October 20, 2007
-
WHAT LAW SCHOOL IS *REALLY* FOR
Here's a paragraph from an article in today's news about charges brought against a famous performer: "[His] Las Vegas attorney, David Chesnoff, refused to give specifics about the charge. "If in fact those are the allegations, unfortunately false allegations are all too often made against famous individuals," Chesnoff said. "But we are confident the investigation will conclude favorably."
"IF IN FACT THOSE ARE THE ALLEGATIONS."
Remember your formal logic and, in particular, hypothetical syllogisms? They start with a conditional: "If A, then B." Those are followed by one of two valid conclusions: "A, therefore B," (modus ponens, or affirming the antecedent) or "Not B, therefore not A" (modus tollens, or denying the consequent). Denying the antecedent (not A, therefore not B) or affirming the consequent (B, therefore A) is invalid.
In Chesnoff's statement above, we are offered a conditional:
IF those are the allegations, (THEN) false allegations are often made.
Next, let's suppose confirmation comes from the FBI shortly that those are indeed the charges. Now we'll have this hypothetical syllogism (modus ponens):
IF those are the allegations, (THEN) false allegations are often made.
Those are indeed the allegations.
THEREFORE, false allegations are often made.I really doubt that the reporters at the news conference were asking whether false allegations are often made. It's an irrelevant argument.
Or we have this one (modus tollens):
IF those are the allegations, (THEN) false allegations are often made.
It is not the case that false allegations are often made.
THEREFORE, those are not the allegations.Was anyone asking whether those were the charges? I doubt it.
Perhaps the attorney is simply making a badly worded syllogism thus:
IF those are the allegations, (THEN) they are false.
They are false ("we are confident the investigation will conclude favorably"").
THEREFORE, those are the allegations.That would be both dumb (no one was asking whether those were the charges) and invalid (it's affirming the consequent).
But perhaps the attorney only meant a simple (and valid) modus ponens:
IF those are the allegations, (THEN) they are false.
Those are the allegations(assuming confirmation from the FBI).
THEREFORE, they are false.And of course, this is the obvious intent of the attorney, a simple denial of the truth of the allegations. But this is the dumbest of all. Why is the attorney reluctant to admit that those are the allegations -- why the conditional, why the hypothetical? Why not just say, "those allegations are false and we're confident things will turn out fine." Chesnoff admitted there was an investigation -- shouldn't he have said, "alleged investigation" if he's so reluctant even to admit to the existence of those allegations? What are the FBI investigating, if the allegations themselves are only alleged? What, the FBI has been called in to determine whether there are in fact some allegations? False allegations may be damaging to famous people but not as damaging as being represented by idiots.
Comments (5)
I really think that the above is missing the point of the lawyer's statement. The lawyer was trying for a clever rhetorical statement. It's false to assume that just because a statement begins with "if", it necessarily needs to follow the syllogistic structure. It's much more accurate to supply the word "well" instead of "then" to make more obvious the lawyer's intent; "If in fact those are the allegations, [well] unfortunately false allegations are all too often made against famous individuals." The lawyer was casting doubt on the allegations in two ways; first, he makes it seem like the allegations are not set in stone, and then, having hopefully weakened them in his audience's mind, he explains them away. (It's just jealousy.) It would be valuable to see the context, but it sounds like the lawyer is thinking on his feet in front of a reporter, or reporters at a press conference.
With all due respect, your argument seems like the product of wanting to find fault where there is none. It is similar to someone criticizing Cicero's* courtroom argument because, "Hey! He said he wasn't going to bring up his opponent's faults but he actually is! That's a contradiction!" It's missing the forest for the trees. Somebody might make the argument that such deception is not proper for the courtroom, but it is hardly fitting to criticize it for being something that it is not. It seems to me that the lawyer purposely went with the "If" construction as one more way of subtly adding some perceived weight to his defense by making it look like a formal logical argument. There is such a thing as being too clever, and I think that this lawyer may have taken you in. Of course, I am robbed of context, and forgive if the context reveals you to be correct, and I wrong.
*I'm hoping it was Cicero who did that, otherwise I look like a pompous idiot.
Thanks for your comment, Paul. And yes, it was Cicero who did that and he certainly was brilliant. But no, I haven't missed the attorney's real point -- most people could tell what he's trying to say, I think. No, my real complaint is with the sloppy use of language by people in a profession that takes great pride in its subtlety of thought and word, and I'm simply picking on and making a bigger deal out of this quote than it warrants on its own. I don't think this quote is an example of carefulness and clever rhetoric, but rather of thinking on his feet, as you said, and doing a poor job of it. "If in fact those are the allegations" is my target. It's just a silly thing to say, because there's no question about the allegations -- the question is about the truth of them and any charges that might arise from them. His poor choice of words is illustrated by the expedient of woodenly trying to parse his expression and finding nothing but silliness. If he'd left off that conditional sentence his point would have been made without the idiocy.
Lawyers are one group of people to whom we most definitely ought not to give slack when we consider the ineptitude of their expressions, because they're supposed to be more careful in the way they talk for the sake of the money, careers, and lives that are at stake. It's not the person who complains about a lawyer's expressions that is taken in, but rather those who allow him to get away with his fuzzy rhetoric.
Mr. C, I think I agree with Sennacherib (?? great choice for a name!) on one thing for certain, that he was trying to add perceived weight to his argument with an attempt to call into question the charges as if they were not set in stone. I do, however, also agree with you in that it was sloppy of him to do so, as it also gives a perception of some argument that just isn't there.
Also, MY original thought concerning the statement was that the newspaper confused the issue by making it a run-on sentence. (Maybe the journalist needs a break, but not a strike!
) I don't know if Chesnoff had ANY conjunction in his statement: if not, there should be a semicolon there; if so, he was ever so slightly misquoted.
(Rabbit trail... hope you don't mind)
1 Corinthians 14:18 -- "I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:" In this version, that is two distinct statements. If you take the comma out, it makes sense. If you take it out and add a that, it also makes sense. If you turn it into a semicolon, it changes the meaning somewhat. Can you tell me what the Greek says there? I am a little hesitant to believe the more modern versions like the NIV and NASB are necessarily more correct here.
Now, consider translating something from, say, Greek to King James English. I found a run-on sentence in the KJV
I think he should have hired you to be his lawyer.
I agree with you and Sennacherib on that point too, livingjpg. The sloppiness lies in a phrasing that sounds as though he's offering a syllogism which we all agree isn't really intended to be there. He shouldn't say things that sound other than what he intends. *I* do that all the time, lol, but I'm not a lawyer. Perhaps as you suggested, it's a problem of the journalist and the way he chose to punctuate what he heard. Maybe the lawyer actually said the "if" clause, then paused, and there should have been a semicolon at the pause.
Speaking of which, there was no punctuation in the original Greek, so although you see punctuation in most, if not all, Greek texts of the NT now, those marks are put in by later scribes or modern critics. But they all agree in placing a comma where it appears in the KJV, and the Vulgate interprets the passage with "quod" where the comma is, agreeing with a comma in the Greek text. So the unanimous reading seems to be "I thank my God THAT I speak..." etc.
Comments are closed.