by Hans Bluedorn, Copyright December 29, 2000, all rights reserved. 128 views
Argumentum Ad BaculumAre you moping around because you weren't fast enough to win the promised Logic Loop Coffee Mug? If you did not answer the question in the last loop, you will find detailed coverage of that question in this message. Incidentally, the prize for being the first person to guess the fallacy went to Daniel Kirk.
While Argumentum Ad Baculum really isn't much of an argument at all, it is nevertheless a very effective means of persuasion. It is an appeal to the use of the stick. An appeal to fear and ultimately, to force.
"You no lika' da' pizzas? I send over my cousin Tony for a little change a' mind. He maka' you lika' da' pizzas."
This is a fallacy of no logic at all. Any attempts at logical reasoning are thrown out the window in favor of a more pragmatic means of persuasion: fear and force. You are encouraged to agree to an idea or principle out of fear that dire consequences would result if you did not agree.
Many European dictators and their henchmen have employed this strategy with great success.
Quote: "According to R. Grunberger, author of A Social History of the Third Reich, published in Britain, the Nazis used to send the following notice to German readers who let their subscriptions lapse: "Our paper certainly deserves the support of every German. We shall continue to forward copies of it to you, and hope that you will not want to expose yourself to unfortunate consequences in the case of cancellation." (Parade, May 9, 1971 - found in "Informal Logic, a Handbook for Critical Argumentation" by Douglas N. Walton)
I'm sure you can see why this sort of persuasion, while contrary to the more common methods of civilized debate, is very effective when garnering for support. Such an appeal to force doesn't leave room for the regular interchange of ideas and opinions, but settles the matter with a rhetorical question: "who has the bigger stick?" This is where Theodore Roosevelt's infamous "Big Stick" would come into use. Efforts must be taken to ensure that your stick is larger than their stick.
Though an Ad Baculum argument may be very persuasive, what is wrong with it?
An Argumentum Ad Baculum doesn't form any logical argument at all, but rather it introduces an irrelevant, at least logically irrelevant, point: the threat of force. With this threat they hope to manipulate you. As in the Nazi quote, the suggestion that "unfortunate consequences" would arise if some subscriber cancelled, does not properly demonstrate their claim that, "Our paper certainly deserves the support of every German." It side-steps the issue and tries to influence you with those "unfortunate consequences" hinted at. Nothing is said about why their publication deserves your support. It may persuade you, but it doesn't prove the point.
The fear of physical harm is not always the "force" in question.
Quote: "If this Supreme Court continues to wade into this thicket and make substantive rulings on behalf of George Bush, this court will go down in history as the most interventionist court ever in deciding a political matter." - Tom Harkin, Senator from Iowa (Washington Times Dec. 12).
No logical argument here. Tom Harkin is compelling the Supreme Court to make a ruling out of fear that history would look bad upon them later - not a ruling based on conscience and interpretation of the law. He tries to get them to think with their legs instead of their head.
Quote: "This is very bad for the Supreme Court because their credibility is so diminished and their moral posture is so diminished that it could take years to pull back from that." - Patrick J. Leahy, Senator from Vermont (Washington Times Dec. 12)
"Public opinion" - something that the founding fathers wanted the courts separated from - is the fear that is being touted here.
Ad Baculum can be very effective because when fear is aroused in people it often propels them into making decisions which they would not make in calmer situations. If big fisted Tony is across from you, you might think it wiser to decide you like the pizza after all, no matter how many anchovies are on it.
Unfortunately, there is no easy way for dealing with an Ad Baculum. The important thing to remember is that fears need to be ignored when there is important work to be done.
Although it does help to a have your own burly cousin, named Vincent, near by.
Hans Bluedorn
From: Louis Bacio in California
Dear Mr. Bluedorn,
I would like to share something with you and everyone else that is a student of Logic. It is a statement in a good book on informal fallacies. The book is titled "With Good Reason". The author's name is S. Morris Engel. I would like to know what you think and also what anyone else who is a student of Logic thinks about this quote. I'd like to know what is wrong if it is wrong logically. Ok, so here's the quote:
On page 42 of the paperback version it states:
"Logic and Education.........For to be able to determine when it is appropriate and justified to say of something that one KNOWS that it is so (1+1=2), and when it is appropriate to say of something that one THINKs that it is so ( a high fat diet will cause cancer), and when, finally, it can only be appropriate to say of something that one BELIEVES it is so (God exists)– this is the mark of an educated person."
Is Mr. Engels committing a fallacy? If so, which one? Being christian logicians, how are we suppose to respond to this statement? I am interested in what you and anyone has to say on this quote. Hope to hear from you soon.
Louis Bacio in California.
From: Me
You can send me any comments you may have on this question and I will print them next time.
No comments yet.