Hillary's Favorite Fallacies By Jim Fetzer

[Demeter]

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_jim_fetz_080424_hillary_s_favorite_f.htm





Madison, WI (April 24, 2008) – As a retired professor of philosophy who has spent 35 years teaching college courses in logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning, I find it astonishing that newspaper reporters and television commentators are being taken in by fallacious arguments on behalf of Hillary. None of the five most important arguments for supporting Hillary in her contest with Barack Obama, for example, could pass scrutiny in a freshman course on critical thinking. There is powerful evidence here that politicians are among the most prolific at dispensing fallacies. That they continue to be taken seriously suggests that the "dumbing down" of America is complete or at a very advanced stage.

1) He can't win the large states: The first of these arguments contends that, since Hillary prevailed over Obama in several large states, such as Pennsylvania, he would be unlikely to win those states in the general election. This argument has been making the rounds in newspapers and on television. It appeared on the front page of USA TODAY (April 23, 2008) using the following words:

Her win only nicks Obama's lead in pledged delegates, but it does reinforce questions she's raised about whether the Illinois senator can appeal to white working-class voters and carry the big industrial states on which Democrats rely in general elections.(p. 1A)

Stated explicitly, the argument maintains that, since Obama lost to Hillary in the party primary, he would also lose to McCain in the general election. But Hillary and Obama are both strong and attractive candidates to Democratic Party members. That more of them may prefer Hillary in a primary does not signal their defection to McCain in the general. Indeed, Obama has demonstrated that it is he, not Hillary, who has inspired new voters to engage in the primaries. He has shown that he draws heavy support from independents and even Republicans when they are eligible to vote. A preference for one Democrat over another in a primary does not indicate a preference for a Republican over a Democrat in the general election... That she won over Obama in the primary does not even show that she would prevail over McCain in the general.

In courses in critical thinking, arguments by analogy occur when two things are compared and the claim is made that, because one of them has certain properties, A, B, and C, then, since the first has the additional property, D, so must the second. When there are more differences than similarities or few but crucial differences or the argument is taken to be conclusive, however, the analogy is faulty. That Obama lost to Hillary in a Democratic primary pitting two strong and attractive candidates does not mean that Obama would also lose in a general election pitting him against the much older and (arguably) far less attractive GOP candidate, John McCain. There are more differences than similarities.

2)He lacks a "knockout punch".

The second of these arguments contends that Obama doesn't have what it takes to put his opponent away: He lacks a "knockout punch". This one made its way into the column by Maureen Dowd, "Wilting Over Waffles" (The New York Times, April 23, 2007), in its opening paragraphs, which read as follows:

He's never going to shake her off. Not all by himself. The very fact that he can't shake her off has become her best argument against him. "Why can't he close the deal?" Hillary taunted at a polling place on Tuesday. (p. A25)

But the same question might well be asked about Hillary with even greater justification. She began this contest with an enormous lead in the polls, an impressive organization, and instant familiarity. She was the favored candidate, by any measure. So what's happened? "Why can't she close the deal?" It seems clear: She lacks a "knockout punch"!...The fact is that Hillary's campaign has been mismanaged from the beginning, as virtually all sides would agree. Adopting a "big state" strategy, she allowed her rival to accumulate a string of victories and an impressive number of pledged delegates. Hillary's campaign squandered vast sums on high-priced advisors, four-star hotels, first-class air fares, and catered meals. Obama's campaign has arrived earlier and in greater number in state after state. Her plan was to have the contest "wrapped up" by Super Tuesday. But it didn't happen. One might well ask, "Why?" The answer: She lacks a "knockout punch"!

3)She won a "double-digit" victory

ARTICLE CONTINUES---SEE LINK

Authors Website: www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/

Authors Bio: McKnight Professor Emeritus, University of Minnesota, Duluth; Founder, Scholars for 9/11 Truth; Editor, Assassination Research.

[DJ13]

1. K & R

!

[RufusTFirefly]

2. K & R n/t

[quantass]

3. k/r