Spot the Bad Argument

Seems to me like it’s the fallacy of accident, where a general rule is applied to a particular case, but no note is taken of any special or ‘accidental’ circumstances which might count against the application of the rule.

In this particular case, Schmidt's argument assumes that China operates to the same standards of communication as do Western countries, in which case Google, which is a Western-style company, will be able to operate according to the standards under which it developed.

But China will no doubt require Google to modify its practices in a way that undermines its original character as a free communications medium. So the special cisrcumstances of China's attitude towards communication undermines Schmidt's appeal to the general rule.

Brendan

Post 41

Sunday, April 16, 2006 - 5:10am

There are two logical problems:

1. The criticism to be answered is about one thing and the CEO's comment is about another. The issue is moral, whether Googls's acquiescence is proper or not. The CEO mentioned only an appraisal of the company's attitude for not acquiescing.

2. Lack of arrogance by Google is not the reason for the censored terms, but imposition by the Chinese government instead - on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. Whether Google took it or not has nothing to do with arrogance.

Simply stated, the CEO did not address the criticism. He addressed a hypothetical situation and essentially changed the subject. This happens all the time in online discussions about Objectivism.

What's worse, the CEO puts words in the critic's mouth, implying that the critic wants Google to go into China and tell the country how to operate.

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 4/16, 5:14am)

Post 42

Sunday, April 16, 2006 - 9:31am

Phil asked: name the type of logical fallacy or thinking error in this: When Google is criticized for acquiescing to China's demand, as it sets up Google China, that it censor and block certain search terms (Taiwan, Tibet, democracy..) from its search engine, its CEO Schmidt offers an argument that will sound fair-minded and reasonable to some people:

"I think it's arrogant for us to walk into a country where we are just beginning to operate and tell that country how to operate."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know what the technical term is for this, (some type of sarcasm maybe?) but he was talking backwards by framing his argument as if the opposite of what happened, happened. Google did not arrogantly tell the country of China how to operate, but it sure did perpetuate the negative stereotypes with that quote. His quote is a bit disturbing to me as he seems to buy into the view that American capitalists are arrogant and evil, and the CEO feels the need to apologize for his fellow businessmen.

The statement is also backwards because a company cannot dictate how a country operates, but a country can by its laws, impose their policies on a company operating within their borders. In other words, Google is operating in China, not China operating in Google. China is in the position of power to dictate what Google can and cannot do. It compromised some principles in order to operate in China legally.

Mr. Schmidt could have told the truth directly and said that Google had to abide by the censorship rules in order to operate in China and simply left it at that. He could have even said he disagreed with the rules. I just wonder how what he said would literally translate into Chinese. He said his company was arrogant. I don't think his intended meaning would translate well at all, especially since it was first person... "us" instead of a general term like "a company."

I'm having trouble finding something in common with Objectivist behavior.... it is a defensive tone based on making assumptions as far as another's thinking and motivations and answering to an accusation that did not exist. Did China say that Google was arrogant? He is basically psychologizing American businesses saying that they are arrogant, but of course he's not, thereby he is better. This could be compared to saying all Objectivists are whatever, but I'm the exception. You could also say there is some stereotyping and projecting problems where none exist. The CEO kind of did a strawman thing, projecting arrogance where there was none, so he could trounce it.

Kat

Post 43

Sunday, April 16, 2006 - 10:15am

Out of about 40 posts, MSK is probably the closest with this: "changing the subject", since it's one of the few responses which names something -both- the Google CEO and Oist foodfighters do. But it's still not precise enough. Change the subject how? Is the Googler-in-Chief's central error to sinply -completely- change the subject...as in suddenly utter a sentence about how many maraschino cherries are in a cherry pie when he had been asked about censorship in China?

Post 44

Sunday, April 16, 2006 - 11:32am

> Jumping to conclusions not based on sound logic. [LWH]

Well, that would be true of almost any bad argument, any logical fallacy...

Post 45

Sunday, April 16, 2006 - 11:41am

> it makes no difference to the truth of an intellectual argument whether it is put forward with emotion or not. Similarly on many heated threads, people raise the level of passion and emotion when they want to win arguments. Having passion is important to being a successful advocate of ideas, but more passion should not substitute for more evidence or rational argument. Often when arguments are complex, more passion hinders understanding. [Jim]

Very true. And very important points. But not precisely the answer to -this- puzzle. Emotionalism may be -behind- (a cause of unclarity or illogic) making a logical mistake. But it is not ingrained in the Googler's actual statement, and not always apparent in the expression of the Oist thread mistakes. I'm looking for a pure mistake in logic, one that could be made because someone is angry..or when someone is calm.

Post 46

Sunday, April 16, 2006 - 11:48am

OK Phil,

Let's do the jargon. Instead of addressing the issue, he changed the subject (or sidestepped it) by "psychologizing" - especially the critic by implication.

Is that more specific?

(Objectivists used to sidestep like that by asking, "What is the purpose of that question [or observation]?" or say you had a death premise, evading, yada yada yada. Nowadays, they just say you're dishonest or whatever.)

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 4/16, 11:54am)

Post 47

Sunday, April 16, 2006 - 1:40pm

Place your final bets....answer forthcoming in a few hours....nationally televised awards if anyone gets it before I reveal it.

Post 48

Sunday, April 16, 2006 - 3:52pm

Sunday, April 16, 2006 - 5:38pm

1. A red fish! tada! ...I don't get it,kat... is a Picture of a Red Fish some kind of logical error???

2. Michael, "changing the subject by psychologizing" is -too- narrow.

3. Does anyone want the answer TONIGHT .... or do people want more time till tomorrow AM?

Post 50

Sunday, April 16, 2006 - 5:58pm

Red herring, Phil. (Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong Kat)

---Landon

Post 51

Sunday, April 16, 2006 - 6:26pm

"I think it's arrogant for us to walk into a country where we are just beginning to operate and tell that country how to operate."

This statement is exactly the opposite of the reality they are facing. They are not walking into China, they are begging to be let in. They are not telling China how to operate, they are being told how to operate. The statement is laughable. The appropriate response is "Yeah, sure". Little pipsqueak trying to act big. They're creating a distraction from the fact that whatever their business plan is, their "company mission" they're not going to be allowed to execute it in China.

Post 52

Sunday, April 16, 2006 - 6:41pm

"Red herring. Introduce a new topic to divert attention from the old one." --- Yay!!! Kat you have ALMOST got it!!! In a way, the foodfight posts do distract attention from a legitimate objective discussion...and the Google guy does shift the discussion in a certain way.

Getting Closer and Closer!! But....it's not -exactly- a red herring that is being done in each of the cases we are trying to abstract away from. Can you see why?

Can other people jump in and *steal the grand puzzle prize*, now that it becoming clearer, now that we are coming closer???

Do you want till tomorrow to Polish Your Answers and get it exact? (Note: That does not mean give me Answers in Polish.)

Post 53

Sunday, April 16, 2006 - 8:49pm

Katdaddy is closest so far;

he was talking backwards by framing his argument as if the opposite of what happened, happened. Google did not arrogantly tell the country of China how to operate

I disagree with MSK; he addressed the subject - Google's prerogative to refuse an unethical act, by inferring he would be unethical (usurping lawful authority) in denying the Chinese service Google has denied doing for the U.S. DOJ regarding mere statistics on pornography pursuant to pedophile investigations:

http://www.slate.com/id/2134767/?nav=ais

Indeed, Google is doing as the Chinese do in China - kowtowing to the emperors.

Now, as for a technical term, how 'bout *"reverse/inverse/reflected argument-to-the-extreme"*.

Argument to the extreme:
"You don't want a little-bit, you want the whole-thing, so you can't have any because if you get an inch you'll take a mile".

The inverse - "I can't deny a little transgression of privacy for freedoms sake, because it would be a big usurpation of the rule-of-law". (Until Google is Chinese, and has license to play at the Chinese table, and which of course by then, they will have sacrifice the American ideals of freedom and freedom's necessary privacy).

Then again, Google is most likely merely conforming to the business environment of the tyrannical regime, believing that freedom and privacy are not absolute values in China, but merely relative ones to be subordinated to the greatest value of conformity to the collective.

Apparently, Chinese doesn't even have a term for "rights" as in individual, inalienable rights.

http://chnm.gmu.edu/declaration/eoyang.html

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Linguistic Parity:
Multilingual Perspectives on the Declaration
of Independence
...
The sense of "unalienable" as "inherent" is reflected in the Japanese rendering "unremovable," but the word for "liberty" ( jiyu in Japanese; ziyou in Chinese) "meant `license' rather than `liberty' in the traditional Chinese and Japanese usage."
...
"The concept of natural rights," Frank Li reports, "has been consistently alien to the Chinese mind." This suggests that the political rights of the individual, at least to the Chinese, are anything but "self-evident." To the Chinese what was "self-evident" for Jefferson was far from obvious: The rights might not have been merely "alien" but also "alienable."

Scott

Post 54

Sunday, April 16, 2006 - 10:04pm

BTW,

Christians sometimes make a "hair-shirt" ostentatious display of false humility that isn't likely to be questioned because it is rooted deeply in the loaded-langualge of faux piety:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07113b.htm

"I'm so damn culturaly-relative (culturaly neutered) I shouldn't question anything (judge by my-culture (worse still, objective rather than subjective) standards).

Scott

Post 55

Sunday, April 16, 2006 - 10:19pm

"I think it's arrogant for us to walk into a country [collective] where we [minor, subordinate collective] are just beginning to operate and tell that country [collective] how to operate."

Oh my, it *is* an argument to social-proof! A collective must, to be stable, respect *natural rights*. To deny organizing principles is to create instability.

Centroids of mass and momentum imply objective, not subjective standards - *BUT* only to the extent fools will not sacrifice themselves to delusions.

Scott

Post 56

Sunday, April 16, 2006 - 2:17pm

Phil, you asked for a logical fallacy or thinking error. The two are not synonymous. I think I’m correct in pointing out the logical fallacy of accident, but if it’s a thinking error you are after, I would say the error is one of context – Schmidt is switching the context of the issue, and in the process undermining his argument, since Google is hardly in a position to dictate terms to China.

Brendan

Post 57

Monday, April 17, 2006 - 5:39am

He's talking out his ass!

I think he is using some type of reverse hyperbole to appeal to public sentiment. He is not really arguing with his critics, just dodging the issue of censorship by bring in the red herring topic of arrogance. Rather than focusing on the issue, he utters bullshit that has nothing to do with the price of tea in China (or censorship either). He is talking past his critics. Let's call this "Argument from the Ass."

Kat

Post 58

Monday, April 17, 2006 - 10:19am

Another BIG HINT:

Last few posts people have forgotten that the puzzle includes a logic mistake made by Oist foodfighters not merely the Google dude.

The error would also apply when people inappropriately make posts whose point is largely to apply one of the following labels to their opponents: [negative] psychologizing, evader, dishonest, arrogant, rationalistic, sloppy, irresponsible, Randroid, tolerationist appeaser, troll; [positive] courageous, heroic, independent-minded.

(And no, the error is not the mere fact of applying in an argument positive or negative language...sometimes the word or phrase can be descriptive, accurate, well-founded.)

(Edited by Philip Coates
on 4/17, 10:24am)

Post 59

Monday, April 17, 2006 - 1:00pm