Faulty logic occurs when you use words with connotations that make a false connection between a person or idea and the word's connotation, whether it be positive or negative.

Words with Negative Connotations
If you make a false connection between a person or idea and something else by using negative terms or phrases you're guilty of name calling. Words like faggot, redneck, femi-nazi, and similar terms don't resolve an issue; they simply make it worse. You will NEVER see words of that sort in any serious scientific writing.

There are less obvious forms of this error. Sometimes words or phrases are used that have a negative connotation but aren't as extreme. Referring to someone as an activist, for example, may not sound so bad, but it's still using a label to characterize the person. Rather than simply providing information and letting the reader draw his or her own conclusions, the writer has done it for us.

Words with Positive Connotations
"When I use a word," the Mad hatter said to Alice, "it means exactly what I want it to mean; nothing more, nothing less." When you or I use a word in the context of scientific writing, we must be careful to use only those words that mean the same thing to everyone. We cannot use words that are open to interpretation.

For example, a word like "mother," is generally associated with positive ideas. Mothers are good, right? So we unconsciously assume that whatever that word is associated with is also good thing. But let's say someone is trying to convince us to give money to people who shave their heads. They might tell us that "The Shaved Head Society is dedicated to caring for the mothers of the world." They have associated the notion of shaving heads with the term "mother" in an effort to get us to go along with their ideas without following the rules of logic.

EUPHEMISMS

A euphemism is a word or phrase that is substituted for a simple statement of the fact. It's common to find them used in lieu of terms which might seem impolite or blunt. Rather than saying "I heard your mother died this morning," you might say "I heard your mother passed away." Passed away is a euphemism for died.

Subjcts like war, sex, and bodily functions are filled with euphemisms. For example, the offical government position on the Korean War is that it is not a war at all, it's a police action. Rather than saying two people had intercourse, we're more apt to say they slept together. And we used the rest room; we don't say we deficated.

One of my faviorite comedians, George Carlin, used to do a routine that substituted literal terms for euphemisms when talking about Muhammed Ali. He explained that Ali's job was to "beat up someone until they were unconscious." While that's true, the humor of it comes from the fact that we're more accustomed to euphemisms to describe a boxer's "job."

TRANSFERENCE

Psychologists use this term to refer to the phenomena of patients who "transfer" their feelings to the therapist. In writing and speaking, carrying over the positive aspects of things we consider to be good to something else the writer wants us to accept is also called "transference." Clever writers will figure out what their audience cares about and then try to associate their subject with that thing. This is why politicians often speak in front of the flag or with their family beside them. In the same way, a writer might even invoke negative images and hope a transfer takes place. For example, words aren't even necessary if a cartoonist imposes the faces of Clinton and Gore on the bodies of Beavis and Butthead.

Remember that nothing should be accepted or rejected just because it's associated with something else. One is never "guilty by association."

TESTIMONIALS

Advertising is filled with examples of testimonials, the use of recognized personalities to endorse a product or idea. The popular "Don't Mess with Texas" campaign employed a number of well-known Texas parsonalities to promote the concept of keeping litter off the highways. That idea may be OK, but the approach is not logical. Joe Ely telling you not to mess with Texas has no more validity than anyone else telling you. The idea should be examined, not the person espousing it.

The same kind of approach is still invalid when newspapers or professionals are invoked. The fact that a respected source endorses something may only be an indication of its possible validity, but you still must decide for yorself.

Of course, over time you may come to trust a qualified source and accept what he or she says because you know their word is good, but that sort of trust doesn't wash when it comes to presenting a logical argument for or against something.

PLAIN FOLKS

This technique is used to convince readers and listeners that the ideas of the speaker or writer are ordinary people--"just like you and me." Politicians are constantly doing things to impress us with this fact. Steve Forbes, the son of a wealthy millionaire and heir to a fortune, tried hard to convince us that he was just an ordinary guy. (In fact, wealthy politicians often try to turn their circumstances around by suggesting that their wealth makes them immune from the influence of those with money.)

BANDWAGON

I have a personal story which might interest you here. It explains the use of the bandwagon technique. As an undergraduate at a small college in upstate New York, I was asked to run the campaign of a friend who wanted to be elected President of the Student Senate. I knew that in the past these elections were financed by the sororities and fraternities at the college and that participation in the elections was generally limited to the members of those organizations. But I also knew that the majority of students were "independents.' They did not belong to a fraternity or sorority. So I told my friend (who was a fraternity member) that I'd help him, provided he followed by instructions,

One of the things we did to get votes was to tell his fraternity that we wanted their support, but not their affiliation. In other words, we didn't want to associate them with him. Then, one evening, we staged a demonstration of support.We asked the farternity brothers (and the members of thier sister sorority) to plant themslves in the rooms of any people they know who lived in the campus dormitories.

That night, we began a march thrugh the campus. We had a bass drum and a coupole of guitars and we sang a campaign song and whenever we came up to a dormitory we waved and motioned at the residents to join us. Of course, the fraternity and sorority members (who had also been instructed NOT to wear any emblems indicating their membership) exorted their friends to follow them as they came outside and joined the march.

The results were impressive. In a short time, hundreds of students had joined in. The march continued to the commons where our candidate made a speech and, shortly thereafter, he was elected. We had given the impression that "everyone" was supporting him.

Perhaps you recall the "million man march." The technique is the same.

IF...THEN

Another technique that attempts to bend your logical thinking occurs when a writer or speaker suggests that IF one thing happens, THEN another is bound to follow. "If we don't do something about the economy," politicians say, "we'll have another depression." Or "If our nation continues down the path of moral decay, then we will surely be taken over by the forces of evil."

Any argument that expresses this kind of if...then "reasoning" is invalid. No one can predict the future. W can argue that in the past certain things have followed certain circumstances, but that's no guarantee it will occur again UNLESS there is additional evidence of a link between the two.

An extension of this error in reason is called the "post hoc fallacy." The simple fact that one event follows another is not evidence enough to argue that the first event caused the second. I have a friend who told me that his grandmother used to say to him "Drive carefully," whenever he left her house and that he walys seemed to have an accident after that. So he asked her to say "Drive recklessly," and so she did and he didn't have any accidents after that. To argue that what his grandmother said had an influence over the events that followed is invalid.

HOWEVER, you might argue that her words influenced his behavior to the extent that he acted carelessly because he BELIEVED he was doomed to have an accident. Such an argument is based on the concept of the self-fulfilling prophecy which DOES have some basis in scientific fact. Scientists have shown that sometimes the extent to which you believe something will happen is a factor in the outcome. But this is only in cases where you have some kind of influence over the outcome.My friend was the driver; on some unconscious level he could very well have caused the accidents himself.

You see the same kind of weak thinking in individuals who practice superstitions. "I always wear my luck hat when I go fishing," or "Whenever I bet on the Cowboys, they lose" are examples.

Now...if you'd like to read more opn these topics, especially as they relate to propaganda, click on any of the topics below or on any of the examples: