make Much of Any Inconsistencies in
Your Opponent’s Position ............................32 Make Your Opponent Look Ridiculous (“Lost in the
Laugh”)..................................32 Oversimplify the
Issue..................................................................................................32 Raise Nothing But
Objections .....................................................................................32 Rewrite History (Have It Your
Way) ............................................................................33 Seek Your Vested
Interests ..........................................................................................33 Shift the
Ground ..........................................................................................................33 Shift the Burden of
Proof ......................................................................................33–34 Spin, Spin,
Spin.............................................................................................................34 Talk in Vague
Generalities. ....................................................................................34–35 Talk Double
Talk...........................................................................................................35 Tell Big
Lies ...................................................................................................................36 Treat Abstract
Words and Symbols As If They Were Real Things.............................36 Throw In A Red Herring (or
two)................................................................................37 Throw in Some
Statistics..............................................................................................37 Use Double Standards
(whenever you can) ...............................................................37
44 Foul Ways to Win an Argument (Chart) ..........................................38 Fallacy Detection:

Analyzing a Speech from the Past ....................39–44 Fallacy Detection: Analyzing a Current
Presidential Speech .........45–50 Fallacy Detection: Analyzing a Speech from a Presidential
Candidate ...............................................................50–53 Avoid Two
Extremes: .......................................................................53–54 1) Finding Fallacies Only in the
Thinking of Others (None in Yourself), and 2) Finding an Equal Number of Fallacies in Everything
you Read. Conclusion: Fallacies in An Ideal (And in a Real) World ...............54–55 © 2006
Foundation for Critical Thinking
Manipulation
Truth and Deception in the Human Mind The human mind is a marvelous set of structures and
systems. It is a center of consciousness and action. It forms a unique identity. It creates a view of
the world. Rich experience emerges from its interactions with the world. It thinks. It feels. It
wants. It apprehends truths and suppresses errors. It achieves insights and fabricates prejudices.
Both useful truths and harmful misconceptions are its intermixed products. It can as easily
believe what is false as what is true. It can see beauty in right conduct and justify what is
flagrantly unethical. It can love and hate. It can be kind and cruel. It can advance knowledge or
error. It can be intellectually humble or intellectually arrogant. It can be empathic or narrow-
minded. It can be open or closed. It can achieve a permanent state of expanding knowledge or a
deadening state of narrowing ignorance. It both transcends the creatures of lessor ability and
insults their innocence and nobility by its self-deception and cruelty. How can humans create
within their own minds such an inconsistent amalgam of the rational and the irrational? The
answer is self-deception. In fact, perhaps the most accurate and useful definition of humans is
that of “the self-deceiving animal.” Deception, duplicity, sophistry, delusion, and hypocrisy are
foundational products of human nature in its “natural,” untutored state. Rather than reducing
these tendencies, most schooling and social influences redirect them, rendering them more
sophisticated, more artful, and more obscure. To exacerbate this problem, not only are humans
instinctively selfdeceptive, they are naturally sociocentric as well. Every culture and society sees
itself as special and as justified in all of its basic beliefs and practices, in all its values and taboos.
The arbitrary nature of its folkways is known to its anthropologists (if it has any), but not to its
overwhelming majority.
Uncritical Persons (intellectually unskilled thinkers) The over-whelming preponderance of people

have not freely decided what to believe, but, rather, have been socially conditioned
(indoctrinated) into their beliefs. They are unreflective thinkers. Their minds are products of
social and personal forces they neither understand, control, nor concern themselves with. Their
personal beliefs are often based in prejudices. Their thinking is largely comprised of stereotypes,
caricatures, oversimplifications, sweeping generalizations, illusions, delusions, rationalizations,
false dilemmas, and begged questions. Their motivations are often traceable to irrational fears
and attachments, personal vanity and envy, intellectual arrogance and simple-mindedness.
These constructs have become a part of their identity. Such persons are focused on what
immediately affects them. They see the © 2006 Foundation for Critical Thinking
world through ethnocentric and nationalistic eyes. They stereotype people from other cultures.
When their beliefs are questioned — however unjustified those beliefs may be — they feel
personally attacked. When they feel threatened, they typically revert to infantile thinking and
emotional counter attacks. When their prejudices are questioned, they often feel offended and
stereotype the questioner as “intolerant” and “prejudiced.” They rely on sweeping
generalizations to support their beliefs. They resent being “corrected,” disagreed with, or
criticized. They want to be re-enforced, flattered, and made to feel important. They want to be
presented with a simple-minded, black-and-white, world. They have little or no understanding of
nuances, fine distinctions, or subtle points. They want to be told who is evil and who is good.
They see themselves as “good.” They see their enemies as “evil.” They want all problems to
admit to a simple solution and the solution to be one they are familiar with — for example,
punishing those who are evil by use of force and violence. Visual images are much more
powerful in their minds than abstract language. They are overly impressed by authority, power,
and celebrity. They are eminently ready to be directed and controlled, as long as those doing the
controlling flatter them and lead them to believe that their views are correct and insightful. The
mass media are structured to appeal to such persons. Subtle and complex issues are reduced to
simplistic formulas (“Get tough on crime! Three strikes and you’re out! Adult crime, adult time!
You are either for us or against us!”) Spin is everything; substance is irrelevant.
Skilled Manipulators (weak-sense critical thinke rs ) There is a much smaller group of people who
are skilled in the art of manipulation and control. These people are shrewdly focused on
pursuing their own interest without respect to how that pursuit affects others. Though they
share many of the characteristics of uncritical thinkers, they have qualities that separate them
from uncritical persons. They have greater command of the rhetoric of persuasion. They are
more sophisticated, more verbal, and generally have greater status. On average, they have more
schooling and achieve more success than uncritical persons. They typically acquire more power
and occupy positions of authority. They are accustomed to playing the dominant role in
relationships. They know how to use the established structure of power to advance their
interests. Since they are fundamentally concerned, not with advancing rational values, but with
getting what they want, they are careful to present themselves as sharing the values of those
they manipulate. Skilled manipulators are rarely insightful dissenters, rebels, or critics of society.
The reason is simple. They cannot effectively manipulate © 2006 Foundation for Critical Thinking
Manipulation
members of a mass audience if they appear to that mass to be invalidating their beliefs.
Manipulators do not use their intelligence for the public good. Rather they use it to get what
they want in alliance with those who share their vested interests. Manipulation, domination,
demagoguery, and control are their tools.1 Persons skilled in manipulation want to influence the
beliefs and behavior of others. And they have insight into what makes people vulnerable to
manipulation. As a result, they strive to appear before others in a way that associates
themselves with power, authority, and conventional morality. This impetus is evident, for
example, when politicians appear before mass audiences with well-polished, but intellectually
empty, speeches. There are a number of alternative labels for the roles that “manipulators” play,
including: the spin master, the con artist, the sophist, the propagandist, the indoctrinator, the
demagogue, and often, the “politician.” Their goal is always to control what others think and do
by controlling the way information is presented to them. They use “rational” means only when
such means can be used to create the appearance of objectivity and reasonability. The key is that
they are always trying to keep some information and some points of view from being given a fair
hearing.
Fair-Minded Critical Persons (strong-sense critical thinkers) Finally, there is an even smaller group
of people who, though intellectually skilled, do not want to manipulate and control others.
These are the people who combine critical thought, fair-mindedness, self-insight, and a genuine
desire to serve the public good. They are sophisticated enough to recognize how self-serving
people use their knowledge of human nature and command of rhetoric to pursue selfish ends.
They are acutely aware of the phenomenon of mass society and of the machinery of mass
persuasion and social control. Consequently, they are too insightful to be manipulated and too
ethical to enjoy manipulating others. They have a vision of a better, more ethical, world, which
includes a realistic knowledge of how far we are from that world. They are practical in their
effort to encourage movement from “what is” to “what might be.” They gain this insight by
struggling with their own egocentric nature and coming to see (in deeper and deeper ways) their
own involvement in irrational processes. No one becomes a fair-minded thinker first and a selfish
person later. 1 A demogogue is never a true critic of society but a sophist, for he/she “tries to stir
up the
people by appeals to emotion, prejudice, etc. in order to win them over quickly and so gain
power.” (Webster’s New World Dictionary). © 2006 Foundation for Critical Thinking
Selfish thinking is instinctive. It is an in-born state. We are all initially focused on ourselves: our
own pain, desires, concerns. In the first instance, we pay attention to the needs of others only to
the extent that we are forced to do so. Only through a commitment to our own intellectual and
ethical development can we develop the intellectual traits characteristic of fair-mindedness. The
key is that fair-minded people consistently strive to achieve the widest, most informed
viewpoint. Fair-minded persons want no point of view to be suppressed. They want public
discussion to include equal coverage of dissenting as well as dominant points of view. They want
people to learn how to detect when someone is trying to manipulate them into believing or
doing what they would not believe or do had they access to more information or further
reasoning from dissenting points of view. They want everyone to see-through the “dirty tricks” of
manipulative persuasion. They want to publicly disclose situations in which people of wealth and
power are manipulating people with little wealth and power. They want to help people recognize
how the wealthy and powerful often prey on the credulity, gullibility, and vulnerability of the
poor or poorly schooled. It should be noted that those we call the “manipulators” are often the
victims of their own propaganda and devices. Caught up in their own propaganda and
narrowness of vision, they sometimes fail as a result. Many businesses fail because of their
inability to critique their own illusions. Nations often fail to act successfully because their leaders
are caught up in their own unrealistic descriptions of the world (and of their enemies).
Manipulators are not usually grand conspirators. Their one-sidedness is obvious only to those
who can appreciate the difference between “selfserving” and “fair-minded” thinking. Only those
capable of self-critique and self-insight can accurately assess the extent to which they are
involved in the social, psychological, and intellectual manipulation of others.
The Concept of Fallacies of Thought The meanings of the word, “fallacy” found in the The word
‘fallacy’ Oxford English Dictionary are: 1. Deception, guile, trickery, trick. derives from two 2.
Deceptiveness, aptness to mislead, unreliability. Latin words, fallax 3. A deceptive or misleading
argument, a (“deceptive”) and sophism. In Logic esp. a flaw, material or fallere (“to deceive”)
formal, which vitiates a syllogism. Also, sophistical reasoning, sophistry. 4. A delusive notion, an
error, esp. one founded on false reasoning. Also, the condition of being deceived, error. 5.
Sophistical nature, unsoundness (of arguments); erroneousness, delusion. To be a human thinker
is often to be a “self-deceived” thinker and hence a “fallacious” thinker. However, to think of
ourselves as believing what is false (or as defending and justifying prejudices, © 2006
Manipulation
stereotypes, and misconceptions) is a painful thought. The human mind has developed ways to
protect itself from that pain. These ways have been labeled by psychologists as “defense
mechanisms.” They deny or distort reality. Their use is not deliberate and conscious, but
unpremeditated and subconscious. They include repression, projection, denial, rationalization,
and stereotyping.
Naming Fallacies The philosopher Schopenhauer, in commenting on tricks of persuasion, once

remarked:
It would be a very good thing if every trick could receive some short and obviously appropriate
name, so that when a man used this or that particular trick, he could at once be reproved for it.
Unfortunately, there are an unlimited number of maneuvers one can make in camouflaging poor
reasoning, making bad thinking look good, and obscuring what is really going on in a situation.
Furthermore, most people are resistant to recognizing poor reasoning when it supports what
they intensely believe. It is as if people subconsciously accept the premise “all is fair in the
scramble for power, wealth, and status.” Any argument, any consideration, any mental maneuver
or construction that validates emotionally-charged beliefs seems to the believer to be justified.
The more intense the belief, the less likely that reason and evidence can dislodge it. Most people
deeply believe in — but are unaware of — the following premises: 1) IT’S TRUE IF I BELIEVE IT. 2)
IT’S TRUE IF WE BELIEVE IT. 3) IT’S TRUE IF I WANT TO BELIEVE IT. 4) IT’S TRUE IF IT SERVES MY
VESTED INTEREST TO BELIEVE IT. The human mind is often myopic, inflexible, and conformist,
while at the same time highly skilled in self-deception and rationalization. People are by nature
highly egocentric, highly sociocentric, and wantonly self-interested. Their goal is not truth but
advantage. They have not acquired their beliefs through a rational process. They are highly
resistant to rational critique. Blind faith, fear, prejudice, and self-interest are primary organizers
of much human thinking. Self-delusion, in conjunction with lack of self-command, characterize
much human thinking. A highly compromised integrity is the result. If you point out a mistake in
thinking to most persons, you may silence them momentarily. But most, like rubber bands that
have momentarily been stretched and let go, will soon revert to whatever it was they believed in
the first place.
© 2006 Foundation for Critical Thinking

It is for this reason that cultivation of intellectual virtues is so crucial to human development.
Without a long-term transformation of the mind, little can be done to produce deeply honest
thought. When challenged, the human mind operates from its most primitive intellectual
instincts. This can be verified in the history of politics, economics, religion, and war — indeed in
any history that deeply plumbs the human mind in action. Consequently, it is important to learn
to recognize the most common tricks of persuasion, that we might better understand ourselves
and others. Used on others, fallacies are intellectually indefensible tricks of persuasion and
manipulation; used on ourselves, they are instruments of self-deception. In this guide we
concentrate on the most common and flagrant intellectual tricks and snares. Sometimes these
tricks are “counterfeits” of good thinking. For example, a false dilemma is the counterfeit of a
true dilemma. We shall see this most obviously in dealing with errors of generalization and
comparison.
Mistakes Versus Fallacies “What about mistakes?” you might ask. Isn’t it possible that some of
the time we commit fallacies inadvertently, unintentionally, and innocently? The answer is, of
course, yes. Sometimes people make mistakes without any intention of tricking anyone. The test
to determine whether someone is merely making a mistake in thinking is relatively simple. After
the mistake is pointed out to the person, and the person is explicitly faced with the problems in
the thinking, observe to see whether he or she honestly changes. In other words, once the
pressure to change is removed, does the person revert to the original fallacious way of thinking,
or does he demonstrate that he has truly been persuaded (and modified his thinking
accordingly)? If the person reverts, or invents a new rationalization for his behavior, we can
conclude that the person was using the fallacy to gain an advantage and not making a simple
mistake.
Manipulation
There is No Exhaustive List of Fallacies It is not possible to create an exclusive and exhaustive list
of fallacies. The intellectual tricks, traps, and snares humans so commonly engage in (or fall prey
to) can be described from many differing standpoints and in a variety of differing terms. In this
guide, we deal only with those most common or most easily recognized. There is nothing sacred
about our list or our analysis. Here is a list of common problems in human thinking. See if you
can add to this list. It is common for people (in their thinking) to: ■
be unclear, muddled, or confused
come to unreasonable conclusions
jump to conclusions
fail to notice their assumptions
fail to think-through implications
make unjustified assumptions
miss key ideas
lose track of their goal
use irrelevant ideas
■
be unrealistic
form confused ideas
focus on the trivial
form superficial concepts
fail to notice contradictions
misuse words
use inaccurate information in their thinking
ignore relevant viewpoints
fail to see issues from points of view other than their own
ask vague questions
■
give vague answers
confuse issues of different types
ask loaded questions
lack insight into their prejudices
ask irrelevant questions
think narrowly
confuse questions of different types
think imprecisely
think illogically
think one-sidedly
think simplistically
■
think hypocritically
think superficially
think ethnocentrically
think egocentrically
think irrationally
be incompetent at problem solving
make poor decisions
lack insight into their own ignorance
■
answer questions they are not competent to answer come to conclusions based on inaccurate or
irrelevant information use only the information that supports their view make inferences not
justified by their experience
distort data and represent it inaccurately
fail to notice the inferences they make
Few of these flaws fall neatly under traditional fallacy labels. Nevertheless, it is useful to have
some sense of what the common fallacies are and of how to distinguish them from sound
reasoning. All fallacies result from an abuse of a way of thinking that is sometimes justified. For
example, generalization is one of the most important acts of human thinking. Making
comparisons by analogy and metaphor is another. As we begin to focus on fallacies, we will
begin with a detailed emphasis on generalizations and comparisons (and the errors of thought
that emerge from their misuse). We will then focus in detail on some of the most widely used
fallacies. We do not have the space to approach all fallacies in this same detailed way. In total,
we focus on 44 fallacies (which we introduce as “44 Foul Ways to Win an Argument”). We view
these fallacies as unethical strategies for winning arguments and manipulating people. They are
the “dirty tricks” of intellectual life. Those who use them with success are able to do so precisely
because, at some level, they deceive themselves into believing that their reasoning is sound.
Faulty Generalizations As humans, we live in a world of abstractions and generalizations. All

words that name or characterize what we think about are products of the mental act of
generalizing.2 But as semanticists rightly remind us: “cow 1 is not cow 2 is not cow 3.” Each and
every existing thing is unique. Bishop Butler put this point in a memorable way in remarking,
“Everything is itself and not another.” 2 For example, when we call a person a “woman” we
abstract from everything that is individual
and personal about her and focus on what she has in common with everyone else of her gender.
A parallel point can be made about virtually every word. The point is that we cannot live a
human life except with the tools of (linguistic) abstraction. They enable us to do virtually all
uniquely human activities. So, being indispensable, abstractions can’t be all bad in and of
themselves. The function of generalizations is quite simple. Without generalizations we could
not explain anything. Things would occur around us for no reason that we could fathom. We
would stand around in a stupor, unable to relate anything to anything else, for a generalization is
simply a way to take some set of things (that we don’t understand) and compare them with
something we do understand by means of some “abstract” words. How does critical thinking
help us with the forming of generalizations and abstractions? Again, the answer is quite simple.
Critical thinking enables us to take command of the abstractions we create in our own minds,
the generalizations we make about the world, and therefore, ultimately, the quality of our
reasoning. So why, then, do so many people mishandle abstractions and misuse generalizations?
Once again, the answer is simple. Having very little understanding of them, most people are
uncomfortable with abstractions. They don’t understand reasoning. The whole notion of things
intellectual is really–if truth be told–pretty much of a puzzle to them. Without critical thinking
skills, one doesn’t know how to form reasonable and useful abstractions and generalizations.
One does not know how to bring them alive in the mind or apply them with discipline in the
world. © 2006 Foundation for Critical Thinking
Manipulation
11
Despite the uniqueness of things, the words we use in categorizing what we experience glosses
over uniqueness and concentrates on similarities or differences (in general). As such, we talk in
general terms about tables, chairs, cows, crows, people, poems, and social movements. Despite
the fact that there are useful things we can say about individual tables, chairs, cows, crows,
people, poems, and social movements, we are nevertheless forced to “generalize” in countless
ways. We talk in general terms about nearly everything that interests us: life and death, love and
hate, success and failure, war and peace. We should be careful, therefore, not to triumph in a
discussion by saying “THAT IS A GENERALIZATION!” (and therefore “automatically” faulty). We
must remember that generalizing is integral to the foundations of communication. It enables us
to construct the concepts through which we conduct all our thinking.3 For a particular
generalization to be a “fallacy,” it must be based either on too few instances or unrepresentative
ones. For example, if we meet three amusing Italians while on a visit to Rome, we are not
justified in making the generalization that all or most Italians are amusing (there is no reason to
think that the three we met were representative of all or most Italians). On the other hand,
determining whether a generalization is justified is not merely a matter of counting instances.
For example, if you touch a hot stove and burn your hand, one instance should be enough to
convince you of the wisdom of the generalization, “Never touch a hot stove with your bare
hand.” On the basis of very few experiences you would be justified in making the even wider
generalization, “Never touch extremely hot objects with your naked flesh.” Well, then, how can
we ensure that we are making justifiable generalizations? The answer is that we need to make
sure we have sufficient evidence to justify our generalizations. For example, the more diverse the
group we are generalizing about, the harder it is to generalize in a justifiable way about it. Thus,
it is easier to make generalizations about frogs (given the consistency in frog behavior) than it is
about domesticated dogs (whose behavior varies more, from dog to dog and dog species to dog
species). In a like manner, it is easier to generalize about domesticated dogs than it is about
humans (whose behavior varies along many parameters). Humans behavior is highly diverse.
Consider yourself as an example. You were born into a culture (European, American, African,
Asian). You were born at some point in time (in some century in some year). You were born in
some place (in the country, in the city, in the North or South, East or West). You were raised by
parents with particular beliefs (about the family, personal relationships, marriage, childhood,
obedience, religion, politics, 3 As an exercise you might re-read this paragraph noting as you go
how many general ideas are
in it, each with a range of generalizations behind them. You might also notice that in this section
of the text, we are making generalizations about generalizations. © 2006 Foundation for Critical
Thinking
schooling, etc.). You came to the world with certain predispositions that influenced your
development as you interacted with your environment. You formed various associations, largely
based on who was around you, associations with people who had distinct viewpoints, values,
and who adhered to certain taboos. Because of all of these influences, you are a complex and
unique individual. One should therefore be cautious in forming generalizations about you, just as
you should be cautious in forming generalizations regarding others. This does not mean of
course that there are no important generalizations we can make about humans. For example,
there are features we share with all other humans. For instance, given what we know about the
human mind we can make the following generalizations: 1. It is essential for our intellectual
growth that we come to know the scope and limits of our intellectual capacities. 2. Most people
do not recognize their tendency to think egocentrically and ethnocentrically. 3. Most people
resist understanding the implications of their social conditioning and the ethnocentrism inherent
in it. One important series of studies, the Milgram Experiments,4 document the human
tendency to conform (uncritically) to the commands of authority figures, even when those
authority figures have no power to punish or compel them to conform and even when the
authority figures are asking them to do what they know to be “unethical.” Another series of
studies of the “mutual images of the enemy,” document a striking intellectual disability of
humans. It occurs when groups come in conflict with each other for the same goal. Each side to
the conflict then attributes the same virtues to itself and the same vices to the enemy. WE are
“trustworthy, peace-loving, honorable, and humanitarian.” THEY (our enemies) are “treacherous,
warlike, and cruel.”5 We can readily find examples of this phenomenon in the daily news, which
is filled with positive characterizations of “our side” and caricatures of those who oppose us.
Self-aggrandizing generalizations that feed the human ego are always welcome and easily
“believed.” Negative generalizations of those who oppose us are also welcome, as easily
believed, and for similar reasons. As social animals we do not want to face our fear and distrust
of members of groups we oppose. We avoid facing the fact that we are very much like the
people we hate and fear. The pain, the suffering, the waste of resources that result from acting
on the thinking we generate egocentrically and sociocentrically, boggles the mind. 4 See studies
by Stanley Milgram at www.stanleymilgram.com 5 See studies by Jerome K. Frank, et al,
www.globalcommunity.org
Manipulation
13
Analyzing Generalizations If we are to aspire to reasonability, we must be willing to question our

own generalizations as well as the generalizations of others. We must be willing to strip the
labels off of the objects of our experience and ask ourselves (again and again), “What do we
really know about this or that or that other?” Traditionally, faulty generalizations have been
labeled either “hasty” or “unrepresentative.” We boil these labels down to two pieces of advice:
first, begin to recognize when generalizations are being made; and second, determine whether
the generalization is supported by sufficient evidence to justify it. In other words, make sure you
have taken the time to accumulate enough facts to support the generalization, and make sure
the evidence you have is “representative” of the full range of relevant information. Qualify your
generalization whenever necessary (most, many, some, a few, rather than “all”). Remember that
you are a human and speak a human language and that the language you speak is shot-through
with generalizations and abstractions. Try to develop the ability to strip off whatever language
you are inclined to use in “interpreting” the facts inherent in your experience (i.e., confine
yourself to the statement of specific facts without putting a “spin” on those facts). See whether
you can be more accurate, precise and less biased in your descriptions by reducing your
interpretive generalizations to a minimum. Consider now the following examples of
generalizations commonly made by people, some of which are reasonable, others not:
EXAMPLE: “Yesterday I met the most remarkable person. He/she is kind, considerate, sensitive,
and thoughtful.” COMMENT: Generalizations about the character of a person after just one day
with them are rarely justifiable. EXAMPLE: “Well aren’t you going to stand up for our country? I
thought you were a patriot.” COMMENT: The suppressed generalization here is : one should
never criticize one’s country, because such criticism is inconsistent with loyalty. By the way,
people who unconsciously make this (political) generalization often make a similar one about
love between humans: “If you really loved me you wouldn’t criticize me.” Both generalizations
ignore the fact that reasonable critique is a necessary and healthy element of creating a better
world. Many of our greatest critics have also been our greatest patriots. Tom Paine is a case in
point.
EXAMPLE: “Why do you always have to be so critical? Can’t you just be human for once?”
COMMENT: Besides the fact that “so critical” is overly vague, we have the suppressed (and
absurd) generalization that critique is “inhuman.” Note also the suppressed generalization that
you are “always” critical. That you are sometimes critical is probable; that you are often critical is
possible, but that you are always critical is highly unlikely. EXAMPLE: “No, I’m not a rational
person. I have FEELINGS!” COMMENT: These statements imply that being reasonable and having
feelings are incompatible. Not so. A reasonable person can have feelings as intense as those of
an irrational person. The difference is that the emotional responses of a reasonable person make
sense. They “fit” the circumstances. A reasonable person is more integrated, lives fewer
contradictions, has greater insight. For a rational person, the consistency between thought,
feeling, and desire lays a foundation for intensity and commitment. The generalization that being
reasonable and having feelings are incompatible is based on a stereotype, not an insight.
EXAMPLE: “Let’s face it. The answer is LOVE. That’s the only way to create a better world.”
COMMENT: If everyone loved everyone else, no doubt we would have a better world. But how is
all this love to be produced in a world shot-through with greed, violence, selfishness, and cruelty,
all of which result from innate egocentricity and ethnocentricity? How could we change people’s
thinking so as to bring about this massive outpouring of love? The notion that LOVE is the
answer is a not very helpful generalization. It needs to be qualified in a multitude of ways.
EXAMPLE: “The money we are spending to save lives by preventing bioterrorism makes little
sense when compared with what it would cost to save lives through other means. We spend
hundreds of billions to save lives that might be at risk while we allow hundreds of people to die
every day on the home front. According to the Institute of Medicine some 18,000 people die
prematurely every year as a result of being uninsured. That’s six 9/11s.” (This example was
adapted from an article in the San Francisco Chronicle, April 27, 2003). COMMENT: If the facts
asserted are correct, the reasoning in this example makes an important point. The generalization
implicit here seems justifiable — that money spent to save lives should be spent where it will do
the most good. © 2006 Foundation for Critical Thinking
Manipulation
15
EXAMPLE: “There is enough food produced in the world to feed everyone. Why do I say so?
Here’s why: World production of grain alone is over 1.5 billion tons, enough to supply the entire
world population with two pounds of grain per day. This, with the current production of
vegetables, fruits, nuts, and meat, is enough to supply each man, woman, and child with 3000
calories a day — equal to the consumption of an average American.” COMMENT: If the facts
asserted are correct, the reasoning makes an important point. The generalization, that there is
enough food produced in the world to feed everyone, is plausible. EXAMPLE: “Hunger is the
result of overpopulation, if people had fewer children they would not be hungry.” COMMENT: In
assessing this statement, let us consider some relevant facts. According to The Institute for Food
and Development Policy (www.foodfirst.org), overpopulation is not the cause of hunger. It is
usually the other way around: hunger is one of the real causes of overpopulation. The more
children a poor family has, the more likely some will survive to work in the fields or in the city to
add to the family’s small income and later, to care for the parents in their old age. High birth
rates are symptoms of the failures of a social system — inadequate family income, nutrition,
education, health care and oldage security. If the facts asserted in this re p o rt are correct, the
generalization is not justified. In examining generalizations make sure you understand precisely
what is being said. For example, if someone comments on the importance of loving the country,
one would do well to spend some time spelling out what precisely is and is not implied by the
expression. For example, what exactly is it that one is supposed to love: the land, the weather,
the ideals, the mass media, hollywood movies, the criminal justice system, the medical system,
puritanical attitudes, the politicians, the laws that have been passed, the wealth, the military, the
foreign policy? Once one is clear about what a generalization is saying (and not saying), it is
important to determine the information and evidence that would be required to justify it.
Moreover, as we have said mentioned before, it is important to minimize faulty generalizations
by carefully using qualifiers like “most,” “some,” and “a few.” Remember these rules: ■ Don’t say
all when you mean most. ■
Don’t say most when you mean some.

■
Don’t say some when you mean a few.
And don’t say a few when you mean just one.
Post Hoc Generalizations “Post hoc ergo propter hoc” is a Latin phrase for a well-known mistake
in generalizing. It literally means “After that therefore caused by it.” It refers to the mistake of
inferring that something that came before something else must necessarily have caused it. Here
is an obvious example of it. “Yesterday I got a stomach ache after doing algebra. I will avoid
doing algebra in the future.” Here is another: “Yesterday my son was in a car crash. Right before
it happened, I had a feeling something bad was going to happen. This proves that you can hurt
the people you love by thinking negative thoughts about them.” The fact is that before any given
event happens, other things happen, usually many, many things. That does not mean that all of
these earlier events caused what came afterwards. Monday comes before Tuesday, but does not
cause it. Summer comes before Fall, but does not cause it. I put on my shoes before I eat my
breakfast, but putting on my shoes does not cause me to eat my breakfast. EXAMPLE: The last
time we had a major strike of teachers, a student died in a fight. That just shows you the
irresponsibility of teachers striking. COMMENT: Sorry, but no causal connection has been
established. The mere fact that the strike occurred prior to the fight is no good reason to
consider it a cause. EXAMPLE: “Last time I had dinner at Jack’s house, I had a bad stomach ache
the very next day. The food at Jack’s house must have been bad.” COMMENT: I’m afraid we must
decline this “post hoc” generalization about the nature of the food at Jack’s house. There are
many other possible causes of the stomach ache in question. You could check and see whether
the other people who ate at Jack’s house also got sick.
Analogies and Metaphors We seek to understand new experiences and phenomena by likening
them to what we already understand. When we explicitly recognize that the similarity is only
partial, we should recognize that we are speaking analogically or metaphorically. The basic
difference between an analogy and a metaphor is simple. When we put the work ‘like’ in our
description, we create an analogy (He is LIKE a rat). When we omit the word ‘like’ we create a
metaphor (He IS a rat.). Analogies and metaphors help us make sense of the world. We often
explain something by comparing it (point by point) with something similar. Metaphors and
analogies provide provisional models for understanding what we don’t yet “literally” understand.
Manipulation
17
There are, in any case, three kinds of statements: literal statements, analogical statements, and
metaphorical statements. There are many tree stumps in this forest (literal). A tree stump is like
a chair in the forest (analogical). Every tree stump in this forest, and there are thousands, is a
tribute to the power of the lumber industry and a testament to its indifference to ecology
(metaphorical). Let us now move to some examples of analogies or metaphors. Both are used to
make sense of things. Let us consider how “useful” or “illuminating” each attempt is. In some
cases, we will need to clarify the statement and context before evaluating it. EXAMPLE: “Life is
like a beautiful and winding lane, on either side bright flowers, beautiful butterflies and tempting
fruits, which we scarcely pause to admire and taste, so eager are we to hasten to an opening
which we imagine will be more beautiful still.” G.A. Sala COMMENT: What do you think? Each of
us must consult our own experience to decide how useful this analogy is. EXAMPLE: Life is the
childhood of our immortality. — Goethe COMMENT; This analogy assumes the existence of God
and the soul. If you grant that assumption, then the analogy holds. If you don’t, then it doesn’t.
EXAMPLE: “Common sense does not ask an impossible chessboard, but takes the one before it
and plays the game.” Wendell Phillips COMMENT: The point behind this metaphor is that rather
than trying to make the impossible happen, we should deal with the inescapable realities of our
lives. Can anyone argue with that? Perhaps not, but there may be much argument about what is
actually impossible and what inescapable. EXAMPLE: “The question is, are you going to stand up
for your country or not?” COMMENT: What does “stand up” mean? Why not “lie down” for your
country or “jump up and down” for it? The speaker is no doubt asking us to act patriotically, but
what does that mean? In one interpretation — ”my country right or wrong” — you defend your
country even when it is waging an unjust war. If you refuse to do so, you are labeled unpatriotic.
In another interpretation it is your duty to support your country in a war IF IT IS JUSTIFIED and to
oppose it if it is not. EXAMPLE: “War is the business of barbarians.” — Napoleon

COMMENT: It is too bad that Napoleon did not mean what he said. EXAMPLE: “The blood, and
only the blood, of the German people will determine our destiny.” — Adolph Hitler COMMENT: A
typical statement by one of the world’s most notorious sophists and demogogues: vague,
threatening, and misleading. A probable paraphrase might be: “Germany will win in any conflict
if Germans are willing to die to bring that about.” Another possible interpretation might be:
“Germany is the master race and racial characteristics are what determine who ultimately wins
or loses.” EXAMPLE: “The chief evil of war is more evil. War is the concentration of all human
crimes. Here is its distinguishing, accursed brand. Under its standard gather violence, malignity,
rage, fraud, perfidy, rapacity, and lust. If it only slew man, it would do little. It turns man into a
beast of prey.” — Channing COMMENT: Few people think of this metaphor when patriotic music
is playing and the troops are marching off to wage war. Do you agree or disagree with the
metaphor and/or the point behind our comment on it?
Manipulation
19
44 Foul Ways to Win an Argument If you want to become aware of how politicians, the news
media, the advertising industry, public relations experts, government officials and assorted
friends and enemies use the arts of manipulation and con artistry against you — enter their
point of view! Learn the art of intellectual dirty tricks so that, if necessary, you can out-think the
tricksters. First remember that those who strive to manipulate you always want something from
you: your money, your vote, your support, your time, your soul — something! But they also need
you to be unaware of what they are about. They always have something (often a lot) to hide. In
any case, their goal is not the use of sound evidence and valid reasoning. In every case, they
insult our intelligence by assuming that a manipulative trick will work on us, that we are not
insightful enough to see what they are doing. Your goal should be to recognize fallacies for what
they are — the dirty tricks of those who want to gain an advantage. Fallacies are therefore
stratagems for gaining influence, advantage, and power (over the sheep of society). You will
withstand their impact more effectively when you know these fallacies inside and out. When you
come to see how counterfeits of good reasoning pervade everyday life (and are the life blood of
the mass media) you are better able to resist their influence. When you are inoculated against
fallacies, your response to them is transformed. You ask key questions. You probe behind the
masks, the fronts, the fostered images, the impressive pomp and ceremony. You take charge of
your own mind and emotions. You become (increasingly) your own person. Let us now turn to
some of the most prominent fallacies used in thinking. As you read through these dirty tricks,
imagine yourself instructing unscrupulous persons in the art of manipulating the sheep of the
world. Imagine yourself in the “business” of seeking influence over others. You want to get their
vote, support, money or what have you. Something is at stake that you care about. You face
some opposition. You want to “win” the argument, gain the influence. And you don’t care (at
some level) what you have to do to achieve your goal. What can you do? Use any one or more of
the 44 foul ways to win an argument described in this section. If you don’t mind being
unscrupulous, you can manipulate and control the simple-minded. These foul ways work — even
with otherwise highly sophisticated persons. You can observe the practices of politicians (and
other propagandists) successfully using them everyday. And don’t worry about feeling guilty.
Your instinctive skill in self-deception will most likely keep you from noticing that you are doing
something unethical. Here is your battery of strategies for overcoming your conscience, 44 foul
ways to win an argument.
Dirty Trick # 1
Accuse Your Opponent of Doing What He is Accusing You of (or worse)6 This is sometimes called,
“Pointing to another wrong.” When under attack and having trouble defending themselves,
manipulators turn the tables. They accuse their opponent of doing what they are being accused
of. “You say that I don’t love you! I think it is you who does not love me!” Manipulators know
this is a good way to put their opponents on the defensive. You may want to up the ante by
accusing your opponent of doing something worse than what he is accusing you of. “How dare
you accuse me of being messy? When was the last time you even took a shower?”
Dirty Trick # 2
Accuse Him of Sliding Down A Slippery Slope (that leads to disaster) The slippery slope is used
when a person implies that if someone does one thing (A), it will inevitably lead to a domino
effect of negative things that, in the end will result in something terrible. In other words, “A” is
not so bad, but A leads to B and B leads to C and C is horrible! Imagine a mother lecturing her
teenage daughter: “OK, maybe there is nothing wrong with a kiss, but remember where kissing
leads and where that leads and that. Before you know it you’ll be the mother of an unwanted
baby! Your young life will be ruined forever!” Manipulators who use this argument conveniently
forget that many people walk carefully on slippery ground and don’t fall down.
Dirty Trick # 3
Appeal to Authority 7 Most people are in awe of those with power, celebrity, or status. In
addition, there are many sacred symbols (flags, religious images, sacred words, etc.) to which
people feel intense identification and loyalty. Though power, celebrity, and status rarely correlate
in any way with knowledge and insight, people are mesmerized by them. Demagogues that
successfully manipulate people know that most people are readily tricked in this way. So they
wrap themselves in the flag and associate themselves with power, celebrity, or status (in any way
they can). This includes looking for scientists and other “knowledgeable” persons to “support”
their views. Cigarette companies once hired scientists who were (in effect) prepared to say that
there was no PROOF that cigarettes caused lung cancer — though they knew (or should have
known) that the proof was there. Cigarette
6 Traditionally called “Tu Quoque” – literally, “you also” 7 Traditionally called “Argumentum ad
Verecundiam”
Manipulation
21
companies also founded “The American Tobacco Institute,” a body of researchers supposedly
seeking to discover the effects of smoking on health. In reality, the researchers were seeking to
defend the interests of the tobacco industry under the guise of scientific authority. They
deceived millions of people (and caused millions of deaths along the way). Naturally, they could
only do this by deceiving themselves into thinking that they were simply being scientifically
careful. And, of course, they made a lot of money in the process (which strongly influenced their
ability to deceive themselves).
Dirty Trick # 4
Appeal to Experience Skilled manipulators, con artists, and politicians often imply that they have
“experience” to back them up, even when their experiences are limited, or non-existent. They
know it is much harder for someone to deny what they say if they speak with the voice of
experience. Of course, they will sometimes come up against an opponent who has more
experience than they do. In that case, they attack their opponent’s experience — as not
representative, as biased, as limited, as distorted, or as subjective.
Dirty Trick # 5
Appeal to Fear Deep down, most people have a lot of fears - fear of death, disease, loss of love,
loss of attractiveness, loss of youth, loss of income, loss of security, rejection by others. The
unprincipled manipulators know that people tend to react primitively when any of these fears
are activated. Thus they represent themselves as having the ability to protect people against
these threats (even when they can’t). Distrust authorities who say that certain groups (or
people) are inherently dangerous. “Remember, these people are threatening our freedom, our
way of life, our homes, our property.” Politicians often use this strategy quite effectively to make
sure people line up behind governmental authority and do what the government — that is, what
politicians — want.
Dirty Trick # 6
Appeal to Pity (or sympathy) Manipulators know how to portray themselves (and their situation)
in such a way as to make people feel sorry for them or at least gain their sympathy, especially
when they don’t want to take responsibility for something they have done. Consider the student
who, when confronted with the fact that she hasn’t done her homework, whines, and says
something like, “You don’t understand how hard my life is. I have so much to do. It’s very hard
for me
to get my homework done. I’m not lucky like some students. Since my parents can’t afford to
send me to college, I have to work 30 hours a week to pay my own way. When I come home
from work, my roommate plays music until midnight so I can’t study. What am I supposed to do?
Give me a break!” Appeal to pity can also be used to defend someone the manipulator identifies
with, as in “Before you criticize the President, recognize that he has the hardest job in the world.
He must stay up late at night, worrying about our well being, trying to find a way to act in the
welfare of all of us. The fate (and weight) of the free world rests heavy on his shoulders. How
about some consideration for the poor man!” Use of this ploy enables the manipulator to divert
attention from those innocent people harmed by a presidential decision or policy.
Dirty Trick # 7
Appeal to Popular Passions8 Manipulators, and other masters of counterfeit, subterfuge, and
ruse are careful to present themselves as people who share the values and views of their
audience, especially the “sacred” beliefs of the audience. Everyone has some prejudices and
most people feel hatred toward something or someone. Masters of spin stir up prejudices,
hatred and irrational fears. They imply that they agree with the audience. They act as if they
share their views. They work to convince the audience that their opponent doesn’t hold sacred
the beliefs they hold sacred. There are many possible variations on this strategy. One has been
called the “Just Plain Folks Fallacy” in which the manipulator says or implies something like this:
“It’s good to be back in my home (city/state/country) and with people I can really trust. It’s great
to be with people who face things squarely, who use their common sense to get things done,
people who don’t believe in highfalutin ways of thinkin and actin.”
Dirty Trick # 8
Appeal to Tradition or Faith (“the tried and true”) This strategy is closely related to the previous
one, but emphasizes what seems to have passed the test of time. People are often enslaved by
the social customs and norms of their culture, as well as traditional beliefs. What is traditional
seems right. “This is the way we have always done things.” Manipulators imply that they hold
firm to what their audience is familiar and comfortable with. They imply that their opponent will
destroy these traditions and faith. They don’t worry about whether these traditions 8
traditionally called “Argumentum ad Populum”
Manipulation
23
harm innocent people (like the cruel customs and laws against Blacks before the Civil Rights
movement). They create the appearance of being independent in their views while the views
they “independently” reach just happen to coincide with those of the crowd. They know that
people are usually suspicious of those who go against present social norms and established
traditions. They know enough to avoid openly opposing the social customs to which people are
unconsciously (and slavishly) bound.
Dirty Trick # 9
Assume a Posture of Righteousness People begin with the deep-seated belief that they (their
nation, their religion, their motivation) is especially pure and ethical. We sometimes bungle
things, but we are always pure of heart. “We hold the highest ideals of any country. Of course,
we make mistakes and sometimes commit follies. But our intentions are always good. Unlike
others in the world we are innocent of guile. We are good hearted.” National and international
news (designed for national consumption) is always written with this premise in the background.
We may blunder, but we always intend to do the right thing. Manipulators take advantage of this
questionable premise by speaking and writing with such assumptions in the background. This
posture is related to the fallacy of begging the question and leads to question-begging epithets.
See “question begging.”
Dirty Trick # 10
Attack the person (and not the argument)9 When the opponent makes reasonable arguments,
manipulators ignore those arguments and instead find a way to personally attack the reasoner.
Name-calling (even mud slinging) often works (depending on how you do it). The spin artist
knows what a particular audience will reject and insinuates that his opponent supports those
terrible things. For example, the opponent might be labeled a communist or an atheist. Or it
might be said of him that he supports terrorism, or is soft on crime. This strategy is sometimes
called “poisoning the well.” It leads to the audience dismissing an opponent in a sweeping way
— no matter what the opponent says in his defense. Of course, the spin artist knows the
importance of correctly reading the audience to make sure that he doesn’t go too far. He realizes
that the more subtle he can be, the more effective his manipulation will be.
9 traditionally called “Argumentum ad Hominem”
Dirty Trick # 11
Beg the Question10 One easy way to prove a point is to assume it in the first place. Consider this
example:
“Well, what form of government do you want, a government by liberal do-gooders ready to
spend your hard-earned dollars or a government led by business minds that understand how to
live within a tight budget and generate jobs that put people to work?” This statement includes
the following assumptions that should not be taken for granted: 1. that a liberal government
would spend money unwisely. 2. that business people know how to live within a tight budget
and generate jobs that put people to work. One variation on this fallacy has been called
“question-begging epithets,” the use of words or phrases that prejudge an issue by the way the
issue is put. For example, “Shall we defend freedom and democracy or cave in to terrorism and
tyranny?” By putting the question in this way we avoid having to talk about uncomfortable
questions like: “But are we really advancing human freedom? Are we really spreading democracy
(or just extending our power, our control, our dominance, our access to foreign markets)?” Pay
close attention to the words people use when articulating the “facts” with respect to an issue.
They will often choose words that presuppose the correctness of their position on an issue.
Dirty Trick # 12
Call For Perfection (Demand impossible conditions) Your opponent wants you to agree to X, and
you realize you can’t argue against X without losing credit in the eyes of the audience. Fine,
agree to X, but only under the following conditions… “Yes, we do want a democracy, but only
when we can have a TRUE DEMOCRACY and that means this and that and that will have to be
changed before we consider it.” By making a maneuver of this kind, you divert the audience so
that they do not discover that, in fact, you have no intention whatsoever of allowing X to take
place. This is similar to dirty trick #32, raising “nothing but objections.”
10 traditionally called “Petitio Principii”
Manipulation
25
Dirty Trick # 13
Create a False Dilemma (the Great Either/Or) A true dilemma occurs when we are forced to
choose between two equally unsatisfactory alternatives. A false dilemma occurs when we are
persuaded that we have only two, equally unsatisfactory choices, when we really have more
than two possibilities available to us. Consider the following claim: “Either we are going to lose
the war on terrorism or we will have to give up some of our traditional freedoms and rights.”
People are often ready to accept a false dilemma because few feel comfortable with complexity
and nuanced distinctions. They like sweeping absolutes. They want clear and simple choices. So,
those skilled in manipulating people, face them with false dilemmas (one alternative of which is
the one the manipulator wants them to choose, the other alternative clearly unacceptable).
They present arguments in black or white form. For example, “You are either for us or against us.
You either support democracy and freedom or terrorism and tyranny.” They realize that only a
small minority of people will respond to such a false dilemma with the observation: “But these
are not our only choices. In between the extremes of A and Z are options B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K
…”
Dirty Trick # 14
Devise Analogies (and Metaphors) That Support Your View (even if they are misleading or
“false”). An analogy or metaphor is a comparison that is not literally true. Consider, “don’t you
think it is about time for us to SLAP DOWN those judges who are SOFT on crime!” Here the two
phrases in CAPS are used metaphorically. They are not literally intended. They are metaphors
attractive to many people whose information about the criminal justice system principally comes
from “cops and robbers” television shows and sensationalized stories in the mass media. To win
arguments, then, manipulators use comparisons that make them look good and their opponent
look bad: “You are treating me like my father used to treat me! He was so unfair, and so are you.”
Or, “The way you are treating me is like kicking a horse when he is down. Can’t you see I have
had a hard day?!” The analogies and metaphors that work depend in part on the prejudices and
beliefs of the audience. This means understanding the world view of the audience, as well as the
root metaphors underlying them. For example, if manipulators are trying to influence someone
with a religious world view, they are more likely to be successful using religious metaphors and
analogies. Of course, the skilled manipulator knows that when talking to a fundamentalist
Christian, it is a mistake to choose metaphors from the Koran.
Dirty Trick # 15
Question Your Opponent’s Conclusions The manipulator wants to lead the audience to accept his
conclusions. He wants the audience to reject the conclusions or interpretations of his opponent.
If he remembers the Latin phrase “non-sequitur” which means, literally, “It does not follow,” he
can accuse his opponent of being illogical and call into question his opponent’s reasoning. As
soon as his opponent asserts a conclusion, the manipulator can say: “Wait a minute. That does
not follow! Your conclusion does not follow from your premises. First you said “X” and now you
are saying “Y.” How did you get from X to Y? How can you justify such a leap? What you say is not
logical. You haven’t proven Y, only X.” Through this strategy, the manipulator can obscure any
legitimate points made by the opponent. At the same time, he himself will seem to be logical
and dispassionate.
Dirty Trick # 16
Create Misgivings: Where There’s Smoke, There’s Fire The manipulator knows that once serious
charges are made against a person, it may be difficult if not impossible for the accused to clear
away the suspicion that there must have been something to the charge. Lingering suspicions
may destroy a person’s chance to maintain his honor in the public eye. Rumors take on a life of
their own. This is therefore one of the foulest of the 44 foul ways to win an argument. During the
McCarthy era many families, friendships, and careers were destroyed, because of the power of
rumor and the “where there is smoke, there is fire” mentality. Senator McCarthy and his
Committee on UnAmerican Activities would drag people before a public tribunal and imply that
if they truly loved the country they would cooperate with the committee by giving them the
names of persons with left-leaning views. When their request was refused, a vast television
audience would draw the conclusion that the “uncooperative” citizens were communists and
therefore, “Un-American.” Most people who elected to challenge the Committee On Un-
American Activities lost their jobs; their families were ostracized; and their children mocked and
bullied at school. Most were blackballed and could no longer find employment in their
profession. Of course, this making of perverse charges can often be done off the record, in
private conversations. Once the rumor is launched, there is no need to do more. People love to
spread stories: “Of course, I don’t believe it, but did you know that there has been some talk of
Jack beating his wife and children? Ugly, isn’t it?”
Manipulation
27
When this trick is used by governmental officials, it is usually called spreading “disinformation”
(false charges that the government knows will be believed). For example, planting stories about
“atrocities” of one country (which never in fact occurred) is very effective for validating an
aggressive attack by another country. Hitler used this strategy effectively. The US government
has often spread disinformation — for example, to justify sending Marines into Central or South
American Countries to depose one government and put a more “friendly” government into
power. The fact that these stories will be discredited years later is of no consequence, of course,
to the fabricators of such stories. Disinformation often works. The discrediting of it is usually too
late to matter. Years later, people don’t seem to care. Since most people think in simplistic ways,
manipulators and politicians can often get them to reject someone simply by mentioning
something about the person that seems inappropriate or that goes against social conventions.
For example, “Kevin has already admittedly smoked marijuana. That tells us a lot about him!” Or,
“look at that teenage girl wearing that skimpy top. I guess we know what she is after.”
Dirty Trick # 17
Create A Straw Man Manipulators know the importance of making their opponents look bad.
Whatever the views of the opponent, a skilled spin master can make the opponent appear to
take another, far less believable, view. The trick of misrepresenting someone’s views to gain an
advantage is sometimes called creating a “strawman.” A “straw” man is literally not real, though
it may look like it is. A strawman argument, then, is a false or misleading representation of
someone’s reasoning. Suppose someone wanted to reform our criminal justice system (so that
fewer innocent people were wrongfully convicted and thrown into prison). His opponent may
well retort with the following strawman argument: “So I guess what you want is to free all
criminals and leave us even more threatened than we are now!” Of course, no one said or wants
that, so he is arguing against a “straw” man. By misrepresenting a person’s position and
presenting it in a form that people will reject, he successfully uses the “strawman” strategy. Of
course, in addition to misrepresenting the opponent’s argument, he can also claim that the
opponent is misrepresenting his. In this case, the spinmaster can then claim that it is the
opponent that is attacking a “strawman.” In any case, the manipulator wants to ensure that the
best representation of his reasoning is compared with the worse possible representation of his
opponent’s reasoning. Manipulators make their opponent look bad at the same time they make
their own case look good.
Imagine that an environmentalist makes the following argument: “Each of us must do our part to
reduce the amount of pollution we are creating on the planet. The automobile industry, for
example, needs to find alternative forms of fuel, cleaner forms of fuel. We need to move away
from gasoline as our primary automobile fuel source. Otherwise, our planet will needlessly
continue to suffer.” A manipulator who is seeking to discredit the environmentalist might
misrepresent him as follows: “What my opponent is really arguing for is more BIG
GOVERNMENT. He wants to take away your right to choose and give bureaucracy more and more
power over your life. Don’t let him get away with it.”
Dirty Trick # 18
Deny or Defend Inconsistencies Manipulators know one looks bad when appearing to be
inconsistent, saying one thing and doing another, or sometimes supporting X and sometimes
attacking it. When caught in a contradiction, the manipulator has two choices. He can either
deny that there is any contradiction at all (“I didn’t really say that!”) or he can admit the
contradiction and defend it as a justifiable change (“The world is changing and we must change
with it”). The fact is that human life and society are shot through with contradictions and
inconsistencies. Those who have the most integrity are those who admit to contradictions and
inconsistencies and work to minimize them. Manipulators work hard to cover them up.
Dirty Trick # 19
Demonize His Side, Sanitize Yours Most people are not sophisticated. To manipulate them into
accepting your side, systematically use “good” words to characterize it, while you systematically
use “negative” words to characterize your opponent. You believe in democracy, freedom,
stability, compromise, fairness, strength, peace, protection, security, civilization, human rights,
sovereignty, reformation, being open, defending the innocent, honor, God’s comfort, normalcy,
pride, independence, a mission, facing hardship, …Your opponent believes in tyranny,
suppression, conflict, terrorism, aggression, violence, subversion, barbarism, fanaticism, the
spread of chaos, attacking the innocent, extremism, dictatorship, plots, cunning, cruelty,
destruction. A variation on this strategy consists in sanitizing your motives, by explaining your
reasons to be “righteous.” “I am not motivated by profit or greed. I do not want to enhance my
power and influence. I don’t want to control and dominate. Certainly not. I want to spread the
cause of freedom, to share the good life, the blessings of democracy (bla, bla, bla).” You obscure
your real motives (that are often selfish and based on considerations of money and power) while
playing up motives that sound © 2006 Foundation for Critical Thinking
Manipulation
29
good and make you appear high-minded. This strategy is sometimes called “finding the good
reason” and includes the practice of giving “lip service” to high-minded principles (asserting
them loudly, while ignoring them in practice).
Dirty Trick # 20
Evade Questions, Gracefully Spin artists who face questions from an audience learn how to
predict most of the hard questions they will face and how to evade them, with skill and grace.
One way to evade a hard question is to answer it with a joke that deflects the question. Another
is to give a truistic answer (“How long will the troops have to remain in country X?” Answer: “As
long as it is necessary and not one day longer.”) A third is to give an answer so long and detailed
that you manage by the length of your answer to slide from one question (a hard one) to
another question (an easy one). Manipulators do not directly answer questions when direct
answers would get them into trouble or force them to accept a responsibility they want to avoid
facing. They learn to use vagueness, jokes, diversions, and truisms to their advantage.
Dirty Trick # 21
Flatter Your Audience “It’s good to be talking to an audience of people with good old fashion
common sense and real insights into our social problems.” “An intelligent person such as you will
not be taken in by…” People are always receptive to flattery. Sometimes, however, one has to be
subtle or the audience may suspect you of manipulating them. Most politicians are highly
proficient in the art of flattery. Their objective is to win over their audience. They want to lower
the defenses of their audience, to minimize any tendency they might have to think critically
about what is said.
Dirty Trick # 22
Hedge What You Say Manipulators often hide behind words, refusing to commit themselves or
give direct answers. This allows them to retreat if necessary. If caught leaving out important
information, they can then come up with some excuse for not being forthcoming in the first
place. Or, if closely questioned, they can qualify their position so that no one can prove them
wrong. In other words, when pressed, they hedge. To be an effective manipulator, you must be
an effective weasel. You must weasel out of your mistakes, cover up your errors, and guard what
you say whenever possible.
Dirty Trick # 23
Ignore the Evidence11 In order to avoid considering evidence that might cause them to change
their position, manipulators often ignore evidence. Usually they ignore the evidence in order to
avoid having to consider it in their own minds, because it threatens their belief system or vested
interests. Imagine a close-minded Christian questioning whether it is possible for an atheist to
live an ethical life (lacking the guidance of the bible). If such a person were confronted with
examples of atheists who have lived self-sacrificing, compassionate, lives, he would be
uncomfortable in his view. He would probably find a way to put the subject out of his mind to
avoid the implications of the evidence.
Dirty Trick # 24
Ignore the Main Point12 Manipulators know that if you can’t win a point, you should divert your
audience from it and focus on another point (a point not relevant to the original issue). Those
skilled in this practice know how to do it so that their audience doesn’t notice the shift.
Dirty Trick # 25
Attack Evidence (That Undermines Your Case) When a manipulator cannot successfully dodge
consideration of evidence that does not support his case, he often attacks that evidence. You can
see this in the U.S. government’s refusal to accept the fact that Iraq did not have a stockpile of
weapons of mass destruction (before it waged war against Iraq). The government had no hard
evidence to support its position that Iraq had the weapons, so it tried to manufacture the
evidence through flagrant stretches of the imagination. No evidence could convince the
government it was wrong (because it wasn’t willing to consider the fact that it might be wrong).
These dodges could also be covered under the fallacy of double standard.
Dirty Trick # 26
Insist Loudly on a Minor Point Manipulators know that a good way to distract most people (if it
looks like they are losing the argument) is to insist loudly on some minor point. Because most
people think superficially, few will notice that the point is minor, especially if they are
emotionally attached to it. Thus, for example, people often miss big issues when the media focus
loudly on small ones (as if they were big ones). The problem of malnutrition and s t a rvation in
the world is given little coverage in the media, except on special 11 traditionally called Apiorism
(invincible ignorance) 12 traditionally called “Ignoratio elenchu”
Manipulation
31
occasions (like during a drought or after a Hurricane). At the same time, the fact that a small
country is refusing to do what our government wants it to do is treated as an issue of great
significance (as if our government had a right to impose its will on other governments).
Dirty Trick # 27
Use the Hard-Cruel-World Argument (to justify doing what is usually considered unethical). We
often say that noble ends do not justify foul means, but do we believe it? When engaging in
unethical practices (like assassinations, forced detentions, and torture) government
spokespersons often use the “It’s a hard cruel world” argument in defense. When individuals or
countries gain a lot of power, they soon come to believe that they should be able to do pretty
much what they want to do. They do this by convincing themselves that their ends are always
noble and just, that the only negative things they do in the world are forced on them by evil
others who do not share their noble values. Manipulators, then, often win arguments by
insisting that they are being forced to use the means they deeply wish they could avoid, but,
alas, it is a hard cruel world. For example, “We don’t want war. We are forced into it.” “We don’t
want unemployment, but free enterprise demands it.” “If we give resources to people who
haven’t worked for them, they will become lazy and we will end up in a totalitarian communist
state.” “We don’t want the CIA to engage in assassination, torture, disinformation, or dirty tricks
of any kind, but, unfortunately, we are forced to use these tactics to defend freedom and
democracy in the world.”
Dirty Trick # 28
Make Sweeping Glittering Generalizations Manipulators, con artists, spin masters, and politicians
will use any generalizations that support their case and that their audience will accept,
regardless of whether they have sufficient evidence to support those generalizations. They make
positive generalizations that people will readily support, generalizations, for example, about
“our” or “their” devotion to God, country, patriotism, family, and free enterprise. Remember
that their generalizations are deliberately chosen to coincide with the thinking of their audience.
Of course, these manipulators keep their generalizations vague so that they can weasel out of
them if necessary.
Dirty Trick #29

Make Much of Any Inconsistencies in Your Opponent’s Position There is inconsistency in the best
of us. Everyone sometimes fails to practice what he preaches. Everyone sometimes falls into a
double standard. Manipulators exploit any inconsistencies they can find in their opponents’
arguments. They are quick to make the charge of hypocrisy, even when they are guilty of
flagrant, deep, and multiple forms of hypocrisy themselves, hypocrisy that bothers them not at
all.
Dirty Trick # 30
Make Your Opponent Look Ridiculous (“Lost in the Laugh”) Manipulators look for ways to make
their opponent, or his position, look ridiculous (and therefore funny). People like a good laugh
and they especially like laughing at views that seem threatening to them. A good joke is almost
always well received, for it relieves the audience of the responsibility to think seriously about
what is making them uncomfortable. Manipulators measure their audience to make sure that
their joke does not sound like sour grapes.
Dirty Trick # 31
Oversimplify the Issue Since most people are uncomfortable making sense of deep or subtle
arguments, manipulators oversimplify the issue to their advantage. “I don’t care what the
statistics tell us about the so-called “abuse” of prisoners, the real issue is whether or not we are
going to be tough on crime. Save your sympathy for the victims of crime, not for the criminals.”
The fact being ignored is that the abuse of prisoners is itself a crime. Unfortunately, people with
a certain (over-simple) mind-set do not care about criminal behavior that victimizes “criminals.”
After all (they think to themselves) the world divides into good guys and bad guys and
sometimes the good guys have to do bad things to bad guys. They think the bad guys deserve
bad treatment. By oversimplifying the issue, they don’t have to deal with what is wrong in our
treatment of prisoners.
Dirty Trick # 32
Raise Nothing But Objections Your opponent is giving good reasons to accept an argument, but
the fact is your mind is made up and nothing will change it (of course you don’t want to admit
that your mind is closed). Skilled manipulators respond with objection after objection after
objection. As their opponents answer one objection, they move on to another. The unspoken
mindset of the manipulator is “No matter what my opponent says (in giving me reasons), I will
keep thinking of objections (the fact is that nothing whatsoever will convince me of the validity
of his view).” © 2006 Foundation for Critical Thinking
Manipulation
33
Dirty Trick # 33
Rewrite History (Have It Your Way) The worst deeds and atrocities can disappear from historical
accounts (or be made to appear minor) while fantasies and fabrications can be made to look like
hard facts. This is what happens in what is sometimes called “patriotic history.” The writing of a
distorted form of history is justified by love of country and often defended by the charge of
negativity (“You always want to focus on what is wrong with us! What about what is right about
us?!”). The fact is that human memory is continually working to re-describe events of the past in
such a way as to exonerate itself and condemn its detractors. Historical writing often follows suit,
especially in the writing of textbooks for schools. So, in telling a story about the past,
manipulators feel free to distort the past in whatever ways they believe they can get away with.
As always, the skilled manipulator is ready with (self-justifying) excuses.
Dirty Trick # 34
Seek Your Vested Interests The manipulator attacks his opponent’s motivation, but insists that
his motives are pure. He covers his true motives (i.e. whatever is in his vested interest) by
expressing high ideals (freedom, democracy, justice, the American way, which he in fact ignores).
When manipulators are seeking their advantage, and their opponent calls them on it,
manipulators either deny the charge (usually indignantly) or counter attack by saying that
everyone has a right to protect his interests. If pressed further, they may use a “you–do-it-too”
defense.
Dirty Trick # 35
Shift the Ground When a manipulator senses he is losing the argument, he does not give in. He
shifts the ground to something else! Sometimes he does this by going back and forth between
different meanings of the same word. So if a person says of another that she isn’t educated
because she isn’t insightful and has very little knowledge, the manipulator may just shift the
ground, saying something like, “Of course she’s educated! Look how many years of school she
completed. If that’s not being educated I don’t know what is!”
Dirty Trick # 36
Shift the Burden of Proof The burden of proof refers to which party in a dispute has the
responsibility to prove what he asserts. For example, in a criminal court, the prosecutor has the
responsibility to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense does not have to prove
innocence. Manipulators never want to take on the burden of proof for what they assert. They
therefore develop skill in shifting the burden of proof to their opponents. “Wait a minute © 2006
before I have to prove that the invasion of Iraq was justified, you need to prove that it wasn’t.” In
point of fact any country that invades another needs to have powerful evidence to justify that
act. No country has the obligation to prove that it ought not to be invaded. By international law,
the burden of proof is on the other side, the side that initiates violence. Suppose a manipulator
questions your patriotism. You ask him what evidence exists to show you are not. He tries
shifting the burden of proof: “Wait a minute, what have you done to show your loyalty to the
country. Don’t you have socialist views? Aren’t you against free enterprise? Didn’t you protest
the Viet Nam War?” All of these are fallacious attempts to shift the burden of proof.
Dirty Trick # 37
Spin, Spin, Spin In an editorial in the Wall Street Journal (May 7, 2004) on the prominence of the
“spin game” in the media, Daniel Henniger says: “The media world we inhabit is without
exception a world of ‘spin.’ Most people having given up on getting a set of unadorned facts,
align themselves with whichever spin outlet seems comfortable.” The fact is that it is highly
doubtful that “most” people see through the media reliance on spin, since they are so
commonly victims of its power. But no skilled manipulator (spin master) will underestimate the
power of spin in manipulating consumers of the “news.” The manipulator must continually foster
the spin that obscures viewpoints he opposes, while at the same time positively representing his
own viewpoint (the one he wants the audience to accept). As a critical consumer one must
become aware of the virtual omnipresence of spin and selectivity of coverage in the media, in
order to juxtapose opposing spins and decide for oneself which facts are most significant and
which i n t e r p retations most plausible. The critical consumer expects the media to put spin on
all articles of news in keeping with the prejudices of the audience they “serve.” He must consider
alternative ways of looking at the issues in the news media, alternative ways of thinking about
what is being presented, what is most significant about it, and how it is best represented.
Dirty Trick # 38
Talk in Vague Generalities It is hard to prove people wrong when they can’t be pinned down. So
instead of focusing on particulars, manipulators talk in the most vague terms they can get away
with. This fallacy is popular with politicians. For example, “Forget what the spineless liberals say.
It’s time to be tough: tough on criminals, tough on terrorists, and tough on those who belittle
our country.” They make sure they don’t use specifics that might cause people to question what
they are doing (for example, who exactly you are going to be tough on, and what exactly do you
intend to do with these © 2006 Foundation for Critical Thinking
Manipulation
35
people when you get “tough” with them. Is torture OK? What about humiliation? What about
unlimited detention without any charge registered against them? What about placing them in
tiny cells without a toilet for days at a time? What about assassination?) When people use this
strategy against you, ask them to give you specific examples of what they mean. Ask for
definitions of key terms. Then insist that they show how their definitions are applied in the
specific cases. In other words, don’t allow them to get away with vague generalities.
Dirty Trick # 39
Talk Double Talk Let’s face it - we often do what we accuse our opponents of doing. But of course
we don’t want to admit it because that would hurt our cause. Double talk can be a powerful
mode of attack or defense. In double talk (sometimes called doublespeak) we use a positive
word or phrase when we do something and a negative word when our opponents do precisely
the same thing. For example, before World War II, the U.S. government called the department
that wages war the “War Department.” After the war, they decided to call it the “Defense
Department.” This change has come about because the government does not want to admit that
it starts wars. Rather it wants to manipulate people into thinking that it only defends the country
against aggressive others. In short, politically, the word “defense” sells better than the word
“war.” When a citizen of a government we are in conflict with secretly gives us information about
that enemy, we label it a “brave” and “courageous” act. When someone in our country tells our
secrets to that same enemy, we indict that person as a “traitor.”13 We are clever; you are
cunning. We support freedom fighters; you support terrorists. We set up holding centers; you set
up concentration camps. We strategically withdraw; you retreat. We are religious; you are
fanatic. We are determined; you are pig-headed. There are literally thousands of words that fall
into good-when-I-do-it-badwhen-you-do doublets. Most people are not skilled in detecting
doublespeak.
13 When innocent people on our side are killed (without even realizing they were in danger),
they are called “heroes.” When people on the side of our enemy deliberately sacrifice their lives
to die for what they believe, we call them “cowards” or “fanatics.” We would never, of course,
label anyone on our side a “fanatic.” Interestingly, when the U.S. government trained Bin Ladin
and other Muslim fundamentalists to use terror tactics in fighting the Russians in Afghanistan,
we called these fundamentalists “freedom fighters.” Now, these same people, because they are
fighting us, have been transformed into “terrorists.” © 2006 Foundation for Critical Thinking
Dirty Trick # 40
Tell Big Lies Most people lie about small things but would be afraid to lie about big things. But
manipulators know that if you insist on a lie long enough, many people will believe you —
especially if you have the resources of mass media to air your lie. All skilled manipulators are
focused on what you can get people to believe, not on what is true or false. They know that the
human mind does not naturally seek the truth; it seeks comfort, security, personal confirmation
and vested interest. In fact, people often don’t want to know the truth, especially truths that are
painful, that expose their contradictions and inconsistencies, that reveal what they don’t what to
know about themselves or their country. There are many manipulators highly skilled in telling
“big” lies and thus in making those lies seem true. For example, if one studies the history of the
CIA, one can document any number of unethical deeds that have been covered up by lies (see
any volume of Covert Action Quarterly for documentation of the misdeeds and dirty tricks of the
CIA in every region of the world).14 Virtually all of these unethical acts were officially denied at
the time of their commission.
Dirty Trick # 41
Treat Abstract Words and Symbols As If They Were Real Things15 Manipulators know that most
people are not linguistically sophisticated. Most people do not reflect on the relation between
the way we use language and concrete particulars in the world. They do not deliberately strip off
language from specific events and deeds and consider a range of interpretations for making
sense of what is happening in the world. Most see their view of the world as accurately
reflecting what is going on in the world, even when that view is highly distorted. Abstractions are
not abstractions in their minds, but realities. Consider the following examples: • Freedom
supports us. • Democracy calls. • Justice insists that we… • The flag marches on. • Science says…
Note that in all of these examples, an abstract idea is given a life of its own when coupled with
an action verb. How, for example, can a flag march? It’s not possible. But people are swayed by
this colorful, though highly misleading, use of language. 14 [email protected] 15
Traditionally called “Reification.”
Manipulation
37
Dirty Trick # 42
Throw In A Red Herring (or two) In this strategy, manipulators divert from the issue by focusing
on what is irrelevant (but emotionally loaded). Suppose that a manipulator can’t refute the
reasoning of his opponent. He doesn’t bother trying. Instead, he throws in an emotionally
charged issue that will distract the audience from the reasoning of his opponent. Consider this
example. The manipulator’s opponent has said that the oceans of the world are rapidly dying
due largely to human activity, specifically industry waste. Instead of arguing against the position
taken by his opponent, the manipulator throws in a “red herring.” He says, “What we really need
to concern ourselves with is all of the government regulations facing industry today, and all of
the jobs that will be lost if bureaucratic regulations continue to grow. We need a country where
the people have jobs and their children have opportunities to grow and reach their potential!”
How is this retort relevant to the oceans dying?? It’s not. It’s a red herring thrown in to avoid the
issue altogether.
Dirty Trick # 43
Throw in Some Statistics. People are impressed by numbers, especially precise numbers. So
whenever they can, manipulators quote statistics in their favor, even if the source is
questionable. Their audience is usually be impressed. By the way, did you know that 78% of the
students who read this guide raise their grade point average by 1.33 grade levels within two
semesters? It’s even higher at your school!
Dirty Trick # 44
Use Double Standards (Whenever You Can) Most audiences use double standards. One standard
for us. Another standard for them. We can’t abide countries developing nuclear weapons (except
for us and all our friends). We condemn aggression (except when we are the aggressors). We
can’t tolerate torture and human rights violations by our enemies (although, alas, sometimes we
are forced to do these things ourselves).

44 Foul Ways to Win an Argument Accuse Your Opponent of Doing What He is Accusing You of
(or worse)
Hedge What You Say Ignore the Evidence Ignore the Main Point
Accuse Him of Sliding Down A Slippery Slope (that leads to disaster)
Attack Evidence (That Undermines Your Case)
Appeal to Authority
Insist Loudly on a Minor Point
Appeal to Experience
Use the Hard-Cruel-World Argument (to justify doing what is usually considered unethical)
Appeal to Fear Appeal to Pity (or sympathy) Appeal to Popular Passions Appeal to Tradition or
Faith (“the tried and true”)
Make (Sweeping) Glittering Generalizations
Assume a Posture of Righteousness
Make Much of Any Inconsistencies in Your Opponent’s Position
Attack the person (and not the argument)
Make Your Opponent Look Ridiculous (“Lost in the Laugh”)
Beg the Question
Oversimplify the Issue
Call For Perfection (Demand impossible conditions)

Raise Nothing But Objections
Create a False Dilemma (the Great Either/Or) Devise Analogies (and Metaphors) That Support
Your View (even if they are misleading or “false”) Question Your Opponent’s Conclusions
Rewrite History (Have It Your Way) Seek Your Vested Interests Shift the Ground Shift the Burden
of Proof Spin, Spin, Spin Talk in Vague Generalities
Create Misgivings: Where There’s Smoke, There’s Fire
Talk Double Talk
Create A Straw Man
Treat Abstract Words and Symbols As If They Were Real Things
Deny or Defend Your Inconsistencies
Tell Big Lies
Throw In A Red Herring (or two)
Demonize His Side Sanitize Yours
Throw in Some Statistics
Evade Questions, Gracefully
Use Double Standards (whenever you can)
Flatter Your Audience © 2006 Foundation for Critical Thinking
Manipulation
Fallacy Detection: Analyzing a Speech from the Past Now test yourself on the fallacies you have
just read. Read through the following excerpts (from a historically important political speech, a
speech whose persuasive power won a national election in 1897). See how many of the 44 foul
ways to win an argument this writer used. Before reading the speech, consider the following
description by James Truslow Adams16, American historian, of the national mood at the time: …
powerful business interests were chafing because we did not annex Hawaii. Senator Lodge had
his eye on Puerto Rico and the Philippines. Assistant Secretary of the Navy Roosevelt was
anxious for something to do with his ships…Mr Pulitzer, owner of The World, remarked “that he
rather liked the idea of a war — not a big one — but one that would arouse interest and give him
a chance to gauge the reflex in circulation figures.”…a group of powerful business men and
politicians bent on imperial expansion; a group of newspapers callously searching for sensational
news which could be translated into circulation; and a shiny new gun in our hands of which we
were proud (pp. 81-82). Now imagine yourself a voter in the U.S. in 1898 listening to the
following excerpts from a speech, The March of the Flag, given by Albert J. Beveridge (who
would soon become U.S. Senator). Using the chart in the right 16 Adams, J. 1932. History of the
United States, vol. 4
39
44 Foul Ways to Win an Argument
Accuse Your Opponent of Doing What He is Accusing You of Accuse Him of Sliding Down A
Slippery Slope Appeal to Authority Appeal to Experience Appeal to Fear Appeal to Pity (or
sympathy) Appeal to Popular Passions Appeal to Tradition or Faith Assume a Posture of
Righteousness Attack the person Beg the Question Call For Perfection Create a False Dilemma
Devise Analogies (and Metaphors) That Support Your View Question Your Opponent’s
Conclusions Create Misgivings: Where There’s Smoke, There’s Fire Create A Straw Man Deny or
Defend Your Inconsistencies Demonize His Side Sanitize Yours Evade Questions, Gracefully Flatter
Your Audience Hedge What You Say Ignore the Evidence Ignore the Main Point Attack Evidence
Insist Loudly on a Minor Point Use the Hard-Cruel-World Argument Make Sweeping Glittering
Generalizations Make Much of Any Inconsistencies in Your Opponent’s Position Make Your
Opponent Look Ridiculous Oversimplify the Issue Raise Nothing But Objections Rewrite History
Seek Your Vested Interests Shift the Ground. www.criticalthinking.org
hand margin on the previous page, read through the excerpts indicating which of the
manipulative strategies are being used in this speech. Perhaps the best way to do this is to write
in the margins the fallacies you notice as you read through these passages.
The Opening: Fellow citizens: It is a noble land that God has given us; a land that can feed and
clothe the world; a land whose coast lines would enclose half the countries of Europe; a land set
like a sentinel between the two imperial oceans of the globe, a greater England with a nobler
destiny. It is a mighty people that He has planted on this soil; a people sprung from the most
masterful blood of history; a people perpetually revitalized by the virile, man-producing working
folk of all the earth; a people imperial by virtue of their power, by right of their institutions, by
authority of their heaven-directed purposes — the propagandists and not the misers of liberty. It
is a glorious history our God has bestowed on His chosen people; a history whose keynote was
struck by the Liberty Bell; a history heroic with faith in our mission and our future; a history of
statesmen who flung the boundaries of the republic out into unexplored lands and savage
wildernesses; a history of soldiers who carried the flag across the blazing deserts and through
the ranks of hostile mountains, even to the gates of sunset; a history of a multiplying people who
overran a continent in half a century; a history of prophets who saw the consequences of evils
inherited from the past, and of martyrs who died to save us from them; a history divinely logical,
in the process of whose tremendous reasoning we find ourselves today.
Beveridge’s definition of the issue: Therefore, in this campaign, the question is larger than a
party question. It is an American question. It is a world question. Shall the American people
continue their resistless march toward the commercial supremacy of the world? Shall free
institutions broaden their blessed reign as the children of liberty wax in strength, until the
empire of our principles is established over the hearts of all mankind? Have we no mission to
perform, no duty to discharge to our fellow man? Has the Almighty Father endowed us with gifts
beyond our deserts and marked us as the people of His peculiar favor, merely to rot in our own
selfishness, as men and nations must who take cowardice for their companion and self for their
deity — as China has, as India has, as Egypt has? Shall we be as the man who had one talent and
hid it, or as he who had ten talents and used them until they grew to riches? And shall we reap
the reward that waits on our discharge of our high duty as the sovereign power of earth; shall
we occupy new markets for what our farmers raise, new markets for what © 2006 Foundation
for Critical Thinking
Manipulation
our factories make, new markets for what our merchants sell — aye, and, please God, new
markets for what our ships shall carry? …Shall our commerce be encouraged until, with
Oceanica, the Orient, and the world, American trade shall be the imperial trade of the entire
globe? …we must deal from this day on with nations greedy of every market we are to invade;
nations with statesmen trained in craft, nations with ships and guns and money and men…The
world still rubs its eyes from its awakening to the resistless power and sure destiny of this
republic.
Beveridge refers to the SpanishAmerican War as: …the most holy ever waged by one nation
against another — a war for civilization, a war for a permanent peace, a war which, under God,
although we knew it not, swung open to the republic the portals of the commence of the world.
His view of the history of U.S. conquest: … God bless the soldiers of 1898, children of the heroes
of 1861, descendants of the heroes of 1776! In the halls of history they will stand side by side
with those elder sons of glory, and the opposition to the government at Washington shall not
deny them. No! They shall not be robbed of the honor due them, nor shall the republic be
robbed of what they won for their country. For William McKinley is continuing the policy that
Jefferson began, Monroe continued, Seward advanced, Grant promoted, Harrison championed,
and the growth of the republic has demanded.
41
His view of our conquering other countries: Hawaii is ours; Puerto Rico is to be ours; at the
prayer of the people Cuba will finally be ours; in the islands of the East, even to the gates of Asia,
coaling stations are to be ours; at the very least the flag of a liberal government is to float over
the Philippines, and I pray God it may be the banner that Taylor unfurled in Texas and Fremont
carried to the coast — the stars and stripes of glory.
Concerning the objection that subjugating other countries conflicts with the right of a people to
self-determination, he says: The opposition tells us that we ought not to govern a people
without their consent. I answer: the rule of liberty, that all just government derives its authority
from the consent of the governed, applies only to those who are capable of self-government. I
answer: We govern the Indians without their consent, we govern our territories without their
consent, we govern our children without their consent. I answer: How do you assume that our
government would be without their consent?
Beveridge believes that people would welcome our domination: Would not the people of the
Philippines prefer the just, humane, civilizing government of this republic to the savage, bloody
rule of pillage and extortion from which we have rescued them?
He views other countries as motivated by power and greed. He sees us as guided by the interests
of the people we conquer: Shall we turn these people back to the reeking hands from which we
have taken them? Shall we abandon them to their fate, with the wolves of conquest all about
them — with Germany, Russia, France, even Japan, hungering for them? Shall we turn these
people back to the reeking hands from which we have taken them? Shall we abandon them to
their fate, with the wolves of conquest all about them?
Concerning the objection that countries have a right to rule themselves: …[To give them self-
rule] would be like giving a razor to a babe and telling it to shave itself. It would be like giving a
typewriter to an Eskimo and telling him to publish one of the great dailies of the world.
Manipulation
Will you affirm by your vote that you are an infidel to American vigor and power and practical
sense? Or, that we are of the ruling race of the world; that ours is the blood of government; ours
the heart of dominion; our the brains and genius of administration. Distance is no objection to
our conquering foreign lands in keeping with our destiny, for technological development is
conspiring with us: Steam joins us; electricity joins us, the very elements are in league with our
destiny. Cuba not contiguous! Hawaii and the Philippines not contiguous! Our navy will make
them contiguous. Dewey and Sampson and Schley have made them contiguous, and American
speed, American guns, American heart and brain and nerve will keep them contiguous forever.
Think of the thousands of Americans who will pour into Hawaii and Puerto Rico when the
republic’s laws cover those islands with justice and safety! Think of the tens of thousands of
Americans who will invade mine and field and forest in the Philippines when a liberal
government, protected and controlled by this republic, if not the government of the republic
itself, shall establish order and equity there! Think of the hundreds of thousands of American
who will build a soap-and-water, commonschool civilization of energy and industry in Cuba,
when a government of law replaces the double reign of anarchy and tyranny. Think of the
prosperous millions that empress of islands will support when, obedient to the law of political
gravitation, her people ask for the highest honor liberty can bestow, the sacred Order of the
Stars and Stripes, the citizenship of the Great Republic! What does all this mean for every one of
us? It means opportunity for all the glorious young manhood of the republic — the most virile,
ambitious, impatient, militant © 2006 Foundation for Critical Thinking
43
manhood the world has ever seen. It means that the resources and the commerce of these
immensely rich dominions will be increased as much as American energy is greater than Spanish
sloth; for Americans henceforth will monopolize those resources and that commerce. In Cuba
alone there are 15,000,000 acres of forest unacquainted with the ax. There are exhaustless
mines of iron. There are priceless deposits of manganese… There are millions of acres yet
unexplored… The resources of Puerto Rico have only been trifled with. The riches of the
Philippines have hardly been touched by the finger-tips of modern methods. It means new
employment and better wages for every laboring man in the Union. It means higher prices for
every bushel of wheat and corn, for every pound of butter and meat, for every item that the
farmers of this republic produce. It means active, vigorous, constructive investment of every
dollar of moldy and miserly capital in the land. It means all this tomorrow, and all this forever…
The commercial supremacy of the republic means that this nation is to be the sovereign factor in
the peace of the world. For the conflicts of the future are to be conflicts of trade — struggles for
markets — commercial wars for existence. Ah! As our commerce spreads, the flag of liberty will
circle the globe, and the highways of the ocean — carrying trade to all mankind — be guarded by
the guns of the republic. And, as their thunders salute the flag, benighted people will know that
the voice of liberty is speaking, at last, for them; that civilization is dawning, at last, for them —
liberty and civilization, those children of Christ’s gospel, who follow and never precede the
preparing march of commerce. The American people have the most tremendous tasks of history
to perform. They have the mightiest commerce of the world to conduct. They cannot halt their
imperial progress of wealth and power and glory and Christian civilization… It is a time to cheer
the beloved President of God’s chosen people, till the whole world is vocal with American loyalty
to the American government. Fellow Americans we are God’s chosen people. Yonder at Bunker
Hill and Yorktown His providence was above us. …We cannot fly from our world duties; it is ours
to execute the purpose of a fate that has driven us to be greater than our small intentions. We
cannot retreat from any soil where Providence has unfurled our banner; it is ours to save that
soil for liberty and civilization. For liberty and civilization and God’s promise fulfilled, the flag
much hence forth be the symbol and the sign to all mankind — the flag! —
Manipulation
Fallacy Detection: Analyzing a Current Presidential Speech Now read the speech We Will Finish
the Work of the Fallen by President George Bush Jr. regarding the state of the war in Iraq on April
13, 2004. Identify any fallacies you think are being used in the speech. Following is President
George Bush’s opening statement at a news conference (April 14, 2004) as recorded by The New
York Times. The complete lead for the statement is “We Will Finish the Work of the Fallen.”
Thank you. Good evening. Befor e I take your questi ons, let me speak w ith the Ameri can
people about the si tuation i n I r aq. Thi s has been tough w eeks in that country. Coali ti on
force s have encountered seri ous vi ol ence in some area s of I ra q. Our mili tary commanders
report that this vi ol ence i s being instigat ed by three groups. Some re mnants of Saddam
Hussein’s regime along with Islam ic mili tants have attacked coali tion force s i n the city of Fall
uj a. Terror i sts fro m other countries have i nfi ltra ted I raq to i ncite and organi ze attacks. I n
the south of I ra q, coalition forces face riots and attacks that are being i nci ted by a rad i cal
cleric named al Sadr. He has assembl ed some of his supporter s into an il legal mil itia and
publicl y supported the terrorists groups Hamas and Hezboll ah. AI -Sa dr’s methods of vi olence
and i nti midation are wi del y r epudiated by other Iraqi Shia. He’s been indicted by I r aqi
authori ti es for the mur der of a © 2006 Foundation for Critical Thinking
45
prominent Shi a cl eri c. Although these instigat i ons of vi olence come fro m differen t factions,
they share common goal s. They w ant to run us out of I r aq and destroy the democrati c hopes
of the Iraqi peopl e. The vi olence w e have seen is a power grab by these extr eme and rut hless
elements. It’s not a civi l war. I t’s not a popular upri si ng. Most of Iraq i s r elati vely stable. Most
Iraqis, by far, rej ect vi ol ence and oppose dictatorship. I n foru ms w here Iraqis have met to
discuss their poli ti cal future and i n al l the proceedings of the I r aqi Governing Council , I ra qis
have expresse d clear commitments. They w ant strong protections for indivi dual r i ghts, they
want thei r i ndependence and they want their freedom. Ameri ca’s commitment to freedom in
Iraq i s consistent wi th our i deal s and required by our i nterest s. I raq wi ll ei ther be a peaceful
democrati c country or i t wi ll again be a sourc e of vi ol ence, a haven for terr or and a threat to
Amer i ca and to the world. By hel ping to secure a free I ra q, Americans serving in that country
are protecting their fell ow ci tizens. Our nati on i s grat eful to them all and to thei r fami li es
that face har dship and l ong separation. This weekend at a For t Hood hospi tal , I present ed a
Purple Heart to some of our wounded, had the honor of thanki ng them on behal f of all
Americans. Other men and women have paid an even greater cost. Our nati ons honors the
memory of those who have been kil led and w e pray that their fami li es w il l find God’s comfort
i n the midst of their gri ef. As I ’ve said to those who have lost l oved ones: We wi ll fi nish the
work of the fal len. Ameri ca’s arm ed for ces are performi ng bril li antly, wi th all the skil l and
honor we expect of them. We’re constantl y re vi ewi ng thei r needs. Troop strength now and i n
the future is determined by the situat i on on the ground. I f additional forces are needed, I w il l
send them. I f addi tional res ources are needed, we wil l provide them. The people of our countr
y are united behind our men and women in uniform. And thi s govern ment will do all that is
necessary to assur e the success of their histor ic mis sion. One centr al commitment of that
mission is the tr ansfer of a sovere i gnty back to the Ira qi peopl e. We have set a deadline of Jun
e 30. It is impor tant that we meet that deadli ne. As a pro ud and independent people, Ira qis do
not support an indefini te occupation, and neither does America . We’re not an imperial power,
as nations such as Ja pan and Germa ny can attest. We’r e a libera ting power , as nati ons in
Europe and Asia can © 2006 Foundation for Critical Thinking
Manipulation
attest as well. Ameri ca’s object i ve i n I raq i s l imited and i t i s firm . We seek an i ndependent,
fre e and secur e I r aq. Were the coal ition to step back fro m the June 30 pledge, many Iraqis
woul d questi on our i ntentions and feel thei r hopes betrayed. And those in I r aq who trade i n
hatre d and conspira cy theories would find a l arger audience and gai n a str onger hand. We wil
l not step back from our pledge. On Ju ne 30, I ra qi sovereignt y wi ll be placed i n Iraqi hands.
Sovere i gnty invol ves more than a date and a ceremony. I t requires I r aqis to assume r esponsi
bil ity for thei r own future. I r aqi authori ti es are now confronting the securi ty chall enge of the
l ast sever al w eeks. I n Fal luja , coal iti on for ces have suspended offensive operations, al lowi
ng members of the I r aqi Governing Council and local l eaders to work on the r estor ation of
central authority in that city. These l eaders are communicati ng w ith the i nsurgents to ensure
an orderl y tur nover of that ci ty to I raq i forces so that the resumpt i on of mil itary acti on does
not become necessar y. They are also i nsisting that those who kil led and mutil ated four Ameri
can contract workers be handed over for trial and punishment. I n addition, members of the
gover ning counci l are seeking to reso l ve the si tuation in the south. Al -Sa dr must answer the
charges against him and disband his il legal mili tia. © 2006 Foundation for Critical Thinking
47
Our coali tion i s standing w ith r esponsi ble Iraqi l eaders as they establi sh growi ng authority in
their country. The tr ansiti on to soverei gnty re quir es that we demonstrate confidence i n I ra
qis. And we have that confidence. Many I raq i leader s are showi ng great personal courage. And
their example wi ll bri ng out the same qual ity in others. The trans i tion to sovereignty al so
requires an atmosphere of securi ty. And our coali tion i s work i ng to provi de that security. We
wi ll continue taking the greatest car e to preven t harm to innocent civi li ans. Yet we wi ll not
permi t the sprea d of chaos and vi olence. I have dir ected our mil itary commanders to make
every prepar ation to use decisi ve force i f necessary to maintain or der and to protect our
troops. The nation of Iraq is moving toward self-r ule. And I raq i s and Ameri cans wi ll see evi
dence in the months to come. On June 30 when the fl ag of free I raq i s raised, I ra qi offici al s w
il l assume res ponsibili ty for the ministries of government. On that day the tr ansiti onal
administra ti ve l aw , i ncl uding a bil l of ri ghts that i s unprecedented i n the Ara b world, wi ll
take full effect. The Uni ted States and all the nations of our coali ti on wi ll establi sh normal dipl
omati c rel ati ons wi th the Iraqi govern ment. An Ameri can embassy w il l open and an
American ambassador wi ll be posted. Accor ding to the schedule al rea dy approved by the
govern i ng counci l, Iraq w il l hold el ecti ons for a nati onal assembly no l ater than next Janu
ary. That assembly w il l dr aft a new perm anent constitution, w hi ch w il l be prese nted to the
Iraqi people i n a nati onal r efere ndum held in October of next year. I raq i s wil l then elect a
permanent government by Dec. 15, 2005. An event that wi ll mark the completi on of I ra q’s
trans i tion from dictatorship to fr eedom. Other nati ons and i nternat i onal i nsti tutions ar e
stepping up to their res ponsibili ti es i n buil ding a free and secure I ra q. We’ re working closely
wi th the United Nati ons envoy Lakhdar Bra himi and with Iraqis to determ ine the exact form of
the govern ment that wil l rec eive sovereignt y on Ju ne 30. The United Nati ons elections assi
stance team headed by Carina Pirel li i s i n I raq developing plans for next Janua ry’s el ecti on.
NATO is provi di ng support for the Poli sh-l ed mul tinati onal di visi on i n I ra q. And 17 of
NATO’s 26 members are contributing forces to maintai n security. Secre tary of State Powell and
Secr etary of State Rumsfeld and a number of
Manipulation
NATO defense and foreign mini sters are explori ng a more form al ro l e for NATO such as turning
the Pol ish-led divi sion into a NATO operation and givi ng NATO specific re sponsibil iti es for
border control. I r aqis’ nei ghbors also have resp onsibi li ti es to make thei r r egion more stable.
So I’m sending Deputy Secre tary of State Ar mitage to the Mi ddle East to discus s wi th these
nati ons our common i nteres t in a fre e and i ndependent Iraq and how they can help achieve
this goal. As we made cl ear all al ong, our commitment to the success and securi ty of I raq wi ll
not end on June 30. On July 1 and beyond, our reco nstru ction assi stance w il l conti nue and
our mil itary commitment wi ll continue. Having helped I raq i s establi sh a new gover nment,
coali ti on mil itary for ces wil l help Iraqis to protect thei r government fro m extern al aggression
and i nterna l subversion. The success of free govern ment in I r aq is vital for many rea sons. A
fre e Iraq is vital because 25 mil li on I r aqis have as much ri ght to l ive in fre edom as w e do. A
fre e I r aq wi ll stand as an exam pl e to re formers acro ss the Mi ddl e East. A free Iraq wi ll
show that Ameri ca i s on the si de of M usl ims w ho wi sh to l ive i n peace, as we’ve al re ady
show n i n Kuwai t and Kosovo, Bosni a and Afghanistan. A fre e Iraq wi ll confi rm to a watchi ng
w orl d that Ameri ca’s word, once given, can be reli ed upon even in the © 2006 Foundation for
Critical Thinking
49
toughest tim es. Above al l, the defeat of vi olence and terror i n I ra q is vi tal to the defeat of
viol ence and terror elsew here, and vital, theref ore, to the safety of the Ameri can people. Now
is the time and I ra q is the place in which the enemies of the civi li zed world are testi ng the wi ll
of the civi li zed worl d. We must not wai ver. The viol ence we are seeing in Iraq is fami li ar. The
terr ori st who takes hostages or plants a roa dsi de bomb near Baghdad i s serving the same i
deol ogy of murder that ki ll s i nnocent peopl e on tr ai ns i n M adri d and murders chil dr en on
buses i n Jerusa l em and blow s up a nightclub in Bali and cuts the throat of a young repor ter for
being a Je w . We’ve seen the same i deology of mur der in the kil li ng of 241 mari nes in Beirut,
the first attack on the Worl d Trade Center, in the destruct i on of tw o embassies in Afr i ca, in
the attack on the D.S.S. Cole and i n the merc i less horror i nfl icted upon thousands of i nnocent
men and women and chil dr en on Sept. 11, 2001. None of these acts i s the w or k of a re l igi
on. All are the work of a fanatical poli tical i deology. The ser vants of this i deology seek tyra nny
in the Mi ddl e East and beyond. They seek to oppress and pers ecute women. They seek the
death of Jews and Christians and every M usl im w ho desires peace over theocratic terror. They
seek to i nti midate America into panic and ret reat , and to set free nati ons against each other.
And they seek w eapons of mass destruct i on to bl ackmail and murder on a massive scal e. Over
the last sever al decades, we’ve seen that any concessi on or ret reat on our part wil l only
embolden this enemy and i nvi te more bloodshed. And the enemy has seen over the l ast 31
months that we wi ll no longer l ive i n denial or seek to appease them: For the first tim e, the
civi li zed worl d has provided a concerted response to the ideology of ter ror, a series of pow er
ful, effecti ve blows. The terro ri sts have l ost the shelter of the Tali ban and the traini ng camps i
n Afghanistan. They’ve lost safe havens in Pakista n. They l ost an all y in Baghdad, and Libya has
turned its back on ter ror. They’ ve lost many l eaders in an unrel enti ng i nterna ti onal
manhunt. And perhaps most fri ghtening to these men and their movement, the ter rorists are
seeing the advance of free dom and refor m i n the greater M iddle East. A desperat e enemy is
also a dangerous enemy, and our work may © 2006 Foundation for Critical Thinking
Manipulation
become more difficult before i t i s fini shed. No one can predict al l the hazards that l ie ahead or
the costs they wi ll bri ng. Yet i n this confli ct, there is no safe al ternat i ve to r esolute acti on.
The consequences of fail ure i n I ra q woul d be unthinkable. Every friend of Ameri ca i n I ra q
would be betrayed to prison and murder as a new tyranny aros e. Every enemy of America in the
worl d woul d celebrat e, proclai ming our w eakness and decadence, and usi ng that victor y to
recruit a new generation of kil lers. We wi ll succeed i n I ra q. We’ re carr yi ng out a deci sion
that has already been made and w il l not. change. I ra q wi ll be a free, i ndependent country.
And America and the Mi ddle East wi ll be safer because of it. Our coali ti on has the means and
the w il l to preva i l. We serve the cause of li berty and that i s alw ays and everywhere a cause
worth serving.
Fallacy Detection: Analyzing a Speech from a Presidential Candidate Read the following text by
3rd party presidential candidate Ralph Nader regarding the war in Iraq, foreign policy, and the
“war on terrorism.” Identify any fallacies you believe are committed within it. The Bush
Administration and the Democratic Party, in varying extremes, are putting the interests of their
corporate paymasters before the interests of the people. By Ralph Nader
51
Concerning the invasion and occupation of Iraq The quagmire of the Iraq war and occupation
could have been averted and needs to be ended expeditiously, replacing US forces with a UN
peacekeeping force, prompt supervised elections and humanitarian assistance before we sink
deeper into this occupation, with more U.S. casualties, huge financial costs, and diminished US
security around and from the Islamic world. The faulty and fabricated rationale for war has the
US in a quagmire. Already more than $155 billion has been spent, adding to huge Bush deficits,
when critical needs are not being met at home. We should not be mired in the occupation of
Iraq risking further upheavals when our infrastructure, schools and health care are deteriorating.
Four years of free public college and university tuition for all students could be paid for by $155
billion.
Withdraw US Troops Presence of military hinders progress in Iraq, drains U.S. economy. Every
day our exposed military remains in war-torn Iraq we imperil US security, drain our economy,
ignore urgent domestic needs and prevent Iraqi democratic self-rule. We need to announce a
withdrawal of our troops, not increase them. Calls by the major presidential candidates to
indefinitely “stay the course” spur the spiral of violence. U.S. presence serves as a magnet for
insurrection, kidnapping, terrorism and anarchy. Announcing a definite withdrawal and ending
the U.S. corporate takeover of the Iraqi economy and oil will separate mainstream Iraqis from
the insurgents and give the vast majority of people there a stake in replacing occupation with
independence.
Three-steps to an announced withdrawal: 1.
2.
Develop an appropriate peace-keeping force under United Nations auspices from neutral nations
with such experience and from Islamic countries. This force should begin to promptly replace all
U.S. troops and civilian contractors. Former general Wesley Clark described Bush foreign policy
as cowboy unilateralism that goes against everything the U.S. is supposed to represent to the
world. It is time for the U.S. to return to the family of nations. The U.S. will have to underwrite a
portion of this less expensive short-term force. Free and fair elections should be held as soon as
possible under international supervision so democratic self-rule can be put in place in Iraq and
allowing Iraq to provide for its own security. Iraq is a country long controlled by a brutal dictator,
devastated by economic sanctions and torn apart by war. Some autonomy for Sunnis, Shiites and
Kurds makes a new government more workable. Iraq will sort out these issues more easily
without the presence of a US occupying force and the projected 14 US military bases that Iraqis
see as installing a puppet government fronting for an
Manipulation
3.
53
indefinite military and oil industry occupation. The U.S. and others should provide interim
humanitarian aid to Iraq. Economic sanctions and war have resulted in tremendous damage to
people, their children and the Iraqi infrastructure. Until the 1991 Gulf War, Hussein was a US
anti-communist ally also used to keep Iran at bay. During the 1980s under Reagan and Bush I US
corporations were licensed to export materials to Iraq for chemical and biological weapons. US
oil and other corporations should not profit from the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Control over Iraqi oil and other assets should be exercised by Iraqis.
Concerning the effect of the “war on terrorism” on civil liberties and constitutional rights Civil
liberties and due process of law are eroding due to the “war on terrorism” and new technology
that allows easy invasion of privacy. Americans of Arab descent and Muslim-Americans are
feeling the brunt of these dragnet, arbitrary practices. [I support] the restoration of civil liberties,
repeal of the Patriot Act, and an end to secret detentions, arrests without charges, no access to
attorneys and the use of secret “evidence,” military tribunals for civilians, non-combatant status
and the shredding of “probable cause” determinations. They represent a perilous diminishment
of judicial authority in favor of concentrated power in the executive branch. Sloppy law
enforcement, dragnet practices are wasteful and reduce the likelihood of apprehending violent
criminals. [I seek] to expand civil liberties to include basic human rights in employment and truly
equal rights regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race or religion.
Warning Most students who study fallacies begin to find them plentiful in the arguments of
those with whom THEY DISAGREE. Realize that fallacies are being used with equal frequency by
you, as well as your friends. Test your integrity by diligently seeking fallacies in your own
thinking. Remember, "we have met the enemy, and he is us!" © 2006 Foundation for Critical
Thinking
Concerning foreign policy Our foreign policy must redefine the elements of global security,
peace, arms control, an end to nuclear weapons and expand the many assets of our country to
launch, with other nations, major initiatives against global infections diseases (such as AIDS,
malaria, tuberculosis and virulent flu epidemics) which have and are coming to our country in
increasingly drug resistant strains. Other low cost-high yield (compared to massive costs of
redundant weapons) that extend the best of our country abroad include public health measures
for drinking water safety abroad, tobacco control, stemming soil erosion, deforestation and
misuse of chemicals, international labor standards, stimulating democratic institutions, agrarian
cooperatives and demonstrating appropriate technologies dealing with agriculture,
transportation, www.criticalthinking.org
housing and efficient, renewable energy. The UN Development Program and many NGO’s
working abroad provide essential experience and directions in this regard including ending the
specter of hunger, malnutrition and resultant diseases with known and proven remedies and
practices. With this foreign policy orientation overhauls we will discover and facilitate the
indigenous genius of the Third World, recalling Brazilian Paulo Freire (literacy), Egyptian Hasan
Fathi (agrarian housing) and Bangladeshi Mohammed Yunis (microcredit).
Avoid Two Extremes: 1) Finding Fallacies Only in the Thinking of Others (None in Yourself), and 2)
Finding an Equal Number of Fallacies in Everything you Read. There are two dangers to avoid as
you begin to identify fallacies in daily life. The first consists in an unconscious bias toward
identifying fallacies only in the thinking of others (those with whom you disagree) and none in
yourself. In this case, you use fallacy labels as a way to attack anyone with whom you disagree,
while you avoid a critical scrutiny of your own use of such fallacies. Your “opponent” uses an
analogy, you immediately call it a false analogy. Your opponent makes a generalization, you
immediately call it a hasty or unrepresentative generalization. Your mind is set against him and
therefore you find fallacies in all his thinking. Your mind is so prejudiced in favor of your own
thinking, that, as a result, you find no fallacies in it. The second danger consists in coming to
believe that everyone commits an equal number of fallacies, and therefore that there is no
reason to concern yourself with fallacies. “The situation is hopeless,” you say to yourself. The fact
is that fallacies are “foul” ways to try to win an argument (or justify a belief) unfairly. Their use is
wide spread, especially among those who make it their business to manipulate people. All of us
sometimes commit them. But there is often a significant difference in quantity. Compare the
problem of fallacy use to the problem of air pollution. All air carries some pollutants, but all air is
not highly polluted. It is impossible to think in so careful a way that one never uses a fallacy. But
it is possible to minimize that usage. To protect ourselves we need to be able to recognize when
people are trying to manipulate us with fallacious appeals. To maintain our integrity, we must try
to avoid using fallacious appeals ourselves. We do this by learning to monitor our own thinking
and the thinking of others, using the tools of critical thinking. We must recognize what is
encompassed in our own point of view and the limitations of that point of view. We must enter
sympathetically into the point of view of others. We must learn how to strip our thinking, and
the thinking of others, down to essentials: essential concepts, essential facts, essential
inferences, essential assumptions. We
Manipulation
55
must be willing to scrutinize our thinking with the same care and concern we use in scrutinizing
the thinking of our opponents and nay-sayers. Our thinking should be in a state of permanent
evolution, systematically building on our strengths and removing our weaknesses — hence,
rooting out in the process as many fallacies as we have come to use.
Conclusion: Fallacies in An Ideal (And in a Real) World In a world of fair-minded critical thinkers,
the list of those who reasoned best and the list of those with the most influence in the world
would be one and the same. But we don’t exist in an ideal world of intellectually disciplined,
empathic thinkers. We live in fundamentally uncritical societies, societies in which skilled
manipulators, masters of intellectual tricks and stratagems, are the ones who tend to achieve
position, status, and advantage. In the everyday world there is a continual struggle for power
and control, and in that struggle truth and insight have little chance of competing with big
money driving big media. Big money routinely utilizes the resources of media logic, polished
rhetoric, and mass propaganda techniques to gain its ends. Most people, being intellectually
unsophisticated respond to, and even unknowingly use, fallacious thinking. As we hope you
realize by now, most of what are traditionally called fallacies are in fact highly effective strategies
for shaping the opinions and beliefs of others. Fallacies are best understood as “counterfeits” of
good reasoning, devices often successful in manipulating the intellectual “sheep” of the world.
Of course, it is important to realize that those who manipulate others typically deceive
themselves in the process. Otherwise they wouldn’t be able to live with themselves. People
want to view themselves as decent and fair-minded, not as manipulators of unsophisticated
others. The result is that when people use bad reasoning to manipulate others they must at the
same time “deceive” themselves into believing that their thinking is perfectly justified. In an
ideal world, children would be taught to recognize fallacies at an early age. They would learn
how common fallacies are in everyday discourse. They would practice identifying fallacies in
every dimension of their lives. They would come to understand the frailties and weaknesses of
the human mind. They would learn to recognize their own frailties and weaknesses: their own
egocentrism and sociocentrism. They would become familiar with the differences between
uncritical thinking, sophistic thinking, and fairminded thinking. And, they would become adept at
identifying and distinguishing their uncritical, sophistic, and fairminded thinking. They © 2006
FREE DOWNLOAD COPY The Thinker’s Guide Library The Thinker’s Guide Library provides
convenient, inexpensive, portable references that students and faculty can use to improve the
quality of studying, learning, and teaching. Their modest cost enables instructors to require
them of all students (in addition to a textbook). Their compactness enables students to keep
them at hand whenever they are working in or out of class. Their succinctness serves as a
continual reminder of the most basic principles of critical thinking.
For Students & Faculty
Critical Thinking — The essence of critical thinking concepts and tools distilled into a 19-page
pocket-size guide. (1-24 copies $4.00 each; 25-199 copies $2.00 each; 200-499 copies $1.75
each) How to Study & Learn — A va riety of strat egies—both simple and complex — for
becoming not just a better student, but also a master student. (1-24 copies $6.00 each; 25-199
copies $4.00 each; 200-499 copies $2.50 each) Analytic Thinking — This guide focuses on the
intellectual skills that enable one to analyze anything one might think about — questions,
problems, disciplines, subjects, etc. It provides the common denominator between all forms of
analysis. (1-24 copies $6.00 each; 25-199 copies $4.00 each; 200-499 copies $2.50 each)
Scientific Thinking — The essence of scientific thinking concepts and tools. It focuses on the
intellectual skills inherent in the well-cultivated scientific thinker. (1-24 copies $6.00 each; 25-
199 copies $4.00 each; 200-499 copies $2.50 each) How to Read a Paragraph — This guide
provides theory and activities necessary for deep comprehension. I m m i n e n t lypractical for
students. (1-24 copies $6.00 each; 25-199 copies $4.00 each; 200-499 copies $2.50 each) How to
Write a Paragraph — Focuses on the art of substantive writing. How to say something worth
saying about something worth saying something about. (1-24 copies $6.00 each; 25-199 copies
$4.00 each; 200-499 copies $2.50 each) The Human Mind — Designed to give the reader insight
into the basic functions of the human mind and to how knowledge of these functions (and their
interrelations) can enable one to use one’s intellect and emotions more effectively (1-24 copies
$5.00 each; 25-199 copies $2.50 each; 200-499 copies $1.75 each) Foundations of Ethical
Reasoning — Provides insights into the nature of ethical reasoning, why it is so often flawed, and
how to avoid those flaws. It lays out the function of ethics, its main impediments, and its social
counterfeits. (1-24 copies $6.00 each; 25-199 copies $4.00 each; 200-499 copies $2.50 each)
How to Detect Media Bias and Propaganda — Designed to help readers come to recognize bias
in their nation’s news, to detect ideology, slant, and spin at work, and to recognize propaganda
when exposed to it, so that they can reasonably determine what media messages need to be
supplemented, counter-balanced or thrown out entirely. It focuses on the internal logic of the
news as well as societal influences on the media. (1-24 copies $6.00 each; 25-199 copies $4.00
each; 200-499 copies $2.50 each) Asking Essential Questions — Introduces the art of asking
essential questions.It is best used in conjunction with the Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking
and the How to Study mini-guide. (1–24 copies $6.00 each; 25–199 copies $4.00 each; 200–499
copies $2.50 each)
For Faculty Critical Thinking Competency Standards — Provides a framework for assessing
students’ critical thinking abilities. (1-24 copies $6.00 each; 25-199 copies $4.00 each; 200-499
copies $2.50 each) Active and Cooperative Learning — Provides 27 simple ideas for the
improvement of instruction. It lays the foundation for the ideas found in the mini-guide How to
Improve Student Learning. (1-24 copies $3.00 each; 25-199 copies $1.50 each; 200-499 copies
$1.25 each) How to Improve Student Learning — Provides 30 practical ideas for the
improvement of instruction based on critical thinking concepts and tools. It builds on, and goes
beyond, the ideas in the mini-guide Active and Cooperative Learning. It cultivates student
learning encouraged in the How to Study and Learn mini-guide. (1-24 copies $6.00 each; 25-199
copies $4.00 each; 200-499 copies $2.50 each) Critical and Creative Thinking — Focuses on the
interre l ationship between critical and cre at ive thinking through the essential role of both in
learning. (1-24 copies $6.00 each; 25-199 copies $4.00 each; 200-499 copies $2.50 each )
For More Information
(To order guides or to inquire about other resources)
Phone: Fax: E-mail: Web site:
707-878-9100 707-878-9111 [email protected] www.criticalthinking.org
Mail: Foundation for Critical Thinking P.O. Box 220 Dillon Beach, CA 94929
“Fallacies” Mini-Guide Price List (+ shipping and handling) Item #533m
1–24 copies $6.00 each 25–199 copies $4.00 each 200–499 copies $2.50 each 500–999 copies
$1.75 each 1000–1499 copies $1.50 each
FREE DOWNLOAD COPY
The Foundation for Critical Thinking The Foundation for Critical Thinking seeks to promote
essential change in education and society through the cultivation of fair-minded critical thinking,
thinking predisposed toward intellectual empathy, humility, perseverance, integrity, and
responsibility. A rich intellectual environment is possible only with critical thinking at the
foundation of education. Why? Because only when students learn to think through the content
they are learning in a deep and substantive way can they apply what they are learning in their
lives. Moreover, in a world of accelerating change, intensifying complexity, and increasing
interdependence, critical thinking is now a requirement for economic and social survival. Contact
us to learn about our publications, videos, workshops, conferences, and professional
development programs. About the Authors: Dr. Linda Elder is an educational psychologist who
has taught both psychology and critical thinking at the college level. She is the President of the
Foundation for Critical Thinking and the Executive Director of the Center For Critical Thinking. Dr.
Elder has done original research into the relation of thought and emotion, the cognitive and the
affective, and has developed an original theory of the stages of critical thinking development.
She has authored and co-authored a series of articles on critical thinking including a column on
critical thinking for the Journal of Developmental Education. She has co-authored two books
entitled Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Learning and Your Life, and Critical
Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Professional and Personal Life. She is a dynamic
presenter. Dr. Richard Paul is a major leader in the international critical thinking movement. He is
Director of Research at the Center for Critical Thinking, Chair of the National Council for
Excellence in Critical Thinking, and author of over 200 articles and seven books on critical
thinking. Dr. Paul has given hundreds of workshops on critical thinking and made a series of eight
critical thinking video programs for PBS. His views on critical thinking have been canvassed in
The N ew Yo rk Times, E d u c ation Week, The C h ronicle of Higher Educat i o n, American Teach
e r, E d u c ational Leaders h i p, N ew swe e k, U. S. News and Wo rld Rep o rt, and R e a d e r ’s
Dige s t.
The Foundation for Critical Thinking www.criticalthinking.org 707-878-9100 • 800-833-3645

[email protected] ISBN 0-944583-27-X • Item #533m
Comments
About | Terms | Privacy | Copyright | Contact
Copyright © 2017 KUPDF Inc.

Richard PAUL & Linda ELDER - The Thinker's Guide To Fallacies. !

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Richard PAUL & Linda ELDER - The Thinker's Guide To Fallacies. !

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Richard PAUL & Linda ELDER - The Thinker's Guide To Fallacies. !

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

https://kupdf.

The Thinker’s Guide To

Fallacies: The Art of Mental Trickery and Manipulation

By Dr. Richard Paul and Dr. Linda Elder

The Foundation for Critical Thinking

Linda Elder Foundation for Critical Thinking www.criticalthinking.org

Contents Truth and Deception in the Human Mind ..............................................3 Uncritical

FREE DOWNLOAD COPY 2

Evade Questions, Gracefully........................................................................................29 Flatter

44 Foul Ways to Win an Argument (Chart) ..........................................38 Fallacy Detection:

Uncritical Persons (intellectually unskilled thinkers) The over-whelming preponderance of people

FREE DOWNLOAD COPY 4

FREE DOWNLOAD COPY 6

Naming Fallacies The philosopher Schopenhauer, in commenting on tricks of persuasion, once

© 2006 Foundation for Critical Thinking

FREE DOWNLOAD COPY 8

© 2006 Foundation for Critical Thinking

be unclear, muddled, or confused

come to unreasonable conclusions

fail to notice their assumptions

fail to think-through implications

make unjustified assumptions

miss key ideas

lose track of their goal

use irrelevant ideas

form confused ideas

focus on the trivial

form superficial concepts

fail to notice contradictions

use inaccurate information in their thinking

ignore relevant viewpoints

ask vague questions

confuse issues of different types

ask loaded questions

lack insight into their prejudices

ask irrelevant questions

confuse questions of different types

be incompetent at problem solving

make poor decisions

lack insight into their own ignorance

distort data and represent it inaccurately

fail to notice the inferences they make

© 2006 Foundation for Critical Thinking

FREE DOWNLOAD COPY 10

Faulty Generalizations As humans, we live in a world of abstractions and generalizations. All

FREE DOWNLOAD COPY 12

© 2006 Foundation for Critical Thinking

Analyzing Generalizations If we are to aspire to reasonability, we must be willing to question our

© 2006 Foundation for Critical Thinking

FREE DOWNLOAD COPY 14

Don’t say most when you mean some.

Don’t say some when you mean a few.

And don’t say a few when you mean just one.

© 2006 Foundation for Critical Thinking

FREE DOWNLOAD COPY 16

© 2006 Foundation for Critical Thinking

FREE DOWNLOAD COPY 18

© 2006 Foundation for Critical Thinking

© 2006 Foundation for Critical Thinking