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.
Recent Comments