|
16.1 Irrelevance
One of the most potent criticisms we can make from a logical
point of view is that a person has said something that is
irrelevant. It is possible for reasonable people to
disagree on whether something is relevant or not, but before
meaningful disagreement can occur it is necessary to get clear
on the answer to this question: Relevant to what?
Relevance is, by definition, a relational concept. There is
no such thing as absolute irrelevance, only irrelevance
to a particular subject or issue.
16.2 Subject and Issue
In order to discuss the concept of of relevance clearly we will
introduce technical definitions of the terms 'subject' and
'issue.
Subject
All rationales attributed to a person's reasoning should be
relevant to the subject. To understand what a subject is
consider the following example.
-
Anabolic steroids should not be banned from professional sports
because they help athletes to perform better and they aid in
recovery from injury. Moreover, used under medical
supervision they are not very dangerous, certainly nowhere near
as dangerous as the sports themselves. People object to
steroids because they think of them as cheating, which of course
is only true as long as there are rules against them. They
also have really exaggerated notions of the harm they pose.
If you were to analyze this reasoning you would discover two
rationales. The first rationale is an argument for the
conclusion that anabolic steroids should not be banned from
professional sports. The second rationale is an
explanation of why people object to the use of anabolic steroids
in professional sports. Now consider some possible
characterizations of the subject:
-
the use of drugs
-
the use of anabolic steroids
-
the use of anabolic steroids in sports
-
the use of anabolic steroids in professional sports
-
the safety of anabolic steroids
The best characterization of the subject here is number 4.
1-3 are too general. The rationales are not about the
general use of drugs, anabolic steroids, or even anabolic
steroids in all sports. Number 5 is too specific, because
the rationales are not concerned only about the safety of
anabolic steroids.
It is very important to understand this: the subject is
not a statement. In other words, you would not
say of the above example that the subject is
-
that anabolic steroids should be permitted.
-
that people don't like professional athletes using anabolic
steroids.
These are statements to be evaluated in terms of truth and
falsity. A subject is not the sort of thing that is
capable of being true or false.
Issue
In ordinary language the term 'issue' and 'subject' are often
used synonymously. For example, people will often
speak of the issue of stem cell research or the issue of gun
control. However, we will use the term in this more
precise way.
There are two types of issues which correspond to the two
types of rationale: argument and explanation.
-
For an argument, we express the issue as whether or not C,
where C is the conclusion of the argument.
-
In an explanation, we express the issue as why C,
where C is the conclusion of the explanation.
Hence, in the reasoning above concerning the subject of the use
of anabolic steroids in professional sports, there are really
two issues:
When rationales are playing equally significant roles in a
person's reasoning, then you will simply identify as many issues
as there are rationales. However, when one rationale is
clearly the most significant, and others are not particularly
important or well developed, then you may simply identify the
main issue as the one corresponding to the most well
developed rationale.
Issue Confusion
One common form of confusion is confusion
about the issue at hand. Issue confusion is often the result of the failure to
grasp the nature of the rationale being proposed. For example:
Example 13
- Fitz: You know, you could have
avoided that accident if you'd been more careful. I notice you usually
just take off when the light turns green. I always look both ways to
make sure no one is coming.
- Marcy: Fitz, just go to hell, ok? Is that the kind of
thing that friends say to each other? Here I am with whiplash, three
cracked ribs and no car and all you can think to say is that it was all my
fault. I had a green light! That guy just came out of nowhere.
This example might be analyzed as a straw man, i.e., we might say that Marcy
misrepresents what Fitz is saying in a weakened form. But another way to analyze this is
to say that Marcy is actually confused about the issue Fitz is addressing. Fitz is
addressing the issue whether or not Marcy could have avoided the accident.
Marcy is addressing the issue whether or not the accident was legally her
fault. These issues are distinct, though of course they are on the
same general subject, namely Marcy's automobile accident. Marcy's response
is a pretty good example of what's known as a Red Herring which we define as follows:
Red Herring
- Definition: Distracting attention from an issue by
confusing it with a different issue that is irrelevant or only superficially
related to the one at hand.
- MOI: Identify the issue at hand and identify the
irrelevant issue being introduced. Show why the new issue is
irrelevant and why introducing the irrelevant
issue has the effect of confusing the two issues,
rather than simply explicitly refocusing attention on the new issue.
Red Herrings are fairly common, but it is also a very
easy criticism to abuse. The reason for this is that its easy to make what
someone is saying appear to be irrelevant by just arbitrarily defining
the issue very narrowly. We'll begin with a completely bogus Red Herring criticism:
Example 1
- Mo: I really don't think it's a good idea for the kids to be
visiting Aunt Margaret when they're still getting over the flu. She's
very old and frail, and the flu can be fatal for someone like that.
- Fran: Well, if that's how you feel about it then I don't think we
should take this trip at all. I mean the whole point of going back
home was for the kids to see Aunt Margaret.
Analysis
Mo's original issue is whether or not the kids should go
to Aunt Margaret's. Fran distracts attention from this issue by confusing
it with the issue whether or not they should go on a trip at all. This has
nothing to do with Mo's issue, since they could simply go on the trip without
visiting Aunt Margaret.
The problem with this criticism is that Fran has not
introduced an irrelevant issue at all. It's easy to make it sound
that way, but if it is really true that the whole point of taking
the trip was to see Aunt Margaret, then the two issues are intimately related.
Whether or not they should go on the trip depends on whether or not the kids
will be able to see Aunt Margaret.
The Red Herring criticism is only legitimate when an
issue has been pretty clearly defined. For example, if you are attempting to
carry out a particular well-defined task, and you begin to make considerations
that really have nothing to do with that task, then you are in Red Herring
territory. For example:
Example 2
- Bean: OK, I want to go for Sorensen as
our first round draft pick. We're agreed that we need the best
defensive catcher out there and this guy has the best defensive numbers in
all of Division 1 college.
- Brown: You have got to be kidding me.
Have you ever seen this guy? He is 6 feet 6inches tall and thin
as a rail. You know that good catchers are almost always 6 feet
or under. There's no way this guy is our pick.
Analysis:
The issue here is whether or not Sorensen is the best
defensive catcher. Brown introduces an apparently irrelevant issue, which
is how tall Sorensen is. This is a confusion, since Brown seems to think of this
as a reason for doubting whether Sorensen is a good defensive catcher.
Most Red Herring analyses can be debated. In this case,
for example, you might say this is not a Red Herring, because the real issue is
whether Sorensen's defensive stats in college means he will be a good big league
player. So, very often the Red Herring ends up being just a way of getting
clearer about what the real issue is. Here is a pretty simple Red Herring.
Example 3
- Juror 1: Well, this was a pretty straightforward trial.
Three witnesses identified the defendant as the shooter; her prints were on the gun
that fired the bullet, and they found the cash from the store in her
mother's apartment. I'd say this is open and shut.
- Juror 7: I really can't agree with that. If we convict
her, this will be
her third strike, and they're going to put this poor gal away for life.
She's got three kids. I'm not going to be any part of separating them from
their mother for life.
Identification
The issue here is whether the
defendant committed the crime. Juror 7 addresses a different issue, which is what
will happen to the defendant and her kids if found guilty. Juror 7 seems to be
confusing the two issues, because 7 seems to think that the existence of the
three strikes law bears on the question whether the defendant is guilty of
committing the
crime.
Although this is the sort of example that is typically
regarded as a classic Red Herring, even here the Red Herring analysis
may be a bit uncharitable. We might simply think of juror 7 as
acknowledging the defendant's guilt, but is arguing that she should still
not be convicted because the three strikes law is wrong. In other words,
she is not confused about the issue, she is just addressing a different one.
Example 4
- Teller: I'll go out for coffee with you but only on the
condition that we go somewhere besides the Common Ground again. That place is
so expensive, I just can't afford it. Besides, I don't like their
coffee and I don't like their snooty politically correct attitude, either.
- Winnie: How can you say that? Their coffee is
expensive because they only buy beans from producers that agree not to use
illegal pesticides or hire child labor. That really means a lot to me.
Analysis:
Teller's issue is whether the Common Ground is a nice
place to drink coffee. Winnie
distracts attention from this issue by confusing it with the question whether
the Common Ground supports important social causes or whether the Common Ground
deserves to be supported.
Example 18
Vincenzo: I don't care how many children's books Tookie Williams
wrote, or how much he spoken against gangs once he was in prison.
The fact is that he killed four people in cold blood. Justice requires that when
a person is convicted of a crime they receive sentence, and Tookie's sentence
happens to have been death.
Resendes: You need to acquaint yourself more
with Tookie Williams' work. His books have helped lots of kids avoid the
fate of Tookie Williams. This is not a black and white thing. Sure
justice requires that people serve their sentence, but justice also requires
helping at risk youth stay out of trouble, and that's what Tookie Williams has
been doing for the last 20 years.
Analysis:
The issue here is whether or not Tookie Williams should be
executed. Vincenzo argues that he should, because he was found guilty of
murder and sentenced to death. Resendes seems to be arguing that Williams
should not be executed because Williams has done good things for society since
being found guilty. One could reasonably assert that whether Wiliams has
done good things for society is not a relevant consideration in determining
whether a person's sentence should be carried out.
|