Tag Archives: Name-calling

Logic in the Music Industry World

9 Aug

A man I know teaches home music recording.  He writes blog posts, records, and mixes songs, markets tutorials, and mentors small groups of musicians who write their own music.  His fellow musical artists tend to be a content group.  Nothing too controversial occupies their common blogosphere beyond personal preference for certain equipment.

A while back, as he tells me, he published his views on pirating music software.  He presented a case along with supporting reasons: that downloading a tool called a plugin without paying the technicians who labor months to create, test and perfect such devices amounted to theft.

Chill musicians suddenly revealed previously concealed claws and let fly demeaning epithets and ugly expletive-laced insults.

Among the kinder and gentler name-calling, also known in the Logic World as the Ad Hominem Fallacy were these frequent accusations: You’re just…..

  • judgmental
  • narrow
  • high and mighty
  • too black and white

….topped off with various riffs on this line:

  • It must be nice to be rich and able to afford these products!

Why do people default to mudslinging?  It’s easy and doesn’t require thinking.  Often a responder will use character defamation in lieu of offering a reasoned argument.  I’ve noticed that more often than not these folks don’t even HAVE a compelling argument!

Well, what about our ‘high and mighty’ blogger with a conscience – how did he reply? Silence.  He simply ignored the hurtful slander.

A different group of fellow musicians apparently felt more comfortable challenging my friend’s definition of THEFT.  This approach is more commendable because the fault finder is at least attempting to THINK!  Here’s the best of those who offered a counter argument:

If someone doesn’t have the money in the first place to buy this music-creation software, then whether he ‘pirates’ it or not, it amounts to the same thing for the software company.  If he had had the money, he would have purchased it. But he doesn’t.

This responder seems to be saying in essence – ‘it’s not theft if you’re poor and you download something without paying.  It would only be theft if you HAD the money and then didn’t purchase it.’

How should a Logical Joe challenge someone who advocates changing the definition of the critical term?  A handy tool is to use the ‘Reduce it to the ridiculous’ response:

So you’re saying that if I don’t have the money to rent or buy a house, and your vacation cottage happens to be vacant, then I should be able to stay in it without paying you or without you even knowing that I am ‘squatting’?   For since it wasn’t being rented out anyway, you haven’t lost any money.  You suffer no real harm!

I know that the above is not quite an exact replica of the original argument, but you get the idea.

One other ‘it’s not theft’ justification focused on the ‘high cost‘ of the product.  According to this line of reasoning:

If the software company sold their product at a more reasonable price, then people wouldn’t bypass paying for it.

This line of reasoning shouts: ‘Arrogance and Ignorance!  For how do YOU know how much money, time, frustration and skill a software team poured into the development and marketing of their software?   At the very least it is based on speculative presuppositions pulled out of thin air!

So what is a quick Logical Jane response?  When in doubt, ask a question:

  •  And just how do you know that? (that people wouldn’t steal the software plugin if the price were lower)

By the way, did you notice how our last reasoner redefined ‘theft’ as bypass paying for it?  That’s a clever tactic that you shouldn’t let slide.

That ploy raises an important point.  If two people on opposite sides of an issue cannot or will not agree on a mutual definition of a key term, then any discussion that follows is a waste of time and energy.

Rule # 1 in Logic: A clear and mutually accepted definition of a key term is the starting point for any productive exchange of ideas.

So how did my home recording entrepreneur friend deal with this surprise dust storm of contrary views?  Besides ignoring the name calling, he did engage in measured back and forth online conversation with one man who ‘attempted’ to offer a charitable and somewhat reasoned argument on behalf of ‘bypassing remunerating’ the software engineers. But when they couldn’t agree on just exactly what constitutes ‘theft’, they had to agree to disagree.  A very reasonable way to leave such an exchange.

 

 

Logical Gal spots 2 fallacies in one syllogism

4 Oct

The other day I was listening to a radio program recounting a debate that had taken place in Australia.

One of the two debaters apparently resorted to name-calling and sought to be clever by doing so within a verbal syllogism.

And in the ensuing radio discussion about the quality of the debate, a listener pointed out there was a logic error within the syllogism.

Here is the syllogism (unfortunately it was intended to demean)

All mammals exhibit homosexual behavior

Joe is a mammal

Tf, Joe exhibits homosexual behavior

Can you identify the error?  You don’ t have to know anything about Joe’s sexual preferences to notice the problem.

Remember that a syllogism is limited in form by the requirement to have exactly 3 terms.  What are the terms in this one?

  1. mammals
  2. (that which)  exhibits homosexual behavior
  3. Joe

“ So…….??”  you say.

Here’s the problem: the term ‘mammals’  is actually used equivocally to mean two different concepts.

In premise 1, the term mammals really means species of mammals

So then in premise 2, mammals is used as a particular MEMBER of a species of mammals.

If we were to accurately state the premises and conclusion of the one advancing the argument, we would quickly see that he has used clever wording to cover up his Fallacy of Equivocation.  To reach his conclusion, he has to employ more than the 3 terms. (I’ve colored each term – only ‘ Joe’  is used twice.  We actually have 5 terms in this syllogism.

P1 – All species of mammals are species that have members that exhibit homosexual behavior

P2 – Joe is a member of a species of mammals that exhibits homosexual behavior

Tf – Joe is a mammal that exhibits homosexual behavior

And if that weren’t enough, he also commits the Fallacy of Division.  This happens when we assume that a quality of the group applies equally to every member of a group.

If we say “ Texas A&M sure is a passing team” in the sense that they pass the ball  a lot, it does not follow that every member of that team is a higher-than-average passer!

It may be that the Jones family is very artistic.   But Billy Jones is not necessarily artistic himself.  He might take after his great-great grandfather who played for Texas A& M!

A cake may be tasty, but each ingredient is not.  Have you ever snacked on butter? Do you see the fault in the reasoning?

Back to Joe and the name-calling debater.  Not only did his accuser have to cobble together multiple terms and then hide them, he also committed the Fallacy of Division and presumed to announce something about Joe that stretched beyond the known facts.

Remember, whoever makes the claim has to be able to defend his thinking!