Page:Sm all cc.pdf/94

 *Personal attack is a criticism of the opponent in a debate, rather than refutation of the opponent’s arguments. This diversionary attack, like the red-herring fallacy discussed later, is a smokescreen that uses emotional impact to draw attention away from the relevant logical arguments. Three types of personal attack are: “The so-called discoverers of cold fusion are more interested in glory and a Nobel prize than in well-controlled experiments.” “It is not surprising that A rejects these experimental data, since they refute his hypothesis.” “A claims that I have ignored conflicting evidence, but she has ignored. . .”
 * verbal abuse, in which one directly attacks the opponent’s character, personality, or psychological health, although those factors are irrelevant to the argument being ‘refuted’.
 * challenging the objectivity of the opponent, in which one argues that the opponents’ bias forces them to argue as they do, regardless of the argument’s validity.
 * ‘practice what you preach’, in which one defends oneself by claiming that the opponent is just as guilty.


 * Mob appeal is the assertion that one should accept an argument in order to join the crowd. Mob appeal is the premise for the emotionally enticing conclusion that ‘right thinking’ people are a group of winners. Different manifestations of the mob appeal fallacy are:
 * mob psychology, in which the arguer seeks a simultaneous group response through the bait of inclusion or the threat of exclusion. Politicians and preachers use this technique; scientists do not.
 * bandwagon, in which it is claimed that the group knows best and an individual is in danger of being left out.

“Everyone’s accepting this new theory and finding applications for their own field.”

“In science the authority embodied in the opinion of thousands is not worth a spark of reason in one man.” [Galileo Galilei, 1564-1642]

“Nobel prizewinner A advocates the hypothesis, so wouldn’t you?” “Mensa is the most fascinating of clubs, because only those with intelligence in the top 2% can join.”
 * egotistic appeal, which provides a simple way for an individual to be like someone famous.
 * status symbol, in which the individual joins a group composed only of the superior people.

The last football game that I attended was USC versus UCLA, in about 1969. It was called a ‘great game’: the sides were evenly matched and the team I favored (USC) came from behind to win in the last couple of minutes. My overriding memory, however, is that the fans on both sides were chanting “Kill! Kill! Kill!” and meaning it. They cheered each time a member of the opposing team was injured or carried from the field, and the game was dirty enough that such incidents were