Galloway's Fallacy
Was listening to public radio the other day and somebody was doing a show on George Galloway. Here's an applause-getting line they used as the headliner (not an actual quote, but as close as I can remember it):
The U.S. will have to get out of Iraq sooner or later, so it would obviously be better to do so sooner rather than later.
Gosh, that's a silly thing to say. As you know I'm torn on the question of withdrawal, but this is a non-sequitor of Biblical proportions. Compare: FEMA will have to get out of New Orleans sooner or later, so it would obviously be better to do so sooner rather than later.
I hate this kind of sophistical crap. Only the truest of true believers would let something like that pass.
Was listening to public radio the other day and somebody was doing a show on George Galloway. Here's an applause-getting line they used as the headliner (not an actual quote, but as close as I can remember it):
The U.S. will have to get out of Iraq sooner or later, so it would obviously be better to do so sooner rather than later.
Gosh, that's a silly thing to say. As you know I'm torn on the question of withdrawal, but this is a non-sequitor of Biblical proportions. Compare: FEMA will have to get out of New Orleans sooner or later, so it would obviously be better to do so sooner rather than later.
I hate this kind of sophistical crap. Only the truest of true believers would let something like that pass.
posted by Winston Smith at
11:33 AM
4 Comments:
Winston,
FWIW, I agree with this guy, both on the general wisdom (or lack thereof) of the war, as well as the specific question of withdrawal:
http://securingamerica.com/node/260
A relevant snippet:
"Clark, who is still nursing his own political ambitions, has argued that while he doesn't approve of the policies in Iraq, nor does he believe the war was well advised, the country cannot walk away. He also argues that there is no military end to the effort, rather that a diplomatic one involving other nations must be employed."
This may be one of those places where a quote really is taken out of context. I don't know, since I didn't listen to the segment in question and I haven't paid too much attention to George Galloway. I'm just going to tackle the issue of how bad the reasoning is; and oh, man, are you gonna cringe at how Davidsonian I'm gonna get on yo' ass =)
The key is that his background assumptions aren't part of the quote, and given that the U.S. leaving Iraq "sooner or later" is not a matter of logical necessity, some kind of empirical or contingent assumptions must be the rational basis for that assertion. So, taken in a vacuum, it's a non-sequitur, but given a reasonable principle of charity, and depending on implicit premises, there may or may not be a logical mistake being made here.
Supose the background assumption is that occupations are (ceteris paribus) bad things and (ceteris paribus) more occupation is more of a bad thing than less occupation (that is a horrible, horrible sentence but you must have read something like this before in your travels). Well, it's of course not on to simply assume the massive "ceteris paribus" clause; as a potential defeater, it might be that the US/UK presence actually is preventing the breakout of worse stuff, and if they "stick it out" over the long haul, things will generally be better off than if they leave soon.
On the other hand, if (Galloway believes?) the main reason necessitating the US and UK removing their troops from Iraq is, say, an insurgency that is fueled (chortle chortle) by the foreign presence, then the claim under discussion makes perfect sense.
Ouch! Ugh! I feel as if I'm being pummeled with a copy of _Inquiries Into Truth and Interpretation_...
I think you're right, but in that case I reserve the right to complain about having picked that quote as the headliner/lead-in. A rather pitiful complaint perhaps, yet it is mine and I stick to it.
You want a charitable interpretation? I'll give you a charitable interpretation.
Suppose you think that something very bad will happen if the U.S. pulls out of Iraq before achieving Total Victory. Suppose you also think that bad things will happen so long as the U.S. is in Iraq. The best thing that could happen is for the U.S. to stay so long that Total Victory is achieved, and you're using "get out" to mean "get out before Total Victory." But you also think that the U.S. will not achieve Total Victory, no way. Then you might say that we will have to get out sooner or later, and that given this it's better for us to get out sooner, so as to minimize the harms coming from U.S. occupation.
This is a position I find tempting, although as you say elsewhere I don't think I'm expert enough to pronounce definitively.
Also, I don't have enough respect for Galloway to think that this was what he really meant. And am too lazy/busy to check his context. Consider this an intellectual exercise only, please.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home