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 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
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
|
