Hey what’s up Thinkers! Kathy Gibbens here…
Welcome back to another episode of the FitABC podcast! We are working on winding down Season 1, but if you’re new to the podcast and are just recently starting to listen, I’d really like to encourage you to go back to episode 1 and just start listening in sequential order. This isn't one of those podcasts where the newer episodes are the latest & greatest information and older episodes are no longer relevant. The way I’ve created this podcast is as a resource to be utilized & revisited, sort of like you’d do a book. So, I’d really invite newer listeners to start at the beginning b/c I build on what you learn in earlier episodes as we go.
Let’s start off with a quick review of a fallacy we learned earlier this season, the ‘I’m Entitled to my Opinion’ Fallacy. And yes, that is a real fallacy! This is a statement often used as justification for holding a belief or viewpoint, despite evidence to the contrary. It is important to note that while everyone is, or course, entitled to their own opinions, that doesn't mean that all opinions are equally valid or deserving of respect. Some opinions are based on facts, logic, and evidence, while others are not.
The question to ask yourself if you’re facing an ‘I’m Entitled to my Own Opinion’ Fallacy is this: “Are they choosing to believe a fact or an opinion?”
If you want to review or hear more about this fallacy, go back & check out Episode 110.
Would you like your kids to learn how to think for themselves, and be able to teach themselves anything? Our sponsor, Classical Conversations is a homeschool program that does just that. We meet in community once a week with other families who are on the same path and students learn the tools of learning & good thinking. If you’d like more info, I’ve got 2 free e-books for you! Just fill out the form at classicalconversations.com/gibbens to get immediate access!
Alright, let’s dive into today’s new fallacy, the Politician’s Syllogism. And I know, you may be thinking, ‘What did she just say? Syllogism? What is a Syllogism?’
Let me define this word for you before I define the fallacy. A Syllogism is a term used in Formal Logic to describe the way an argument is structured. Typically, there are two premises and a conclusion in a syllogism. Here’s a simple example of a syllogism: All flowers need light. All roses are flowers, therefore all roses need light. And there’s a bunch of variations of syllogisms, but it’s basically a way of structuring arguments to see if the arguments are true and/or valid.
Ok, so back to our fallacy for today, the Politicians’ Syllogism. The Politician’s Syllogism fallacy is also called the ‘We Have to do Something’ Fallacy and it usually happens when there is a tragedy or when something terrible has occurred. It sounds like this: We have to do something. ‘This’ is something, so therefore we have to do ‘this’. Then the politician pats himself on the back and says, ‘Look at me, I did something about this problem!’ But, the real question is: ‘did that ‘something’ actually help?’
Let me give you a simple, silly example of this fallacy. Your Dad keeps tripping over all the shoes in the entry of your house, which is dangerous & highly annoying. He says, “We have got to do something about all these messy shoes right inside the door. You know what would solve the problem? Getting rid of all you kids’ shoes. Honey, get the trash bag, we’re gonna clean up this mess!” Ok, do you see the fallacy? There was a problem which HAD to be fixed. Dad had a solution, throwing away all the shoes, therefore they had to throw away the shoes. But, is that REALLY the only solution? Is that really the BEST solution?
Here’s another example, and I’m going to exaggerate it a bit to help make the point a little easier to get. The new mayor of the city says, “Poverty & homelessness are a huge problem that must be addressed. My plan to raise the minimum wage to $50/hour will make a difference, so the City Counsel must approve my plan.” Ok, so there’s a problem and this mayor has a plan, but the question has to be asked, is that the best plan? Is it the only plan? Are there other plans that could or should be considered here? What are the second & third order effects of implementing this plan like businesses not being able to afford to pay $50/hour and having to shut down?
The reason this fallacy is effective is because when something bad happens, we have an emotional response to it. We naturally want to do something, anything, to fix it or make sure it never happens again. There’s nothing wrong with that. The problem happens when a person capitalizes on this desire to fix things by just offering ANY solution without actually proving that the solution they’re offering will really fix the problem or will really prevent it from happening again. Just because it’s A solution doesn’t mean it’s the RIGHT solution or even a GOOD solution.
Here’s another real-life example of the Politician’s Syllogism: In 1942, just a few months after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt signed an order that resulted in more than 110,000 Japanese Americans living in the US on the Pacific coast being forced into what were called ‘relocation camps’ in order to “do something” after the the attack.
The order stayed in place for 4 years. After these people were released they faced discrimination & lots of them had lost their homes & belongings. In 1988, President Ronald Reagan signed the Civil Liberties Act. The remaining survivors of the relocation camps were sent formal letters of apology and were awarded $20,000 in restitutions from the United States government. So you can see that this idea of ‘We must do something. This is something, so therefore we must do ‘this’.’ is not always a good idea.
Question to ask when faced with the Politician’s Syllogism is this: “Is that really the best solution to the problem?” *repeat*
Remember: When you learn HOW to think, you will no longer fall prey to those who are trying to tell you what THEY want you to think and it all starts with asking one simple question: “Is that really true?”
