rug38189_ch12_135-143.qxd
1/3/11
4:42 PM
Page 139
CHAPTER 12
Errors of Reaction
139
is used in all walks of life. In legal circles, for example, legend has it that an attorney’s assistant once rushed into the courtroom and handed the attorney a note that read, “It appears we have no case. Abuse the plaintiff.” Intentionally changing the subject frustrates the purpose of discussion. To avoid this error, face difficult questions head-on. If you know the answer, state it. If the issue is too complex to permit a certain answer, state what you believe to be probable and explain your reasoning. If you lack sufficient knowledge to speak of probabilities, say so. No reasonable person will think less of you for candidly admitting ignorance.
Shifting the Burden of Proof The error of shifting the burden of proof consists of demanding that others disprove our assertions. Let’s say Bill asserts, “The greatest single cause of exploding health care costs in this country is unnecessary referral of patients for costly medical testing.” Barbara then asks Bill to explain why he believes that to be the case. He responds, “Can you cite any evidence to disprove it? If you can’t, then say so.” Bill is guilty of shifting the burden of proof. He made an assertion; he should be ready to support it if asked and not demand that others refute it. The rule is that whoever makes the assertion bears the burden of supporting it, and the more the assertion departs from what knowledgeable people believe, the greater the responsibility of the person making the assertion to support it. You will be less likely to shift the burden of proof if you learn to expect your ideas to be questioned and criticized and prepare to support them before you express them.
Straw Man The term straw man was coined by logicians to denote an argument without substance. The term shares its meaning with the word scarecrow, a pile of straw stuffed in human clothing and placed in a garden or field to scare away birds. To commit the error of straw man is to put false words in someone else’s mouth and then expose their falsity, conveniently forgetting that the other person never said them. Suppose you are discussing with a friend whether the sale of assault weapons should be banned and the conversation goes as follows: You: I oppose any restriction on the sale of guns. It should make no difference whether we’re talking about a pistol, a rifle, a shotgun, or an assault weapon. A gun is a gun. And a constitutional right is a constitutional right. Your friend: You say it “should make no difference” what kind of gun is involved. I say it should make a difference