The
"Who funded it?" (or the
"Who paid you?") Fallacy
by Rick Gaber
People such as
those at factcheck.org who
are otherwise usually wise
and thoughtful have
expressed dismay, and even
shock and horror, about whoever it
was that financed the
swift boat veterans
against Kerry or the 527's
against Bush as if
their identities could
serve as a reason to
discount the
message.
It
reminds me of all the
pundits and politicians who
wanted to discount the Bush
administration's energy plan
or the Clinton
administrations' healthcare
federalization proposals
based upon who
participated in the secret
meetings to formulate them
rather than on the obvious
horrors the plans themselves
embodied.
I
have never understood why so
many otherwise responsible
people can fall for the  well-known
red herring fallacy of
trashing a plan or an
argument based on who funded
it, or the ad hominem
fallacy, attacking the
people instead of the
ideas. These are basic,
well-known logical
fallacies, so their very use
calls into question the
users' motivations for
employing them instead of
addressing the ideas,
information or arguments
themselves.
If
the initiators of an
information-dissemination
project are the producers of
the funding, are we supposed
to believe that the
recipients of their money
changed their views to get
it? Since finding
experts who already
share the producers' views
is NOT difficult for
competent people, I always
think the accusers are
projecting their own
ethical failings and lack of
principles onto their
targets. In other
words, since THEY would
change THEIR views if they
were paid enough, they
assume anyone else
would.
Those
who know damn well they
would never change
their positions on a matter
of principle, nomatter how
much they're offered, have
no problem imagining how
others can be just like
themselves. Likewise,
those who know damn well
they would, not only
have no problem imagining
how others can be just like
themselves, they
often have psychological
defense mechanisms against
imagining how anyone else
could actually stand on
principle(!). Thus partisans
on this issue are almost
always the personal
embodiments, the living
manifestations, of their
positions, and those who
believe people could or
would change their positions
if they were paid enough
money are those who would do
so themselves.
On
the other hand, if the prime
movers of an
information-dissemination
project are the ones with
the information,
rather than the ones with
the financing, are
we supposed to believe that
honesty demands they finance
their project by locating,
and actually talking money
out of, someone who disagrees
with them, or who at least
is indifferent?
Give
me a break! Rational
people know damn well it
would be natural for them to
approach people whose
viewpoints were similar and
who might even become enthusiastic
enough about the project to
cough up some dough (duh).
Or
else are we supposed to
assume that only commercials
filmed on a shoestring
can possibly be truthful
(which would be based on yet
another group of logical
fallacies)?
Fundamentally,
all these attacks are
absurd.
Arguments about issues
should stick to the facts,
as attacks on the people
involved are not only
irrelevant, but betray a
lack of confidence on the
parts of the attackers in
their ability to persuade
anyone on the basis of facts
and logic. Such
attacks may even be a sign
that they know damn well
they're wrong. Instead
of accepting their charges
at face value, I instantly
suspect those who attack
people -- instead of their
arguments -- of fraud or
incompetence (or both), and
I encourage you to do the
same.
"It is amazing how many
people think that they can
answer an argument by attributing
bad motives to those
who disagree with them.
Using this kind of
reasoning, you can believe
or not believe anything
about anything, without
having to bother to deal
with facts or logic." --
Thomas Sowell, HERE
"Policy advocates who
cannot understand, or are
unwilling to believe, that
holders of opposing
viewpoints can do so for
good reasons and virtuous
motives, have usually NOT
done enough of their OWN
homework on all the relevant
aspects of the issue at
hand. Sometimes they
even have really stupid
reasons or malevolent
motives for their own
viewpoints as well." -- Bert
Rand
"A
person who indulges in
ad hominem attacks
instead of addressing
another's ideas, has in
effect conceded
intellectual defeat."--
Bevin Chu, antiwar.com,
Oct. 22, 1999
"When
the debate is lost,
slander becomes the
tool of the loser."
-- Socrates
"It's
far easier to support
people who agree with
you than to bribe people
to do your bidding."
-- Brian Doherty, ReasonOnline,
May 6, 2003.
"When you don't want
to assess whether an
attack is true or false,
just say that asking the
question is crappy
politics." -- Tim Graham,
NRO, Aug. 11,
2004
"Research
shows that while
people underestimate
the influence of
self-interest on their
own judgments and
decisions, they
overestimate its
influence on others."
-- Daniel
Gilbert, PhD
“The conspiracy
theory is the bastion of
shadows and little or no
evidence. It explains a
famous or known event by
appealing to the leftist
dictum of 'follow the
money' or 'look who
benefits' as if actual
evidence is irrelevant and
personal ethics are just a
farcical way for the rich
and powerful to pull the
wool over the eyes of
everyone else.” -- Alexander
Marriott
"Those who insist on
'following the money' ALWAYS
imply that EVERYONE takes a
position on something based
upon whether he is paid or
not. Guess what THAT
means about THEM -- they who
work so hard to avoid
discussing the existence of
people who act on principle
alone? Go ahead,
guess! I DARE YOU!" --
Bert Rand
|
