5.6.2: Diverting Attention from the Issue
- Page ID
- 36165
Besides shouldering one's share of the burden of proof, an equally important duty for a logical reasoner is to stick to the issue during an argument. The issue in a piece of reasoning is what the reasoning is specifically about; it's the central question under discussion as opposed to the more general topic or subject. In the example of the neighbor accusing Jeff of slitting the bicycle's tires, suppose another neighbor says, "Quit picking on Jeff. You've hassled him before, and now you are doing it again. You never liked the fact that your son got beat up when he started that fight with Jeff." Now the second neighbor is raising a different issue. The issue was whether Jeff did it, but the new neighbor is trying to divert attention from this to a new issue, whether the accuser of Jeff has a hidden agenda. Even if you settle that second issue and find that the neighbor does have a hidden agenda, that does not settle the issue of whether Jeff did slight the bicycle tires.
The goal is to pursue the truth about the issue, not to sidetrack, confuse, or con one's opponent. Logical reasoners argue in good faith. The purpose is not to win, but to discover the truth. However, political debaters usually don't pursue such a high ideal. Similarly, lawyers fight for their client; they don't try to convince the jury their client is guilty, even when they believe that the client is indeed guilty.
It is possible to learn a lot about good reasoning by examining the major errors in faulty reasoning. Errors in reasoning are called fallacies, and this chapter explores some of the major fallacies having to do with getting off the issue. These are often called the fallacies of irrelevance, because when you stray off the issue you make irrelevant remarks.
When trying to spot the issue in an argument, one technique you can use is to search for some conclusion that is being defended. Then try to see if the reasoner is promoting the conclusion as their way of settling a controversy. That controversy will be the issue. Figuratively, the technique works like this. Imagine that you are walking along the top of a fence, and someone is giving you reasons to come down on one side. The issue in the argument is whether to come down on one side or on the other. The arguer is not arguing in good faith if he is pulling you off the fence onto his side by some means other than giving good reasons.
Identify the issue in the following discussion.
Jennifer: You are worrying too much. You should spend less time thinking about the consequences for police officers and more about the consequences for the mayor's office. If the mayor or vice mayor were injured, there would be an outpouring of grief throughout the city.
James: Police put their lives on the line for us every day. Each police officer's life is valuable, as valuable as the life of the mayor. Our police deserve our respect.
Jennifer: You are thinking of TV shows. Being a farmer is a lot more dangerous than being a cop, but that's a side issue. Look, if some of the police guarding the mayor and her staff get shot during the event we are planning, well, that's life. They know the risk. That's why we politicians pay them so much money.
James: That sounds pretty callous to me. I don't think you should write off police lives the way you write off the latest 2 percent budget cut.
Jennifer: Wake up to the realities. I'm talking political power, and you're just talking sentiment and morality.
The issue is:
a. that police lives are valuable.
b. whether political power is more important than morality.
c. that Jennifer is being callous about police lives and James is being sensitive and showing respect for them.
d. whether the lives of the police are as valuable as those of the mayor and vice mayor.
e. that if the mayor or vice mayor were injured, there would be an outpouring of grief all through the city.
- Answer
-
Answer (d). (a) is not the answer because it makes a statement on James's side of the issue, (b) is not the answer because, although it does give an approximate statement of the topic, the more specific issue is better stated by answer (d). Answer (c) states James's position on the issue, but it does not state the issue itself, (e) states something that James and Jennifer might agree to, but it is not the specific subject of their controversy.
The normal goal of an arguer is to provide convincing reasons for a conclusion that takes a position on the issue at hand. Arguments that do not achieve that goal are said to be bad, illogical, or fallacious. If the issue is whether a particular Toyota will start in the morning, the following argument doesn't speak to the issue:
The Toyota is owned by Barack, who is a citizen of the state of Hawaii, and aren't Hawaiians Americans? So, the car is owned by an American citizen.
The argument is fallacious, given the content. Yet the same argument would be on target in another context where the issue is the nationality of the car's owner, but it’s not relevant to the issue of whether the car will start. Intentionally diverting someone’s attention from one issue to another is called the Red Herring Fallacy and the irrelevant issue is called the red herring. The name comes from a prison break in which the prisoners are being chased by prison guards using dogs. The prisoner throws a red herring fish in some direction to divert the dogs in that direction. (Dogs presumably will be attracted more by the smell of the herring than the smell of the prisoners.) The bottom line here is that knowing the issue is key to deciding whether an argument is any good.
One extremely common technique of providing a red herring works like in this example. It is the 1950s and you are manufacturing cigarettes. Your opponent is complaining that statistics show cigarette smoking causes several kinds of health problems. To throw the discussion off track you comment, "Can you be certain? Surely the link between cigarettes and health problems isn't definitive, is it?" Raising doubt is what you are selling now, and it is the best means of competing with the body of facts. The current debate around climate change is a similar scenario.
Scientists are some of our society's best examples of critical thinkers, and it is their professional responsibility to pay careful attention to the evidence and to use the best methods of acquiring that evidence carefully. It is true that there are many examples of scientists who have not acted as critical thinkers; but pointing out these examples is not a good reason to conclude that scientists cannot be trusted any more than anyone else on scientific issues. This sub-issue of whether scientists are always totally reliable is a red herring.
What is the specific issue about minority politics referred to in the headline of the following newspaper article? The article's author isn't taking a position on either side of the issue.
Minority Politics at Issue in Merger
If Johnson County voters approve the merger of city and county governments into one mega-government in the November election, how minorities exercise political power could be dramatically transformed.
At least two current elected officials—both minorities—contend that the transformation means that minority communities will lose what little influence they now have.
Those minorities who helped write the proposal insist, however, that the local community councils formed under the merger will offer an unprecedented opportunity for minorities to hold office and to sway the debates on issues vital to their communities. There will be no loss of adequate representation, they contend.2
a. The issue is the election in Johnson County.
b. The issue is minority politics in Johnson County.
c. The issue is that the local community councils formed under the merger will offer an unprecedented opportunity for minorities to hold office and to sway the debates on issues vital to their communities.
d. The issue is whether the merger in Johnson County will weaken minority influence in government.
e. The issue is whether the result of the election for a merger in Johnson County will hurt minorities.
- Answer
-
Answer (d). The issue is whether the merger of the city and county governments of Johnson County will result in loss of adequate political representation for minorities. Answer (e) is not as good because it doesn't say what minorities might lose. Answers (a) and (b) are too imprecise, though they say nothing false. Answer (c) is the worst answer because it comes down on one side of the real issue by using the word that instead of whether.
A discussion is easier to follow if everybody stays on the topic and doesn't stray off on tangents. The duty of the logical reasoner is to avoid getting lost and diverting the attention of others from the topic at hand. Stacey doesn't do her duty in the following conversation:
Macey: Would the Oakland A's be in first place if they were to win tomorrow's baseball game?
Stacey: What makes you think they'll ever win tomorrow's game?
Stacey has committed the fallacy of avoiding the question. Her answer does not answer the question; it avoids it. This fallacy (error) is one kind of fallacy of avoiding the issue, because answering the question is the issue here. Answering a question with a question is a common way of avoiding an issue.
Like magicians, most politicians are experts at steering our attention away from the real issue. A politician was once asked, "Do you think either the U.S. National Security Council or the Pentagon is actively involved in covert activities in this region of Central America?" The politician responded with, "I think the fact that the president has sent troops into Central America in the past is not necessarily a reason to expect that he will do so now in this region of the world. There has been a lot of pressure by the U.S. banking community to upset the economic situation, but I seriously doubt that we can expect anything as overt as the sending of U.S. troops into the region. On the other hand, neighboring countries may be upset, so there is always a threat of invasion from that direction."
The issue was whether the government was involved in covert (secret) activities in Central America. The politician avoided that issue by directing attention toward overt (public) activities. The politician cleverly and intentionally committed the fallacy of avoiding the issue. Because politicians are so likely to use this avoidance technique, reporters at press conferences are often permitted a follow-up question. A good follow-up here would be, "Thank you, sir, but I asked about the likelihood of covert operations, not overt ones. Can you speak to that issue?"
In the following interview, does Pee-Wee Herman answer the question put to him, or does he avoid it?2
Interviewer: Did you include the romance in your film as a response to people labeling you as asexual or of indeterminate gender?
Pee-Wee: It's just something I wanted to do. I never understand why people say that, though. A lot of the reviews of the show mentioned stuff like "His gender is confusing to children." To me it's clearly male on my TV show. I don't see the confusion. I don't wear wigs or cross-dress. My name is Pee-Wee. There aren't a lot of women named Pee-Wee. Probably from this interview a lot of them will write to me, [gruffly] "Mah name is Pee-Wee and ah'm a woman."
- Answer
-
Pee-Wee's comments do answer the question that was asked; they don't sidestep it. When asked whether he included the romance in order to overcome accusations about his sexuality, he directly answered the question by saying he included it just because he wanted to and not because he wanted to overcome accusations about his sexuality. He then went on to address the accusations about his sexuality. You may believe he has a weak answer, or you may believe he didn't say enough. However, a weak answer is still an answer, so Pee-Wee did not commit the fallacy of avoiding the question.
A final note about the fallacy of avoiding the question. If somebody asks you a question, you wouldn't automatically be committing the fallacy by refusing to answer the question. Only if you should answer but don't do you commit the fallacy.
An arguer might suggest several issues while addressing another issue. The distinction is important in this conversation:
Sanderson: These Korean video cassettes are a lot cheaper than the ones Sony makes.
Tamanaka: Yeah, it's a shame. It's time Congress quit contemplating its navel and created tariffs against Korean electronic imports.
Sanderson: I don't see any reason for tariffs. Tariffs just restrict free trade.
Tamanaka: There should be more U.S. tariffs against Korean electronic imports because Koreans are getting unfair assistance from their government to subsidize their electronics manufacturing and because Koreans already have too much influence in the American economy.
The issue in the conversation is whether there should be more tariffs against Korean electronic imports. The argument in Tamanaka's last remarks addresses this issue. However, his remarks also suggest other issues, such as: Is there anything wrong with having Korean influence on the American economy? If it being right or wrong depends on how much Korean influence, then how much is too much? Are Korean electronics manufacturers really getting a government subsidy? If so, is that unfair? These side issues get suggested, but they don't get addressed in Tamanaka's argument. An argument will normally address one issue at a time. If you create an argument, your reasoning will be easier to follow if you take the issues one at a time and not try to handle everything at once.
1 Liberally adapted from an article by Eric Mattson in The Sacramento Bee, September 17,1990
2 From Interview, July 1987. p. 46