The Right to be Wrong

The Year is 2020. The world in general, as well as the location I am currently in specifically, is under the lockdown due to the discovery and spread of COVID-19. So, having been restricted indoors and alone, what with my family – due to certain decisions we took and actions we undertook – in a different place/s than me, I have a little too much free time, especially on weekends.

So, instead of catching up on my reading or taking care of my health, I am emulating the rest of my fellow Homo Stupendo Stupidus humans, by becoming more embroiled in the social-media-web, with the Wh@!$@pp and T*!*%#@m groups that are normally muted or otherwise ignored, getting my attention. Not undivided attention, mind you, as there is T^!&&#r and various other places, where opinions masquerade as facts and prejudices hide behind flowery language and well designed graphics.

While doing this in the past few weekends, I have observed and participated in heated online arguments amongst friends, co-workers, batch mates and rank strangers about a lot of stuff. Other than (i) a bit of grammar rules and (ii) a byte of basic spelling, the innocent really gets the worst paddle on the Gluteus Maximus (GPL as we used to call it) is (iii) basic logic.

In other words, we have rescinded the “right” of others to have a contrary opinion (“wrong”). As a result, our methods of convincing have become more militant.

We, the Pure-hearted Super-intelligent Protagonists of self-written Epics of Righteousness, have taken away the Right to be Wrong. Vociferously, at that!

So instead of burdening the world with what I consider is Right (more Right of Center, but that’s another thing), I thought let’s examine the various fallacies of logic. Not just for the heck of it, but preferably to be used as a checklist of pitfalls rather than as a tool to shame opponents.

I have been earlier accused (rightly so) of having a too avuncular approach (as insinuated by Somak an ex batchmate) as well as sometimes a too-professorial pattern (as described by Bhagvath an ex Boss). With the new-found editorial support of @kyabakteho, we will try and give some fun examples. Fun for us that is! Namely a few popular culture (read Bollywood) examples to try and not scare-off the young-uns. The shorthand being used shall be the B-Story.

What was the number we tried last time? 27-ish? From the number when I G**g!ed “latitude of my location”? Please try this for yourself. In case you work for Google, here is a bug for you.

This time, let’s use the latitude of the location at 30.5928° N, 114.3055° E, where this CoVid situation (hence by a stretch, this thought) might have started from… allegedly. We mean no disrespect, or slander of any kind, towards our “friends”. Xiānshēng, qǐng yuánliàng wǒ! Let us be more… umm.. respectful, and take half of it. Say 15!. There are obviously more fallacies than that but hey… we are not making the rules… wait… aren’t we? So here goes:

A. CATEGORY OF MISDIRECTION

1. Appeal to Popular Assent (Argumentum Ad Populem): This is the fallacy of choice for all demagoguery, and in today’s Age of (Too Much) Information and (Even More) Opinions, may be the most common.

Important sub-types: (i) Bandwagon Approach, i.e. “everybody is doing it”; and (ii) Snob Approach, i.e.”all the best people are doing it”.

B-Story Example: ‘लोगों से सुना है, किताबों में लिखा है, सबने यही कहा है, सबने यही कहा है, प्यार करने वाले कभी डरते नहीं!‘ This much-loved song is from the movie Hero (1983). Please note that the lovely Meenakshi auntie and Jackie bhidu don’t justify their fearlessness, but just state the popular opinion. Hence for logic purposes this becomes part of the “bandwagon approach”. Wrong or not… we will explore in #15.

2. Argument from (Adverse) Consequences: The illogicality of agreeing or disagreeing to a statement solely on the basis of how much we like or dislike the presented consequences should be obvious. The truth of the matter is independent.

B-Story Example: ‘तुमने अगर प्यार से देखा नहीं मुझको, तो छोड़ के शहर मैं चली जाऊँगी।’ The movie was Raja (1995). Again Madhuri Auntie did not tell Sanjay Chacha how she is right:

[From the Editor’s Desk: One wonders if the entire film in itself was a fallacy, but that’s a discussion for another time – @kyabakteho] ohh… and this may be something that appeals to fear, which segues to a few sub-types which we would like to club under this.

Additional Sub-types: (i) Appeal to Fear (Argumentum in Terrorem) & (ii) Appeal to and/or Threat of Force (Argumentum Ad Baculum): This has intimidation in-built rather than belief in the merits; i.e. make people agree without being convinced. For those who googled the word “baculum”, kindly wipe that snigger off your face!

B-Story Example: ‘बेटे सो जा, सो जा नहीं तो गब्बर सिंह आ जाएगा!’ This is one the many cult-classic dialogues from Sholay (1975). Apologies for stating the obvious, the format demands it. Herein is described a method employed by the mothers residing in Ramgarh (and other villages within a 156 km radius), where the logic of sleeping on time is not explained to the tiny-tots. Just the adverse consequence of Mr. Gabbar Singh’s imminent arrival is expected to convince the little angels. The question in our combined psyche is (or at least, should be), threat of whose arrival did Mrs. Hari Singh use to make Bal Gabbar sleep on time?

3. Appeal to Emotion (Argumentum Ad Misericordiam): The misuse of emotions that we profess to have (or actually have!) but which have no direct correlation to the veracity of our argument, is when we can I-Spy this fallacy. BTW, our whole childhood passed while we wondered why Ice-Pice meant “I see you”.

B-Story Example: ‘बाख़ुदा हम मोहब्बत के दुश्मन नहीं, अपने उसूलों के ग़ुलाम हैं, एक ग़ुलाम की बेबसी पे ग़ौर करोगी तो शायद हमें माफ़ कर सको!’ The movie is Mughal-e-Azam (1960). Please note this emotional statement is being made by the Emperor of India (Zil-e-Ilaahi) to a Dancing Girl (Anaarkali), whom he has condemned to be buried alive behind a brick wall, that too standing. So definitely this HAS to be fallacious. Also, she deserved a good soft bed, at the very least.

4. Straw Man and His Friends: When in addition to the misdirection, there is (i) an element of distortion of the opposing stance to make it easier to tear it to bits, or (ii) a serving of obfuscation of our own stance to make it easier to defend, we take help of the Straw-man and his two friends Hollow-Man and Iron-Man.

When we “pretend” to attack our opponent’s stance, but actually attack a distorted version of the same, which is neither being defended by anyone nor is difficult to destroy, we are using a classic “straw-man” technique.

On the other hand, instead of doing the “hard work” of distorting the opponent’s stance, we (i) “invent” a fictitious stance and attribute it to the opponent, (ii) make it vague enough thus absolving us of the need of truthfulness, and then (iii) proceed to destroy the same to smithereens, and by association (iv) maintain that we have discredited our opponent, we are using the more extreme “hollow-man” technique.

And, in sharp contrast, if we distort our own stance, by using vague terms that are easy to agree with, and then use this “agreement” to claim to have proven our stance beyond any doubt, we are using the “iron-man” technique.

B-Story Example for Straw Man: ‘पहले तुम उस आदमी का sign ले के आओ जिसने मेरे हाथ पे ये लिख दिया!‘ This iconic scene from Deewaar (1975), is an awesome example. If we think it through, it has Straw-Man as well as some part of the Hollow-Man.

B-Story Example of Hollow Man: ‘ये अदालत है, कोई मंदिर या दरगाह नहीं जहाँ मन्नतें और मुरादें पूरी होती हैं, यहाँ धूप बत्ती और नारियल नहीं, बल्कि ठोस सबूत और गवाह पेश किए जाते हैं|’ Everyone’s favorite baddy, Amrish paaji in his avataar as Chaddha in Damini (1993), invents the stance of his opponents, that they equate the court of law with places of worship and offer trivialities (equated with incense and coconut) instead of solid evidence.

B-Story Example of Iron Man: Here instead of a specific example, we submit some classic dialogues of Mr. Kulbhushan Pandit, better known as Raajkumar with his statements of why he was always right and invincible. We all ought to agree with him, as logic is for lesser mortals!

5. Appeal to (inappropriate) Authority (Argumentum Ad Verecundium): When what is right is based on what is said by someone in authority (currently or in the past), we are already on a sticky wicket. Even then when someone misuses this technique it should be easy to spot, and hence (may be) stop.

Type #1: Appeal to Vague Authority: The most common example is when the authority being “quoted” is someone who does not have any provable expertise in the field his opinion is being used.

Type #2: Appeal to Tradition (Argumentum Ad Traditionem) or Ancient Wisdom: This takes another form, when the ancient wisdom is invoked, i.e. something is said to have always worked in the past, hence must surely work in the present AND will always work in the future.

B-Story Example: ‘एक था गुल और एक थी बुलबुल, दोनों चमन में रहते थे, है ये कहानी बिलकुल सच्ची, मेरे नाना कहते थे|’ We may say that the fact of existence and budding romance betwen a flower and a singing bird is in no way proven by the statement of one’s maternal grandfather. In one foul shot this is an example of Appeal to Vague Authority (unless the nana was the Chief Conservator of Forests, eh @kyabakteho) and Appeal to Ancient Wisdom (though just going back two generations). Hence, we never believed this song in the movie Jab Jab Phool Khile (1965) as truthful. Extremely strict, we are!

Type #3: Appeal to Biased Authority: When the authority, though definitely knowledgeable in the particular field, has motivations (personal or professional) that render their support suspect.

B-Story Example: ‘मेरे दिल की तू जान, तू मेरी पहचान, जग में तुझ सा नहीं, है ये मुझको ग़ुमान|’As long as the compliment exchange stays between the parent and the child, it’s perfectly fine. There is however, some danger of progenies taking their progenitors’ compliments as a true measure of their awesomeness and… erm… greatness, which is an example of this fallacy. Having said that any argument or logic of excellence brought forth by Shree^108-His-Excellency-Superstar-Thalaiva Kishan Kumar would be scrutinised by us quite stringently. The smart-glutes amongst you who are now silently wondering whether this “logic” of ours is fallacious or not, and if “yes” what is the specific category, they may kindly wait for #6 that comes next. Segues are how “smooth” narratives travel, right?

Side Note: To remedy the lack of non-fallacious examples, we would like to showcase one shining specimen, wherein Mr. Sanjay Khan (ex father-in-law of Hrithik if you please) verifies the beauty of Ms. Zeenat Aman, across various relevant and irrelevant authorities with elan, in the movie Abdullah (1980).

6. Personal Attack (Argumentum Ad Hominem): This is placing undue importance to the source of the argument rather than its underlying substance. तुम ग़लत, तुम्हारी हर बात ग़लत। Please note that this need not be used as a negative or abusive way, but also as a positive or affirmative way; i.e. तू यार है मेरा, तेरी हर बात सही!

B-Story Example: Being 80’s born kids, we have never been sure of two things; (i) whether we can be considered as millennials, and (ii) how to hold a long conversation with our dads. Most of us have never gone beyond monosyllabic interactions, which mostly involved the exchange of information related to “pass hue?” pre-college, and “paise hain?” thereafter. Very few father-son duos of that era, have managed to break the conversation barrier, like Mr. Bachchan and Pran Saab have managed to in Sharaabi (1984). What an Ad Hominem exchange! It’s an Ad Hominem Stock exchange.

Side Note: Please note that “red herring” is not mentioned as a separate type, as we believe that this whole category can be considered versions of the same, in a way (if we squint our eyes just right, and use the correct lighting).

B. CATEGORY OF AMBIGUITY:

7. Equivocation: When a person exploits the ambiguity of language by changing the meaning of a word during the course of an argument and uses the different meanings to support an ill-founded conclusion, we may consider the use of this informal fallacy.

B-Story Example: This verbal/logical legerdemain has been filmed on Big B many times, so let’s dig one out from Chupke Chupke (1975) wherein he flips a few botanical terms to try and get the discussion to move from botany (which he knows zilch of) to language (of which he is an expert).

8. No-True-Scotsman Move: One way of creating ambiguity in favor of our stance would be to redefine it in a more restrictive way, with adjectives like “true” and “real”, which make it hard to refute, and easy to defend.

The classic example uses a stereotype of Scotsmen, and it has unfortunately stuck. If you allow, we will use the demographic of Englishmen instead, just to assuage our unnecessary need for justice. Say, Lord Narrow-in-the-Mind (Lord “NIM” for you and me) sat down for reading his daily news on the internet (what with the lock-down and everything). In the article he clicks on at random, he espies a horrendous error in punctuation, compounded by three misspelt words and a general grammatical waywardness. He thinks to himself, “No Englishman would have done this. Must be those upstarts from South-East Asia.” But then he checks and finds that it is written by a very English, Earl of Range-Of-Daftness (Lord “ROD” if you will) but with whom Lord NIM is not on good speaking terms. So he mutters “No True Englishman would have done this“. And we are not calling anyone a NIMROD!

B-Story Example: ‘(जो) मर्द (होता है उस) को दर्द नहीं होता!’ This dialogue, again by Big B, in Mard (1985), creates a very narrow definition of a manly man, or mard. As he does not mention any upper limit of the ability of a manly man to not feel the pain (and given our low pain thresholds) this statement can be considered as fallacious. In fact the redefinition of “asli mard” is tacit here, given the context that Ruby memsahab had succeeded to inflict “dard” on other gents, with exemplary results.

C: CATEGORY OF WRONG ASSUMPTIONS/METHODS

9. False Dilemma or The Black-and-White Fallacy: It stems from a presumption that only two states may exist; either black or white, no grey. This may be said to be, if we are feeling charitable, a case of over-simplification. Or we may consider, and rightly so in today’s world, a case of outright lying by hiding one or more alternatives. A quick check for this can be when something extremely unsatisfactory is presented as “the” alternative to the option which is being thrust on you. In most cases, it may be “an” alternative, while other more satisfactory or acceptable alternatives are being ignored; knowingly or unknowingly.

B Story Example: दो बातें हो सकती हैं सनम तेरे इनकार की, या दुनिया से तू डरती है, या क़दर नहीं मेरे प्यार की। In this Bollywood kettle-warmer, Imtihaan (1994), the present Nawab of Pataudi states the dilemma that his proposed lady love, the forever attractive Ms. Raveena Tandon, is either (i) afraid of the world, or (ii) does not appreciate the worth of his love. Quite a few alternatives come to my mind, like maybe (iii) she plays for the other team, or (iv) she likes men alright, just not this nasal-twang-voiced progeny of ex-receivers of privy purse. While we are on this subject, can we seriously investigate the extreme narcissism of Bollywood male love; namely if a female catches your fancy, it is impossible that she doesn’t find your manliness irresistible, hence they go ahead with behavior that can easily be categorized as harassment, if not downright assault. We have one word for this, nay four… Compulsory Gender Sensitization Training!

10. Composition & Division: A misapplication of inductive reasoning, composition is the error of assuming that the whole must have some attribute, because the parts of the whole have that attribute. Conversely, a misapplication of deductive reasoning, division is the error of assuming that a part of the whole must have some attribute, because the whole which it belongs to happens to have that attribute.

11. False Cause (Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc): This may be one of the easiest fallacies to spot. It stems from a presumption of causal relationship between two things that don’t really exist (the relationship i.e., the two things do exist… just clarifying). Superstitions may have arisen from this fallacy. Say the day an ebony feline crossed your path, you met with misfortune, hence the cause for your misfortune was the ebony feline crossing your path.

B-Story Example: ‘तेरे को हम इसका वास्ते इच बोलता था, की दारू मत पी मत पी मत पी, दारू ख़राब चीज़ है… तू अगर दारू नहीं पीएला रहता, तो क्या वो जाड़िया तेरे को मारने को सकता|’The inebriated condition of Mr. Gonsalves (of Tenement #420, Beauty Mansion, Love Boulevard) may not have been the true (or only) cause of his defeat in the fight with the bodyguard of Ms. Jenny. May be Mr. Jubisco (a name always connected in our brain with circus strong-men) was just a better physical specimen, or had better fighting skills, and the ten men Mr Gonsalves purportedly beats up as a matter of routine are malnourished weaklings with strong masochistic streaks.

12. Begging the Question (Petitio Principii) and her cousin The Loaded Question: Dear Purists, Please Note and Pardon, We are merging two different fallacies by maintaining they are cousins (not siblings, may be warring cousins, but still related).

First is “begging the question”, wherein someone assumes as evidence for their argument, the conclusion they want to prove. This circular form of reasoning is often used to save the conclusion from deep scrutiny, wherein it could have failed. Second is “loading the question”, wherein a question or statement is phrased in such a way so as to imply that another unproven statement is true, without the requisite evidence and/or discussion.

B-Story Example: ‘ऑपज़िशनवालों ने इसके लिए तुम्हें कितना पैसा खिलाया है?‘ In the too-close-to-truth fictional movie Nayak (2001), Amrish “I never was young” Puri, in his role as the politician asks a question in his interview to his interviewer, Anil “I never grow old” Kapoor, which is both “loaded” and does not even try to prove the idea of the involvement of a bribe, just the amount is questioned. The response ‘अगर आप ऑपज़िशन में होते तो कितना पैसा खिलाते?’ may also be an example of “begging the question”, as it takes for granted the propensity of the politician towards corruption.

D. CATEGORY OF MISSING DATA

13. Argument from Ignorance (Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam): When the wannabe logician assumes a proposition to be true because there is no evidence proving that it is false; i.e. absence of evidence is taken to be evidence of absence, we may be taking help of this fallacy.

B-Story Example: ‘जाने क्यों लोग प्यार करते हैं, जाने क्यों वो किसी पे मरते हैं।’ In this popular melody from Dil Chahta Hai (2001), our soul-patched hero Aakash states that as there is absence of evidence (in his knowledge) of the reason of strange antics of people in love, hence their antics are un-reasonable, and as per the blurb of this movie on Youtube Movies “He thinks the concept of love is created to ruin perfectly healthy relationships”. Being suckers for happy endings, we would like to inform, that in the end Aakash finds the evidence for himself and becomes a believer.

14. Hasty Generalization (Dicto Simpliciter): When one forms a conclusion from a sample that is either too small or too special to be representative, or even exceptional or dramatic cases, the wannabe “logician” may be said to be falling for “hasty generalization”.

B Story Example: ‘एक लड़का और लड़की कभी दोस्त नहीं हो सकते, ये तो एक पर्दा है पर्दा, कंपकपाती रातों में तड़पते हुए दिलों की भड़कती हुई आग को बुझाने का, छुपाने का|’ This iconic dialogue in Maine Pyaar Kiya (1989) is a prime example of Hasty Generalization, not just in movies but also in real life. We may not say that the situation described above is never true, or that it is not true for the specific case (as it is a … umm… love story, it may have been true), but it cannot be generalized as a rule. Good that the brave pigeon pecked the ironically named Jeevan (Mohnish Behl’s character) to his early mrityu.

15. ONE RING (CATEGORY) TO RULE THEM ALL: Fallacy of Fallacy: This one may be slightly meta, so again, bear with us. There is another insidious fallacy, which now all the readers of this piece may be prone to replicate. It is assuming that an argument is “false” or “faulty”, just because a “fallacy” has been used to explain it.

Quick Trip to Planet Assumption: Say one of our mutual friends, says that as his English Professor Mr Know-A-Lot told him that “The Earth is round”, hence the Earth must be round. He needs and seeks no further proof. We would quickly point out the occurrence of Argumentum Ad Verucundium, sub-type Appeal to Vague Authority. BUT… but if we also assume that the statement “the Earth is round” is wrong, OUR reason turns fallacious, and this would be an example of Fallacy of Fallacy.

To end, with a plagiarized paragraph of profoundness from a peachy pal of ours: Anthony and Jenny Gonsalves, shortly after getting married, resolved to never commit a logical fallacy with each other. Their house on the little hillock with a white fence and a wreath on the door will forever be a tiny oasis of pure reason. They haven’t spoken since, and it’s been 25 years. Well, they do speak at times, but its in the nature of “pass the ketchup, please.”