.jpg)
Red Herrings and Ad Hominem arguments:
As consumers we are entitled to raise objections to any proposal put to us by a salesperson. However, we are often distracted from the main thrust of our argument by irrelevancies. There are also occasions when we give good reasons why we do not accept the advice being offered. Usually this is met by a counter-argument from the salesperson. However, these counter-arguments are often not as persuasive as they might at first appear. This is because they fail to distinguish between the objection and the person giving it. But let us first look at the strategy of irrelevances.
Red Herrings:
When presenting arguments it is easy to distract us from the main thrust with irrelevancies. When a salesperson comes up with an irrelevant premise as a reason for accepting their advice they commit the red herring fallacy. For example:
I believe you should invest in an ISA because they are extremely popular.
Here the idea being advanced is that the ISA’s popularity among the investing public is a reason why we should invest. But is this a compelling reason? If the reason we should invest is based, as it should be, strictly on the basis of its merits, combined with our needs, then its popularity is irrelevant.
Red herrings ask us to accept a particular conclusion on a questionable, irrelevant, premise. If such premises are successful it is because they seem plausible, especially when presented in a way that instils some positive attitude toward the conclusion. In this way we don’t notice the irrelevancy. In the example above the inclusion of a red herring is not wrong in any ethical sense, just persuasive for the wrong reason. The example below also tries to persuade with irrelevances.
When considering the investment of a capital sum the discussion turns to the issue of security. The salesperson argues that multinationals, like their firm, offer greater security than smaller domestic companies. In this instance the premise, ‘we are a multinational’, is intended to make us supportive of the idea of investing with them. However, it is irrelevant. This becomes obvious if we simply asked ourselves what the salesperson would say if they worked for a smaller firm. It also ignores the fact that both small and large firms are covered by the same legislation.
Our ability to recognise red herrings depends on our knowledge of what is and is not relevant to the issue at hand. Those able to spot red herrings are not persuaded by the argument. However, for those of us who are persuaded we must not quibble over words - we have been seduced by irrelevancies.
We should keep in mind at all times that the reasons to buy should depend on a preponderance of evidence in favour of that conclusion. In the case of investing a capital sum the conclusion should be premised on our needs and the product’s fitness for our purpose rather than on red herrings like the size of the company selling the product, or the products popularity, and whether or not a friend has bought a similar product, and so on.
Red herrings are simply premises that do not support the conclusion. At best they should be unpersuasive; at worst they are an attempt to intentionally distract us. In either case they should be eradicated from arguments. But sadly they probably never will be. For this reason we need to be conscious of what is, and what is not, relevant to the conclusion if we are to avoid being unfairly persuaded by red herrings. Attacking the person:
When a salesperson addresses their response to the person, rather than an assertion or claim being made by that person, they commit the fallacy of attacking the person.
Ad Hominem – Attacking the Person:
This type of fallacious argument is likely to surface when the salesperson is confronted with competition, or contrary advice given to us from a third party. Such tactics are questionable and do not address the issue but rather seek to justify their own claim by discrediting or attacking the person. This fallacy appears in several forms. The first we might call abusive. Here the salesperson directly attacks you rather than the assertion you made. For example:
You may argue that block paving is better than tarmac, but you are just following a fad.
You may believe they offer the best deal, but you’ve been seduced by the adverts.
The second version of the fallacy is a circumstantial one where instead of attacking an assertion the salesperson points to the relationship between the person making the assertion and the person's circumstances. For example:
Of course your accountant would say tax planning should only be done by them: it means more fee paying work, regardless of whether you take their advice or not.
We really shouldn’t listen to what that plumber says about the electrical wiring; their company is owned by the largest electrical contracts in the area.
The final version of the fallacy is this form of attack on the person where the salesperson turns the assertion back on the person who made it. In other words, the accusation that they do not practice what they preach. For example:
The salesman at the Ford dealership drives a Mercedes; so I would take what he says about Fords with a pinch of salt.
The builder says you should renew your guttering; but have you seen the state of his house?
Notice that the conclusion of these arguments is left implicit, but given in the salesperson’s tone. But in all of the examples the implicit conclusion has more to do with vitriol than sound reasoning.
It is also being suggested that whenever someone would benefit from something, we should reject their arguments in favour of it. This is absurd? So, it is unreasonable of the salesperson to ask us to reject a point of view just because the person or firm offering might benefit by it. What matters in each case is the strength of the reasons given irrespective of the giver gaining by it.
These types of argument should also not persuade us because they give us no more reason to accept a proposal than before we raised the initial objection.
We should be aware when an identity attack is in progress. When we experience it we need to be mindful that the character or circumstances of the person has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the proposition being offered.
In #9 I will look at Majority Belief and Perfectionists arguments.