Daily Times

While Indian private television channels have focused on broadcasting music-based reality television shows, their counterparts in Pakistan instead have relied upon the political talk shows for their Target Rating Points (TRPs). Every evening, Pakistanis entertain themselves with a variety of political talk shows and try to contemplate the current issues from various angles.

In these debates we watch the participants subtly steer the focus of discussion away by adding a ‘red herring’ or a distraction in their rejoinder. This objective is accomplished in the form of misinterpretation of the argument (strawman’s fallacy), exaggeration of its consequences (camel’s nose-slippery slope fallacy), or through a personal attack (argumentum ad hominem) in a desperate situation. These tactics fall in the category of informal logical fallacies (incorrect reasoning) because these arguments do not address the original assertion and rely upon the deviation created by their response.

Although the study of logic and philosophy can be daunting and boring for most of us, some understanding of the construction of these arguments and identification of their fallacies can prepare us to formulate improved opinions and exercise better judgements.

It was Aristotle, the Greek philosopher, who put down the formal commentary on logic in his treatises, which are collected together in a book form known as Organon. He introduced the categories of logic, dealt with the interpretations and described the analytical process. He also explained logical fallacies in the last part of Organon, which is called the sophisticated refutations, or “Sophistici elenchi” in Latin.

He was inspired by his teacher Plato and by Socrates, who had laid down the foundation of understanding the concepts of logic but their work was informal and incomplete. Therefore, Aristotle — for his work — remained undisputed and uncontested as the founding father in this field for many centuries.

As we know now, logical fallacies can be formal or informal, depending on the premise of the argument. Each one of them is further divided into multiple sub-categories but the red herring, among all of them, remains the most frequently used and also the most commonly abused informal logical fallacy. It describes a deliberate attempt by the participant to change the subject of discussion by introducing an irrelevant diversion.

Argumentum ad hominem is a subtype of red herring fallacy and it literally means “attack on the man”. It appears in three different forms and can be abusive, tu quoque or circumstantial. These subtypes are frequently and repeatedly practiced in Pakistan for propaganda, disinformation and character assassination.

In a typical scenario, a discussion of poverty is diverted to personal wealth and a debate on revenue collection and fair taxation is converted into an accusation of nepotism and corruption (ad hominem abusive). In a worst case scenario the locutor or the accuser are harassed as being enemy agents or condemned as traitors, liberal fascists or even as blasphemous and apostates (ad hominem abusive)

At other times, the charges of corruption are retorted with a similar and equivalent allegation of malfeasance on the rival political party (pot calling the kettle black) instead of defending the original assertion of their own financial transgression (fallacy tu quoque).

The third form of argumentum ad hominem is the circumstantial type and in this argument, the assertion is refuted based on the person’s past or present political associations, religious or ethnic back ground and professional inclinations.

These personal and provocative rejoinders can be detrimental for any sensible and coherent discussion and invariably convert them into a theatrical performance of ridicule and indignation.

Many times the line between a personal opinion and a pure ad hominem logical fallacy is indistinct and unclear, which is why refraining from such offensive personal comments is imperative for the continuation of a civilised and rational discussion.

Our differences of opinion may actually reflect an error in judgement only or a lack of complete information and to equate this disagreement with perfidy, deceit and corruption is condemnable. We have to promote pluralism in our society, which is the essence of democracy and permits a diversity of opinions.

The writer is a freelance columnist residing in the US. He can be reached at skhashmi@yahoo.com