g. Argumentum ad verecundiam. This fallacy represents an attempt on the part of the speaker to move his audience by an appeal to reverence of authority, traditions, customs, etc. A long list of great and reputable names is submitted in support of a proposition instead of proving it on rational grounds. Ancient and religious names are frequently used. It is an argument from precedent, or, "whatever has been, should be." This kind of thinking made the Middle Ages so barren, and is what has kept China non-progressive throughout the centuries. Henry Clay was guilty of this fallacy when he said, "Two hundred years of legislation have sanctioned and sanctified negro slaves as property." Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, and Lincoln are names with which to conjure in political campaigns; Plato and Spencer, in philosophy; and Froebel and Horace Mann, in education. A lawyer, perturbed at the evidence submitted by his opponent, said: "Why, I never heard of such a thing in all my life." "Your Honor," came the quick reply, "I cannot allow the gentleman's ignorance, however vast, to offset my knowledge, however small." h. Argumentum ad hominem. - This argument is an appeal or attack "addressed to the peculiar circumstances, character, avowed opinions, or past conduct of the individual, and therefore has reference to him only, and does not bear directly and absolutely on the real question." It attacks an opponent's consistency or character, rather than his argument. It is often heard in courts of law and in political campaigns, when men and not principles are attacked. It is gratifying to note, however, that this kind of argument has become less and less common in modern public debate. When an opponent's character is attacked, it obviously has no bearing on the merits of a question other than to discredit him as a witness. And when his consistency is attacked, this, too, can go no farther than to discredit him personally; it leaves the real question untouched. The urging of an opponent's inconsistency-that his advocacy of a certain measure is contrary to his opinions as previously expressed, or with his circumstanceshas, it is true, a certain force in popular harangues, but the argument is frequently worked beyond its legitimate limits. Suppose a man does argue contrary to his record or to his circumstances-what of it? This fact has no bearing on his argument, nor does it necessarily impeach his sincerity. 3. Ambiguous terminology. The debater can never be too careful about the words he uses and the manner in which he uses them. To be able to express just the right shade of meaning demands a careful study of synonyms and diction. Such words as mob, crowd, democratic, representative, are frequently used to express more than one meaning by the same speaker. Words like expansion, socialism, anarchy, may be used either in a colorless or in a prejudicial sense, but they cannot properly be used in both senses in the same argument. Again, great care should be used to avoid applying the same meaning to different words. Inaccurate thinkers and speakers often confuse such words as socialist and sociologist, socialism and Marxism, spiritualism and spirituality, value and price, military and militarism, etc. Each word has a definite and precise meaning and should be used with all possible accuracy by the debater. The wrong meaning of a particular word, as applied to a particular statement, is another common form of this fallacy. A bad example though an argument not infrequently used is the following: The Declaration of Independence declares that all men are created free and equal; therefore the negro is the equal of the white man. 4. Composition and division. These two fallacies may be considered together, although the one is the converse of the other. The fallacy of composition consists in assuming that what is true of a part is true of the whole. Because two individuals have not been a success financially it does not follow that when married they will not be a success. It is fallacious to assume that what is true of each member of a class taken distributively, the same holds true of the class taken collectively. Each man in a regiment may be a coward, while the regiment may be very brave. The crowd mind thinks differently from the separate individuals composing that crowd. The fallacy of division consists in assuming that what is true of the whole is true of a part. Water is a liquid, but the separate elements-oxygen and hydrogen-are not liquids. The United States as a nation was neutral in its attitude toward the European war, but it does not follow that each of its citizens was neutral. A committee may give a student first place in a contest, while no single member of that committee ranked him first. SPECIAL METHODS OF REFUTATION It is sometimes desirable to attack an opponent's argument as a whole. Especially is this true when the debate is upon some definite question. But whether aimed at an argument in its entirety or at some single argument in a debate, following are some special methods often used for the purpose of destroying or diminishing the force of the arguments of the opposition. 1. Reductio ad absurdum. One of the most commonly used methods of refutation is that of reducing an argument to an absurdity, or, as it is named, the reductio ad absurdum a term borrowed from geometrical demonstration. By this method, the refuter assumes for the moment that a given proposition is true, and then points out the absurd results to which it leads. The method may of course be used as to the main question under discussion, or as to any particular proposition advanced by an opponent. Following is a classic example from Webster's Reply to Hayne: And now, Mr. President, let me run the honorable gentleman's doctrine a little into its practical application. Let us look at his probable modus operandi. If a thing can be done, an ingenious man can tell how it is to be done, and I wish to be informed how this State interference is to be put in practice without violence, bloodshed, and rebellion. We will take the existing case of the tariff law. South Carolina is said to have made up her opinion upon it. If we do not repeal it (as we probably shall not), she will then apply to the case the remedy of her doctrine. She will, we must suppose, pass a law of her Legislature declaring the several Acts of Congress, usually called the tariff laws, null and void, so far as they respect South Carolina or the citizens thereof. So far, all is a paper transaction, and easy enough. But the collector at Charleston is collecting the duties imposed by these tariff laws. He, therefore, must be stopped. The collector will seize the goods if the tariff duties are not paid. The State authorities will undertake their rescue. The marshal, with his posse, will come to the collector's aid, and here the contest begins. The militia of the State will be called out to sustain the nullifying Act. They will march, sir, under a very gallant leader, for I believe the honorable member himself commands the militia in that part of the State. He will raise the nullifying Act on his standard and spread it out as his banner. It will have a preamble, setting forth that the tariff laws are palpable, deliberate, and dangerous violations of the Constitution! He will proceed, with his banner flying, to the custom-house in Charleston, |