Rhetoric, Logical Fallacies and Baseball
Hey, all you kids out there! Tired of trying to collect every moral philosopher and rhetorician trading card? Wondering whether that fellow you’re arguing with in the comments is misleading you with ad logicam or post hoc ergo propter hoc? Would it help to have common errors in reasoning at your fingertips?
You can’t tell the players without a program. And you can’t always tell apart common logical fallacies without the help of this handy-dandy list compiled by Glen Whitman of Cal State-Northridge. With internal anchors for your direct hyperlinking pleasure!
As a public service, we’ve appropriated the list and applied it to common arguments over baseball matters. This should make comment dust-ups more erudite, or at least more weighty with links and Latin. Besides, what’s more fun than formal logic?
Now, on to the list …
Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself.
My personal favorites: “you blog boys just like to complain, so you root for the Mariners to make moves you can bash,” or “you guys just hate Willie Bloomquist and want him to fail.”
Other examples include: when wrestler Jerry “The King” Lawler called Paul Heyman a “jock sniffer” because he thought he could book wrestling events without first entering the squared circle; and every column Bill Plaschke has ever written about Paul DePodesta.
Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance). This is the fallacy of assuming something is true simply because it hasn’t been proven false.
I cannot prove that Jarrod Washburn and Mark Buerhle didn’t grow those “beards” on a mutual dare. You cannot disprove this theory, though, so that means it’s true.
[Though frankly, the existence of said dare wouldn't surprise me.]
Tu quoque (”you too”). This is the fallacy of defending an error in one’s reasoning by pointing out that one’s opponent has made the same error. An error is still an error, regardless of how many people make it.
Imagine the following conversation between Tim McCarver and Joe Morgan. McCarver opens by arguing that a catcher’s game-calling is an essential part of his skillset. Morgan points out that no study verifies this. “Hark, kind sir!” is McCarver’s rejoinder. “Isn’t it so that you, yourself, ignore baseball research on a regular basis?” That’s “tu quoque.”
[Morgan citing empirical studies and McCarver retorting with a logic-based rejoinder requires what you call "suspension of disbelief," but I appreciate your indulgence.]
Argumentum ad verecundiam (argument or appeal to authority). This fallacy occurs when someone tries to demonstrate the truth of a proposition by citing some person who agrees, even though that person may have no expertise in the given area.
Ken Griffey Jr. is the answer to the Mariners’ problems. Do you know how I know this? Steve Kelley, Seattle Times columnist, told me so.
Argumentum ad logicam (argument to logic). This is the fallacy of assuming that something is false simply because a proof or argument that someone has offered for it is invalid; this reasoning is fallacious because there may be another proof or argument that successfully supports the proposition. This fallacy often appears in the context of a straw man argument … the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody’s argument, rather than the actual argument they’ve made.
This is where you refute an argument your opponent hasn’t made, thus setting up a “straw person” that is easy for you to knock down. For example,you argue that Jose Lopez will be an all-star next year. Dave Cameron says he doesn’t know about that.
You retort with: “Well, Dave, you don’t even think Jose Lopez will be a productive major leaguer. I disagree with that because of his minor league numbers.” Here, you’re refuting a claim Dave hasn’t made.
Argumentum ad misericordiam (argument or appeal to pity). The English translation pretty much says it all. Example: “Think of all the poor, starving Ethiopian children! How could we be so cruel as not to help them?”
Won’t someone think of all the poor children on steroids? See Jack get liver damage. Don’t you care about Jack’s liver damage? You monster!
Argumentum ad nauseam (argument to the point of disgust; i.e., by repitition). This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by saying it again and again. But no matter how many times you repeat something, it will not become any more or less true than it was in the first place.
How many times have we seen it, Dave, that a player makes a good or bad defensive play and then he comes to bat at some point in the next inning?
[You can also apply this to virtually any old canard: "Good pitching always beats good hitting," "Teams that don't know how to bunt always fail in October," etc.]
Argumentum ad numerum (argument or appeal to numbers). This fallacy is the attempt to prove something by showing how many people think that it’s true … This fallacy is very similar to argumentum ad populum, the appeal to the people or to popularity.
You might not think that stepping on the white chalk lines has any impact on pitching performance — but then why do so many pitchers leap over said line? Hmm?
[Another example here.]
Circulus in demonstrando (circular argument). Circular argumentation occurs when someone uses what they are trying to prove as part of the proof of that thing.
You statheads are all just a bunch of spreadsheet-hawking, clearasil-smearing, thick glasses-having geeks. Clearly, this is true, because who else but geeks would be interested in statistics?
[This is also known as begging the question, which is different from raising the question. It is also one of two fallacies known as "The Plaschke," the other being the ad hominem.]
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc (with this, therefore because of this). This is the familiar fallacy of mistaking correlation for causation — i.e., thinking that because two things occur simultaneously, one must be a cause of the other … Cum hoc ergo propter hoc is very similar to post hoc ergo propter hoc … the fallacy of assuming that A caused B simply because A happened prior to B.
Peter White sent me an instant message telling me Felix was throwing a no-hitter. Subsequently, Felix gave up a hit. Given the extreme unlikelihood of King Felix giving up hits, I can only conclude that it is Peter’s fault. Let us get the torches and boiling oil.
[Note: I am not casting aspersions upon those of you who remain in a lucky portion of the couch until a no-hitter is broken up. At the very least, it saves you grief from other fans.]
Non Sequitur (”It does not follow”). This is the simple fallacy of stating, as a conclusion, something that does not strictly follow from the premises.
Darrin Erstad is a gritty player with leadership qualities. You need a guy like that in the clubhouse to keep you focused. Eddie Guardado is a prankster who gives hot feet and pies peoples’ faces. You need a guy like that to keep you loose.
[The still small voice of deduction says: "But why? Isn't history replete with examples of winning teams where the players straight-up loathed each other? And mightn't those two forces cancel each other out? So how can you need both? And if these premises are true, can't you just hire Henry Rollins for the focus and Yakov Smirnoff for the yuks? I don't think either is doing much lately ..."]
Red herring. This means exactly what you think it means: introducing irrelevant facts or arguments to distract from the question at hand.
Picture the following exchange between me, Derek and Dave.
Jeff: “Why do people assume that we can just trade for Kelly Shoppach?”
Dave: “Perhaps it’s because of that long extension the Sox just gave Jason Varitek.”
Jeff: [Pauses] “Well, be that as it may … Hey, Derek, Skip Bayless thinks Lance Armstrong isn’t a real athlete!”
The adults among you can fill in Derek’s dialogue.
Argumentum ad antiquitatem (the argument to antiquity or tradition). This is the familiar argument that some policy, behavior, or practice is right or acceptable because “it’s always been done that way.”
I tried to think of an instance of this argument being used in baseball, but I couldn’t come up with one.
***
So, there you are. The comment threads will be more civil now and we’ll all be more fun at parties. Remember, you readers are the best, because you wouldn’t be reading USSM if you weren’t!
Yes, that’s a non sequitur followed by a circulus in demonstrando. I was just testing you. I hope you were taking notes, because there will be a short quiz next period.
Comments
53 Responses to “Rhetoric, Logical Fallacies and Baseball”
USSM uses and recommends
Jeff, I’ll trade you my autographed rookie-year Kierkegaard and a Hegel in near-mint condition for your entire Bob Marley set.
Noticing DMZ has a blog; American Gods: awful book. Why Mr. Gaiman? Why?
Argumentum ad antiquitatem:
You could say something about bunting, or about pitching rotations, or proven closers, or the DH arguement is a good one, or interleague play, or divisions, or the wild card…
ooo, instant replay is another one that’s hot in the news right now.
This is brilliant.
argumentum ad magnum ratio:
the fallacy of believing that pointing out a massive error in logic will cause another person to stop making an erroneous conclusion.
I tried to think of an instance of this argument being used in baseball, but I couldn’t come up with one.
♥
Oddly enough, I was searching for a detailed list of logical fallacies earlier this week, so you’re really helping me out here.
Good stuff my friend.
You’ve forever changed the way I’ll listen to talk radio.
You have Rollins and Smirnoff backwards. Rollins is way funnier–he’d crack me up. I’d stay focused on my work to ignore Smirnoff.
#2 I liked American Gods!
#10 I like Rollins too! I’ll be at the Rollins speaking show on Nov. 12th at the Moore Theater.
It has been forever since I took my logic and Latin classes in college. Thanks for the review. I can’t believe how much I have forgotten. Well, maybe my posts show how much I have forgotten.
LB – Yes. KJR’s Softy could use a list like this. He is the king of arguing against an argument that was not made….not to mention most of the examples in Jeff’s fun explanation here.
Thanks Jeff. Thought you were in Japan about now.
DMZ wrote 10/8/04 a post “The Nature of Argumentation” which is a good reminder and could be recycled at least once a year.
now, is the following Argumentum ad nauseam (argument to the point of disgust; i.e., by repitition) or Argumentum ad numerum (argument or appeal to numbers)?
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/sports/12810494.htm
This needs to get a permalink from the left sidebar..
Argumentum ad antiquitatem might be the only argument for keeping the dropped third strike rule on the books. If the batter swings at a pitch the catcher can’t even get a glove on, why should he get rewarded with a chance at first? I mean, they don’t call the runner out if the shortstop airmails the trow into the dugout.
Or maybe it’s Argumentum ad misericordiam . You try to hit Clemens’ splitter…
Always seemed like a CalvinBall rule to me.
msb, I couldn’t open the link (subscription required?), but if it’s anything to do with the Royals, I’d guess ad nauseam rather than ad numerum since the Royals play has been pretty disqusting lately, and not enough people care about them for anyone to appeal to numbers.
“Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself.”
Excellent post, but if you will pardon a little pedantry, I’ll just make a comment on this definition. Common usage has removed “ad hominem” from its original definition as a logical fallacy and made it refer to any attack on someone’s character. For instance, this statement is perfectly acceptable:
“Mr X has no moral authourity to tell us not to cheat on a test, because we all know that he cheated on three this year.” However, this statement is not:
“Mr X’s argument against cheating is logically invalid, because he cheats.” While his hypocrisy may destroy his *ethos*, it has no effect on his *logos*. His argument cannot be declared unsound based on his character, but his trustworthiness can be declared unsound based on his character.
So the next time you attack someone whose character needs attacking, don’t be distracted by the inevitable howls of “ad hominem! ad hominem!” It’s only a fallacy when you base your assessment of his argument on his character.
Ahem. Anyway.
Argumentum ad antiquitatem (the argument to antiquity or tradition). This is the familiar argument that some policy, behavior, or practice is right or acceptable because “it’s always been done that way.â€
Uh…Traditional scouting vs. Statistical evaluation?
If the batter swings at a pitch the catcher can’t even get a glove on, why should he get rewarded with a chance at first? I mean, they don’t call the runner out if the shortstop airmails the trow into the dugout..
Actually your scenario shows why baseball requires the catcher to make the putout. In baseball, the burden of execution is always on the defense. The exception is scenarios in which the defense can gain an advantage by a failure to execute (i.e. the infield fly rule) or as an enhancement to the flow of the game (bunting foul with 2 strikes counts as an out so you don’t get 50 pitch AB’s). If the catcher drops the ball he doesn’t make the putout so the defense doesn’t get the benefit of the out.
i·ro·ny (Ä«’rÉ™-nÄ“, Ä«’É™r-)
n., pl. -nies.
1) The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning.
2) An expression or utterance marked by a deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning.
3) A literary style employing such contrasts for humorous or rhetorical effect.
With apologies to DMZ (who made this mistake in the post-season thread), but a common spelling mistake is for non-sequitur is non-sequitor, so be careful ussmariner philosophers.
False syllogisms, I love false syllogisms, and I was going to complain about their ommision, but I believe you logicians have them covered under ‘post hoc ergo propter hoc’.
Good pitchers post low ERAs
Jarrod Washburn posted a low ERA
Therefore Jarrod Washburn is a good pitcher.
Many people are going to believe that patently ludicrous assertion this off-season. Some will pay dearly for their beliefs.
If the catcher drops the ball he doesn’t make the putout so the defense doesn’t get the benefit of the out.
But this has never entirely made sense to me. Why can’t you run to first if the catcher drops the ball on strike 2? Or strike 1? Or any wild pitch? The other runners get to advance. The batter gets to advance on a dropped strike 3, so he clearly doesn’t always have to “earn” first base. He can reach on an error, so why is strike 3 special? For that matter, if you foul off strike three and someone catches it and drops it in the foul area, why can’t you take first? It’s an error, and you’re not out, so what’s the difference?
This is the one rule in baseball that just seems completely arbitrary to me, and it would in no way harm the game to remove it.
BTW, I was looking at the and — could somebody help me parse 6.05(c) “A batter is out when…A third strike is not caught by the catcher when first base is occupied before two are out;” So if first base is not occupied, or two are out… what?
And what about 6.05(f)? “A batter is out when…He attempts to hit a third strike and the ball touches him.” I seem to remember seeing batters with 2 strikes getting HBP and being given their base (note this is not the case of “… (g) His fair ball touches him before touching a fielder”
Regarding my comment under argumentum ad antiquitatem: Yup.
Screwed up my tag on “official rules”, sorry.
My head hurts
I often see and hear another one with baseball. It’s called a confirmation bias. In fact, the examples given for ad nauseam are excellent examples of this. It’s basically only noticing when things agree with your opinion and disregarding the many many times it doesn’t.
Great list, and I agree with #15 that this should get permalinked somehow to the boards.
I would argue that the most common argumentative error in sports is the confusion of the normative (what should be) with the positive (what is). For example:
Caller: “We need instant replay in baseball, it’d cure all our problems!”
KJR Host: “That will never happen, so shut up”
It’s not a purely logical error, more akin to responding to an argument that was never made. It also bears some relation to argumentum ad antiquitatum, but not necessarily, as the former can be future-looking.
In any event, this error is all too common, and drives me into fits of rage and complaints about our educational system every time I hear it.
#17–it was “a concise history of Kansas City Royals pitching coaches in the new millennium. I guess technically the new millennium did not start until 2001, but this isn’t the astrology page. We’ll start in 2000.”
apparently, KC’s pitching is similar to Seattle’s Defense of Dark Hitting problem…
Henry Rollins is pretty still these days. He does his whole spoken word thing and he reviews films on IFC. I’m not a film person or into watching critic shows, but Henry’s show just cracks me up.
Argumentum ad antiquitatem
Jeter should always get that call on his phantom tag at second because that’s how they’ve always called it.
Argumentum ad logicam
I use this a lot, and I think it’s incorrectly lumped together with the other fallacies. If I attack the reasoning that got you to your conclusion, I am not proving that you’re wrong. I’m demonstrating that you have no reason to believe that you are right. I’m reducing you to a state of uncertainty.
Jeter should always get that call on his phantom tag at second because that’s how they’ve always called it.
There’s a whole rant about this in my book. We’ll see if the NY publisher decides to let that one go by.
Hasn’t logic been outlawed in this country yet? Apparently just making it uncomfotable for you eggheads when you try to use “facts” or “deductive reasoning” or “common sense” isn’t enough. Now, if you’ll excuse me, there’s a tractor pull on TV and this light domestic beer isn’t going to drink itself.
Oh, and one more vote for making this permanent. Maybe as a link in the FAQ with a short comment.
I often use logic to attack common sense. Common sense is “things most people believe without understanding why”.
I’m of the opinion that you should never believe anything without understanding why.
Yeah, but Evan, I’m fairly certain you live your life every day believing a lot of things you don’t understand. To illustrate, I’d be surprised if you understand all of: electrical engineering, medical science, biology, advanced physics, … but you probably believe conclusions that come from all of them.
Unless of course, you’re referring to “knowing what you know”… i.e. knowing that you believe something w/o reason. It’s a fine line.
I don’t need to believe that my microwave will heat my food. I just need to act on the assumption that it will and test the food when I’m done.
But more importantly, I know that I’ve done it a lot of times before, so now I’m confident it will heat my food, assuming the circumstances haven’t changed.
I want people to be aware of all of their assumptions all of the time.
You’d be amazed how many questions I ask my dentist before I’ll let him do anything.
Deleted – leave politics off the blog
#24: I’m far from a rules expert (VERY far indeed), but I’ll take a crack at it:
Think of like the infield fly rule. With first base occupied, what’s to stop the catcher from intentionally dropping the ball, picking it back up and going to second for the force and a (very good) chance at a double play? You wind up rewarding the defense for intentionally committing what should be an error, which I think we’d all agree is a Bad Thing.
With two outs, however, the double-play becomes a non-factor, so why not let the runner on first try to advance?
=P
Think ofIT…
Because some days you just really need a preview option.
Do you fellas have any book reccomendations on all things logic? This sort of stuff facinates me, but the books I had to read for my Rhetoric class were pretty dry (think classical Greek books). Is there anything that’s a really entertaining read you guys could reccommend?
Phil,
Argumentum ad logicam! Argumentum ad logicam! (I’m sure this is what Jeff intended when he posted the list…)
The infield fly rule makes perfect sense, but I and Shoeless were questioning the merits of the dropped third strike rule.
As a philosophy major, I found this very enjoyable. I enjoy having a debater on the blog.
I majored in philosophy AND astrophysics. I’m even more pedantic and annoying.
A fine mixture of argumentum ad antiquitatem with a non sequitur – heard often during the just-completed season.
“The corner positions are traditionally manned by power hitters, so Ichiro should move to CF and Reed to RF to improve his slugging %.”
- Arma virumque cano…
There’s a cum hoc ergo propter hoc in there, too: the suggestion that moving to right field will grant Reed more power.
JWHawkins: I apologize for being unclear, I was merely trying to help with the parsing of rulebook-ese by providing a reasonably well understood analog – not aruging whether the rule is right or not.
So argumentum ad logicum yourself buddy.
Honestly, I’ve never understood why the batter isn’t allowed to advance at his own risk on any wild pitch should he be dumb enough attempt to do so, either. I can think of a million reasons why you wouldn’t want to, but no compelling reason why you shouldn’t be able to try.
Advance on a dropped foul ball? Same deal: you should be able to, but I can only see one case where you’d want to even try, and even then it’d be a marginal decision.
So I think what we have here is a little implicit “common sense” rearing it’s ugly head.
Unless, of course, you’re advocating that the batter be automatically awarded first base… (How d’ya like THAT strawman?)
Phil, since I attributed the post to the wrong USSM staffer in my comment (I had Derek instead of Jeff, but someone helpfully corrected my idiocy) I plead misery.
But I do think we’ve demonstrated that the dropped third strike rule creates inconsistency within the rule set. For instance, 1-2 count, and the pitch is in the dirt (or not, if Eddings is behind the plate). If the batter swings at the bad pitch, he can run for first. If he keeps the bat on his shoulder like he should, he gets no such opportunity. CalvinBall I tell ya (and am I really old if I know what CalvinBall is?).
Sorry about getting political earlier. I didn’t see anything in the guidelines, but I had grappled for about 30 minutes over whether to post anyway. Should’ve trusted my instincts. Oh well.
Anyway, a certain U.S. pizza chain is trying to capitalize on Mr. Eddings’ call: http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/051014/cgf050.html?.v=4
A great example of argumentum ad antiquitatum is: it’s okay to retaliate for a beanball taken by a teammate by beaning one of the other team’s batters, because pitchers have done so to protect their guys since the beginning of baseball. It’s part of the game.
JMHawkins: well, you may in fact be old, but if so it’s not because you remember CalvinBall.
Depending what you call “old” that is. 
I liked the CalvinBall sequence and still go back to it every now and then.
this deserves a spot in the sidebar. That’s just my $.02
Lemmie throw my favority fallacy in the ring:
Falsus in unum, Falsus in omnibus (False in one, false in everything).
Baseball example:
The A’s 2002 draft didn’t produce that well, so everything else written in moneyball is obviously false.