Guerrilla Mythbusting: 5 Snappy Rules For Spotting and Exposing Popular Nonsense

College students tend to wax enthusiastic aboutand then arbitrarily excuses himself (or his
the lessons they pick up in class. Curiously, thisposition) from following, or being subject to, the
very admirable trait, a thirst for knowledge, has asame rule.Finally, spin-doctors notoriously create
downside to it. When one learns at a rate bestmind-fog by abusing langauge. Sometimes they
described as "alarming," which college studentsutter deliberately vague or ambiguous sayings.
often must do, little time exists to sit and siftSometimes they simply make fine-sounding claims
through all that new material carefully. And thisand offer no proof. You have heard this many
burdensome task would mandate yet more studytimes: "Our product delivers twice the chocolatey
time, which luxury few students can afford.Thisgoodness and only half the calories!!" (And Joe
means that, for very practical reasons, they willFried-potato, who happens to be wider than your
tend to accept readily the sermons that echodining room, AGREES!!). The simple way to fight
from academic pulpits. Consumers of mediamind-fog comes from asking questions that
information have nearly the same problem -- aclarify.For instance, in your criminology course, you
large flow of information thrust at them, and littlemight ask Professor Plumb, "Professor, you said
time to sort through it. Election years onlysomething about a candlestick in a library. Precisely
magnify this problem, and political candidates canwhat did you mean by "candlestick," and did you
grind axes with the best of them. When a scandalmean to refer to this literally, or as some sort of
breaks out, the media blitz can sometimes blindsymbol that stands for something else? Press the
even the more critical viewers. So we have donepoint, when you feel that someone tries to sell
some of the extra homework for these groupsyou something, as it were, under-the-table -- and
to help them make the best of this unhappymake them sell it over-the-counter instead. Make
situation. Here, we offer a clear-headed set ofthem say just what they mean, clearly and
rules to disperse the fog quickly, adding daylight toprecisely.Once you have a clearer idea of the
the topic at hand.As a first step in adopting anature of the claim he wishes to promote, you
cautiously critical posture, we would like tocan toss it into the pool of "noted claims to
introduce the rule, "take careful notes and developcompare and contrast," first measuring that claim
a long memory by referring back to them nowby itself, and then by checking it against the other
and again." Spin-doctors count on the fact -- aclaims in the pool. Some claims will swim, while
most unhappy truth -- that most people do notothers will plunge like the Titanic at an iceberg
remember what the sales script said that theyparty.Here, just below, we have collected a few
fed to the masses last week. This way, whenof our favorite sayings popular on college
they later change the story, you can call them oncampuses, most of which we have heard
it. If it's a political speech in question, "Tivo" it, soProfessor Spin mumble more than once from his
you can play it back when later when spinacademic pulpit. Not only do most of these refute
proponents deny that their guy ever said it in thethemselves, but they also don't get along with
first place.Second, isolate the parts of the speecheach other very well, as we will see. Our helpful
or lecture that seem to form the main points ofand irreverent responses to these appear in
the argument. Often this or that advocate willbrackets.1. No one can really know anything for
avoid stating the main points of his argumentsure, when all is said and done. [Really? Are you
explicitly, only implying them. Make the impliedcertain?]2. All religions are equally valid [Most, but
parts explicit yourself by asking, "whatnot all, religions deny this] [But we are absolutely
assumption(s), does this depend upon that he hassure this is true anyway].3. We must tolerate all
not stated openly?" Then write them down. Forviews [except those which deny this][Which
instance, if one were to argue, "We had to attackincludes most, but not all, religions] [but we are
his country because the guy is a tyrant," thenabsolutely sure that the dissenting religions are all
note that this assumes -- unless otherwiseequally wrong][And, of course, we will not tolerate
qualified -- that we must attack all countriesthose dogmatic religions].4. There are no ethical
where tyrants rule. Given today's political climate,absolutes [And we mean absolutely none] [Note:
this would not promote a very promising courseThis claim contradicts #1, 2, and 3 also.]5. Slavery
of action. So stated, we would have to attackis wrong [Although this is true, we put it here so
almost everyone, starting with the I.R.S.Soyou would notice that it contradicts #1, #2, #3
remember to make a list of the important claimsand #4, which shows that claims 1-4 are false,
in question -- whether the speaker or writer hasbut popular enough anyway].6. Education is the
stated, implied, or simply assumed them.Third,key to solving the world's problems [Unless we
"Always examine a claim by itself first."Thiscount all the logical problems created by educated
provides a fast and easy way to preventpeople (see above) who say impossible things].
reckless professors, for instance, from[Note: this also contradicts #1, #2, and #4.]7. Your
hoodwinking students into bogus philosophies (as iswestern views are too binary [You see, there are
their custom). For instance, consider the popularonly binary views, and non-binary ones -- which is
claim, "There are no moral absolutes." This woulditself a binary view -- oops] [hint: all views logically
mean that claims about morality necessarily haveexclude some other views] [Which, of course,
exceptions. Evaluating this claim by its own words,shows that NOT all views are equally valid] [Some
however, quickly reveals that it provides to us anviews, like "the earth is flat" are just goofy, and
example of a moral absolute. It allows nothese are only "equally vaild" with other stupid
exception, while speaking to the topic ofideas].8. Religion is responsible for killing too many
morality.Ironically, then, the claim instances anpeople [which implies that murder is wrong, even
example of just what it denies. The claim cannotthough this sounds like a moral absolute] [This also
be true on ITS OWN terms. Such claims wouldcontradicts claims #1-4, and #7.] [And note that, if
play the roles of felon AND whistleblower all atthis statement were true, it would render all
once. They represent a form of logical orreligions equally bad, not "equally valid," whatever
propositional suicide, since they affirm by example,that might mean].9. Bible-thumping Christians are
and yet forbid by principle, the very same thing.too dogmatic. [It is written: Thou shalt not be
Look for these and you will find more than youdogmatic!] [And we are sure of this] [So, follow
imagine might suffuse popular chatter.Fourth,instead OUR dogma, even though it refutes itself]
compare and contrast these claims, assumptions,[Which means that BTC's should not be tolerated,
and implied assertions with one another, asking,contrary to #3 above] [And that their religion is
"Are these logically consistent with each other, ornot "equally valid" with non-thumping religions,
do they get along like Larry, Moe and Curly whencontrary to #2].We could go on, and have great
the ladder-swinging begins, and the paintbrushesfun doing it, but you get the point. This band of
start to fly?" Sometimes speakers will utterhired accusers failed to coordinate their
logically incompatible sayings within a very shorttestimonies in advance. And so many of the
span. So you will need to learn to identify them toviews promulgated from academic pulpits turn out
note when this happens. Here, you will havejust a little nuttier than Jif. Just because a
located spin, exaggeration, unwarranted claims, orconfused-but-confident professor, politician, or
even outright lies. You might even getspin-doctor says it loudly and often -- this doesn't
two-for-one.For instance, when the U.S. invadedmake it true. So when she says, "question
Iraq, it did so against the voice of the U.N.authority," you might want to take her at her
inspectors, who wanted more time. This showsword, and start by putting her own claims on the
that the U.S. (or at least the currentchopping block first.In any case, by keeping these
administration) believes it proper to ignorefive rules handy, you can arm yourself against all
whatever authority the U.N. might have when itmanner of rhetorical shenanigans and verbal
deems it necessary. Yet when Iraq defied theskullduggery.Carson Day has written some 1.3
very same U.N. authority (Saddam, as we say,gazillion articles and essays on all manner of topics.
"dissed" the U.N. inspectors) the BushThese aim to glorify God and offer people real
administration claimed that this provided groundshelp to live wisely and well. You can visit Carson's
to invade Iraq. The "Okay for us, but not forwebsites at (The Omniblog, where Carson blogs
them" trick is called the fallacy of self-exception.everything) or (Carson's Day Trading Outpost).
One commits this error in reasoning when he laysThanks for stopping by.
down a rule for everyone or every argument,