Dave: Welcome back to Rationally Minded Podcast. Irrational or poor patterns of reasoning are called fallacies. Each week, we invite an EFL educator and expert critical thinker to discuss different kinds of fallacies that come up in our everyday lives. We also discuss how you can learn to recognize fallacies and respond to other people’s fallacious statements and arguments with common and useful English expressions. I’m David Gann and this is Rationally Minded Podcast.
Today we’re pleased to have with us, Jennie Rothman, Jennie Roloff Rothman is an instructor in the English for Liberal Arts Program at International Christian University. Her teaching and research interests include academic writing, writing centers, incorporating global issues into the classroom, teacher development, and critical thinking. And most importantly, you all may know Jennie as the co-host of our other podcast, Dialogically Minded. Good afternoon, Jennie.
Jennie: Good afternoon.
Dave: So Jennie you’ve come to tell us today about your favorite logical fallacy. What is it?
Jennie: I think it’s gotta be non sequiturs.
Dave: And what is a non sequitur?
Jennie: A non sequitur is a response that does not follow what was said before. That’s what the Latin non sequitur means. Literally, does not follow. And these can be very silly, and for our purposes here, not really worth spending time discussing.
Dave: Could you give us an example?
Jennie: Okay, say something, anything.
Dave: Uh, Okay, Okay, let’s see … I know, this is good one. What is the answer to the ultimate question of life?
Jennie: Well, of course, as everyone familiar with Douglas Adam’s Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy knows, the answer is 42.
Dave: 42. And why is that is that a non sequitur?
Jennie: Well, of course, that cannot be the answer. There’s no set of premises leading up to the answer 42 that could in any way relate to the the meaning of life. Or at least I hope not.
Dave: I see. So there is a complete disconnect between what speaker one and speaker two says.
Jennie: Right. And that’s what makes it funny. That and the fact that the answer 42 is so disappointing. Sometimes it can be funny and these kinds of non sequiturs are often used in comedy or in literature. But, in terms of looking at fallacies in arguments, we’re more likely to see meaningful examples of fallacies in politics. For example, let’s say a politician is asked to defend themselves from accusations of dishonesty or immoral behaviour. The non sequitur is a common tactic that they use when they want to avoid answering the question, but still say something that seems like an answer.
Dave: But obviously they can’t just answer with the number 42, or by saying something crazy like “since about breakfast”, or “Jiminy Cricket jumped in the lake!”
Jennie: That might get them a few laughs, but it wouldn’t get the many votes. So, what many politicians will do is pick out a couple of key phrases in the question and use those phrases in their answer. But it will be an answer that has no real connection to the question.
Dave: Shall we listen to an example of this?
Jennie: Eugh … If we must. But, I have to warn our listeners that the following audio clips are painful to listen to.
Dave: I must apologize too, because etc
Jennie: If we must, but I have to warn our listeners that the following audio clips are painful to listen to.
Dave: I must apologize too, because, I don’t intend this program to take a political side, not because I’m afraid to take a side, but because I want these programs to have a long shelf life and if we talk about current events, these episodes will be yesterday’s paper in less than a year. Nevertheless, every once in a while a political celebrity appears who serves as such a good example or bad example of a kind of fallacy, that—well, you know I write most of the dialogues in this podcast series, but I could never write dialogues as irrational as the ones you’re about to hear.
Jennie: Right. Her name is Kellyanne Conway and she became Donald Trump’s campaign advisor and later the Counselor to the President. What she really does is protect Donald Trump from having to appear on news programs and answer questions. She is a kind of professional question non-answerer. Or, we might say, she has made a political career of answering questions with non sequiturs. Only to the untrained ear do they sound like answers. If you listen carefully though—or read a transcript of one of her interviews, you can understand that what she does is to listen to the words in the question and try to think of a way she can use those same words in a way that is completely unrelated to the issue that the question was about.
Dave: And it’s always negative. And this is a trick that she uses again and again. It’s gotten so bad that many reporters don’t even want to talk to her anymore. Listeners, read along and notice the words that are in all large letters. And listen to how first––how the reporter uses the words, and then Kellyanne Conway does. Here’s an interview with the journalist, George Stephanopoulos.
George Stephanopoulos: … That claim is GROUNDLESS. Isn’t it irresponsible for the president-elect to make false statements like that?
Kellyanne Conway: I think it’s GROUNDLESS—if you want to talk about fake news–the fake news is that somehow the popular vote is more important than the electoral college vote, now. I mean, I watched ABC and other networks religiously, George and I all I heard was “Road to 270”. I never heard “Road to …”––––.
George Stephanopoulos: Kellyanne; No one is questioning the victory. I said, ‘Is it appropriate—is it responsible—for a president-elect to make false statements like that?
Kellyanne Conway: Well, well first, many people are questioning the victory. You’ve got people spending millions of dollars people wasting money and time in the Clinton and Stein camps . . . in Wisconsin, Michigan, and the tried in Pennsylvania to recount. So, no not everybody has, quote “accepted the election results” but, to your question; the president-elect has been talking to different people including Chris Kovacs of Kansas about voting irregularities where the number of illegal votes that may have been cast, and I believe he may be basing his information on that.
George Stephanopoulos: There is NO EVIDENCE that there were millions of illegal votes–zero.
Kellyanne Conway: There’s also NO EVIDENCE that a recount is going to change the results in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, but we, the victors, […] the only people asked about the election results––and these states recounting the vote, George, really should be asked why can’t this president-elect form his government the way President Obama and Secretary Clinton have suggested that they would like to do––
George Stephanopoulos: Simple question. Is that statement by President-elect Trump true?
Kellyanne Conway: … I’m sorry?
George Stephanopoulos: Is that statement by President-elect Trump true?
Kellyanne Conway: Well, he has been receiving information about the irregularities and about the illegal votes …
<fades out>
Jennie: So, you can see that she caught the word GROUNDLESS and then used that in her answer.
David: And how she did the same thing with the phrase NO EVIDENCE. How about this second interview with another famous journalist, Charlie Rose.
Jennie: Listeners, notice how she repeats the key phrases IRAQ WAR, ACKNOWLEDGED and MISTAKE, but used them to talk about Clinton.
<fades out>
-9:50-
Charlie Rose: Kellyanne Conway, Donald Trump’s campaign manager’s in here Studio 57. Welcome.
Kellyanne Conway: Hi, thanks for having me.
Charlie Rose: So was Donald Trump for the IRAQ WAR or against it?
Kellyanne Conway: He was a private citizen who was against the IRAQ WAR. You heard him with Howard Stern say “Yeah, I guess so”. If––Had he been in the United States Senate he would’ve casted a vote against the IRAQ WAR.
Charlie Rose: How do we know that?
Kellyanne Conway: Because he said so. The same thing that Senator Obama said he would have done in 2008 and everybody just took him at his word.
Charlie Rose: But the point is, as you know, he constantly says, ‘I was always against the war.’ Here he says, ‘I guess I would support it.’ That’s a contradiction.
Kellyanne Conway: Not really, Charlie and here’s why. He’s giving—He’s on a radio show. Hillary Clinton went into the well of the United States Senate representing this state of New York and cast a vote in favor of the IRAQ WAR –
Charlie Rose: But this is not about Hillary Clinton. This is about Donald Trump and what he said. Because she has ACKNOWLEDGED that vote and has ACKNOWLEDGED that it was a MISTAKE, and he has not, and he wants to have it both ways.
Kellyanne Conway: He has ACKNOWLEDGED that HER vote in the IRAQ WAR was a MISTAKE. He agrees with her that it was a MISTAKE.
Charlie Rose: No, but he has not acknowledged that. At one point he said he was for the war. Why can’t he simply say that? “At one point I was but I changed my mind”.
<fades out>
-10.57-
Jennie: Did you notice, she uses his own words to try and make it sound like she’s answering after listening closely. But she’s really just being contradictory.
Dave: Yes, and it’s also offensive the way she tries this cheap trick on Charlie Rose, who’s no fool and is too smart to play her game. Lastly, her most famous interview, the one with journalist Chuck Todd, in which she invented the now famous new word, “Alternate Facts”:
<fades out>
-12.14-
Chuck Todd: It does not excuse. And you did not answer the question.
Kellyanne Conway: I DID answer your question!
Chuck Todd: No you did not. You did not answer the question of why the President asked the White House Secretary to come out in front of the podium, for the first time, and utter a falsehood. Why did he do that? It undermines the credibility of the entire White House Press Office–
Kellyanne Conway: No, it doesn’t.
Chuck Todd:–on Day One.
Kellyanne Conway: Don’t be so overly dramatic about it, Chuck. What—You’re saying it’s a falsehood and they’re giving—Sean Spicer our Press Secretary gave . . . ALTERNATIVE FACTS to that.
Chuck Todd: Wait a minute ALTERNATIVE FACTS?
Kellyanne Conway: that there is—
Chuck Todd: ALTERNATIVE FACTS? Four of the five facts he uttered—
Kellyanne Conway: Hey Chuck, why—
Chuck Todd: The one thing he got right was Zeke Miller—
Kellyanne Conway: Hey Chuck–
Chuck Todd: Four of the five FACTS he uttered were just not true. Look, alternative facts are not FACTS. They’re falsehoods.
Kellyanne Conway: Chuck, do you think it’s a FACT or not that millions of people have lost their plans or health insurance and their doctors under President Obama? Do you think it’s a FACT that everything we heard from these women yesterday happened on the watch of Barack Obama? He was president for eight years. Donald Trump’s been here for about eight hours. Do you think it’s a FACT that millions of women—16.1 million women—as I stand here before you today are in poverty along with their kids? Do you think it’s a FACT that many don’t have health care? Do you think it’s a FACT that we spent billions of dollars on education the last eight years, only to have millions of kids stuck in schools that fail them every single day? These are the FACTS that I want the Press Corps to cover. And this is why I’m here at the White House–
Chuck Todd: But I understand this—
Kellyanne Conway: —to change this—
Chuck Todd: What I don’t understand is—
Kellyanne Conway: —awful numbers like that.
Chuck Todd: That is not what yesterday was ABOUT.
Kellyanne Conway: Yes, it is.
Chuck Todd: So, you have not answer—you did not answer the question—
Kellyanne Conway: It’s what this presidency is going to be ABOUT . . . .
<fades out>
Jennie: She uses the word FACT and uses it over and over to turn what should be an answer into a political speech.
Dave: Notice how here it would have made more sense to say, “Do you think it’s a falsehood?” but she wants to avoid having that negative word associated with Trump, and so she uses the word ‘fact’ instead.
Jennie: Exactly. Something tells me, we’re going to hear a lot pre non sequiturs from Kellyanne Conway in the future.
Dave: Yes, a lot more than we want to, I’m sure. All right, let’s move on to the next kind of fallacy–
Jennie: Yes, the false analogy. What’s an analogy, Dave? Do you know?
Dave: Well, analogy involves comparison, doesn’t it?
Jennie: Exactly. We often compare something we are familiar with to things that are new or unfamiliar; to help us understand the new thing better. The human brain likes patterns and analogies can help create patterns in our knowledge.
Dave: So, then a false analogy does the opposite?
Jennie: Well, not quite. A false analogy assumes similarity between two things, people or circumstances, which aren’t actually similar. For example, just because two things look similar, it doesn’t mean they have similar traits or characteristics. Or, they may have one or two unimportant traits in common, but do not share the qualities that would make the analogy stand up to critical inspection. Could we play the dialogue?
Dave: Let’s hear it.
[A boy is looking forward to eating the chocolate chip cookies that his sister has just made.]
Brother: Oh look! The chocolate chip cookies are done. Can I have mine now?
Sister: Okay, here’s one for you, and…one, two, three for me.
Brother: You took three but only gave me one! That’s not fair!
Sister: Yes, it is. I made the cookies, so I get to eat more, right?
Brother: That’s not fair! We should each have three. That way it’s equal.
Sister: But you didn’t do an equal amount of work making the cookies! In fact, you didn’t do anything. So, you don’t deserve as many as me!
Brother: That’s not right! I don’t make dinner, but I still get to eat the same amount as Mom. Thesame goes for these cookies!
Dave: This is a tough one. It seems like the boy has a point. I mean it does seem unfair.
Jennie: That may be. And it may be that the fairest judgement is that they both get the same number of cookies. But, that’s not because the boy’s analogy is correct. After all, although there are similarities between his mother making dinner and his and sister making cookies, there are also some differences, the most obvious of these being that his sister’s role in the family is not one of provider, whereas the mother’s role is one of provider.
Dave: I must agree. When we look at it closely, this analogy quickly falls apart. But I still feel that they ought to have the same number of cookies.
Jennie: And I think so too, but again, it’s not because of his analogy. It’s because giving him the same amount is just good manners. But it shouldn’t surprise us that brothers and sisters sometimes argue foolishly about stupid things.
Dave: Right. Well, anyhow . . . It’s time for . . . Name That Fallacy! In this part of the show, we present you, our listeners, with dialogues, and challenge you to match each example dialogue to the correct fallacy. Lastly, we tell you how to respond to fallacies, using some easy English expressions. Are you ready Jennie?
Jennie: I think so. Let’s do this!
[Two women are sitting in a cafe on a Saturday morning]
Yumiko: Hi, can I get a large coffee please? Thanks…
Mariko: Wow, Yumiko, you sure do drink a lot of coffee. That’s your third cup this morning, isn’t it?
Yumiko: Yeah, I absolutely love coffee! I can’t start my day without it. I always tell my friends, “don’t talk to me until after the first cup.”
Mariko: Are you sure that’s healthy? Aren’t you worried you might have a problem?
Yumiko: What do you mean? A problem with what?
Mariko: You know . . . a problem . . . with drinking coffee. If you need a cup of coffee to get through the day, that’s like an alcoholic needing a drink to get them through the day. It’s not healthy.
Yumiko: Woah, wait a minute. Are you calling me an alcoholic, but with coffee? Coffee isn’t bad for you like alcohol is. They’re totally different.
Mariko: No, they aren’t. They’re both drinks that people can become easily addicted to. You should consider talking to someone about this. You might need some professional help.
Yumiko: Ok, yeah, they’re both drinks. And they’re both addictive, but that’s as far as the similarities go! Drinking too much coffee may not be super healthy, but it won’t destroy your family or cost you your job. The only problem coffee has ever caused for a personal relationship is THIS STUPID ARGUMENT WITH YOU!
Mariko: All I’m saying is that anyone who “needs a drink” or “can’t start their day without it” something has a problem.
Yumiko: How about you? You love to eat chocolate all the time…are you sure you don’t have a problem?
Mariko: Now hold on . . . that’s different . . .
Yumiko: No, it isn’t! And I’ll tell you why. First, . . .
<fades out>
Dave: So, Jennie, what do you see going on here?
Jennie: Well, she essentially called Yumiko an alcoholic, but with coffee. She’s assuming similarity between beverages without logically comparing the two. That’s a false analogy. Just because people drink a lot of something, it doesn’t mean they have a problem like serious addiction. You can just like to drink something and, therefore, drink it a lot. Like with the chocolate…she likes to eat chocolate frequently, but that doesn’t mean she has an addiction needing medical treatment.
Dave: Great, let’s go on to the second fallacy. It’ll either be a non sequitur or a false analogy.
[A mother is asking her 17 year-old son how he got alcohol at the high school party.]
Mother: So, when you got to the party, who gave you the first drink?
Son: Well, when I first got there, there wasn’t anybody at the party.
Mother: That’s not what I asked. Stop trying to dance around the truth. I asked you how you got the alcohol.
Son: Yeah, well Katrina got there, and someone put on the music and yeah, she and I started dancing around the room. It was really hot and that’s when someone brought out the juices and the ice.
Mother: Juice? Okay, and who did that?
Son: I think it was . . . I didn’t have any at first. I mean I didn’t drink any at first, but then Katrina said that—
Mother: I didn’t ask you what Katrina said. I asked you who brought the alcohol.
Son: The thing is that, because, see, because there wasn’t any specific moment when someone said, “Here, drink this.”
Mother, I’ll try this again. There was a time when there was no alcohol in the room and then there was a time when there was alcohol in the room. It didn’t magically appear. So, who brought the alcohol into the room and made it available for general consumption of teenagers?
Son: Mom, no one ever asked me if I was a teenager and I never told them.
<fades out>
Jennie: It sounds like someone has been taking lessons from Kellyanne Conway.
Dave: You mean?
Jennie: Yeah, this dialogue was one non sequitur after another. The son is using some of the words in the mother’s questions, like “when I got there” and “dance around”, but giving information unrelated to the truth of the matter. So, right, this is a non sequiturs. A chain of several non sequiturs in fact.
Dave: I have a feeling someone’s going to be in big trouble.
Jennie: Better him than me!
Dave: Right! And so that’s all for this episode. Thanks so much, Jennie Roloff Rothman, for speaking with us today.
Jennie: You’re welcome, Dave. Thanks for having me on the podcast. I appreciate it and really like what you’re doing.
Dave: Well, it’s a group effort on the part of you, me, and all the other guests who are going to visit us over the next fifteen or so weeks. And, of course our listeners who I hope will subscribe to us at iTunes, Stitcher and other podcast aggregates. And that’s all for this episode. Okay, listeners, watch your step, and don’t FALL for any FALse Analogies. And until, next time this has been Rationally Minded.