Kavanaugh haters engage in a logical fallacy

Judge Brett Kavanaugh's opponents  have so routinely dragged out a logical fallacy against his nomination to the Supreme Court that you have to wonder if logic is still being taught in school.

The fallacy argues that because his accuser, Christine Ford, is a woman she must be believed that Kavanaugh attacked her. Even though the evidence does not bear it out. She accuses, therefore he must be guilty.

Let's break it down into a syllogism:

A. All women are infallible.
B. Christine Blasey Ford is a woman.
Ergo, Christine Blasey Ford is infallible.

The fallacy is found in "A: All women are infallible", clearly unsupportable. It is an example of false inductive reasoning, in which the argument moves from specific instances (e.g. some women are telling the truth about being sexually assaulted) into a generalized conclusion (e.g. all women are telling the truth about being sexually assaulted).

Of course, Kavanaugh haters will insist that they are not claiming that all women should be believed simply because they are women. But you can see this assertion taking form, from subtle to straightforward.

For example: Women have no reason to lie about being attacked. That implies that all women who claim they were attacked in fact were. There's Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) who told men to shut up and believe women who claim they were assaulted.

Or this lament that women don't have to present evidence: "[Women] have to offer far more than just their word."  You might argue that some women have to offer far more than just their word, but that's not what was said. But here's a universal statement that's true. Anyone, man or woman, who accuses someone of a crime must "offer far more than just their word." 

And this:  "'Women everywhere are listening to Christine Blasey Ford’s voice cracking and feeling their own hearts break, just a little bit more, at the world we’ve all inherited,” tweeted the New York Times’ Sheera Frenkel." Are all women's hearts breaking? Not among some women in my life who, based on the evidence, don't believe Ford. (Right, the women in my life don't represent all women, but neither are they to be ignored as if they didn't exist."

Absolutely, attack victims should be heard and respected. But the accused also have a right to be respected and heard.

To execute a man we don't need proof of his guilt. We only need proof that it's necessary to execute him. It's that simple.

www.dennisbyrne.net

My historical novel: Madness: The War of 1812

Here’s how to subscribe to the Barbershop so that you’ll be notified when I post: Type your email address in the box and click the "create subscription" button. My list is completely spam free, and you can opt out at any time.

Comments

Leave a comment
  • A. I don't support Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation to the Supreme Court.
    B. I don't hate Brett Kavanaugh
    C.I oppose Judge Kavanaugh's elevation to the Supreme Court because he demonstrably perjured himself before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

    Your logical fallacy is that all who oppose Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation do so because they either hate the judge or the President. It IS possible to believe he is unworthy of elevation to the top court without hating anyone!

  • In reply to HHH Is My Hero:

    HHH: A logical fallacy is a fault in the logic. An argument not supported by unpacking of the facts. A fallacy does not mean (necessarily) that the conclusion is wrong. It does mean that the argument...how the conclusion was arrrived at is wrong.

    Byrne, nowhere and at no time asserted or argued that all who oppose Kavanaugh, do so because of the open question of his relationship with Ford. A careful reading of Byrne's post indicate that his assertion is that those who do oppose Kavanaugh over his relationship with Ford, do so from a faulty presupposition.

    For Byrne to have commited the fallacy you accuse him of, he would have needed to say "*ALL* Judge Brett Kavanaugh's opponents..." in his first sentence. Personally, I would have added the word "Some" for sake of clarity at the start of the first sentence, but the rule and law of logic remain...Byrne did not commit fallacy here.

  • fb_avatar

    And your 'proof' that he "demonstrably perjured himself" is......................................?

  • All candidates for the Supreme Court should exhibit appropriate decorum, good judgment, and judicial temperament during their Senate confirmation hearings.

    Judge Kavanaugh did not.

    Judge Kavanaugh should not be confirmed.

Leave a comment

  • Advertisement:
  • Advertisement:
  • ChicagoNow is full of win

    Welcome to ChicagoNow.

    Meet our bloggers,
    post comments, or
    pitch your blog idea.

  • Visit my new website

    I'm a freelance writer, editor and author. I can help you with a wide variety of projects. Check out my new website at www.dennisbyrne.net

  • Subscribe to The Barbershop

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

  • Dennis Byrne’s Facebook Fan Page

  • Like me on Facebook

  • Our National Debt

  • Twitter

  • Tags

  • Recent Comments

  • /Users/dennisby/Desktop/trailer.mp4
  • Latest on ChicagoNow

  • Advertisement: