The "if by whiskey" fallacy

[Skeptical Greg]

Interesting how an informal logical fallacy developed from a speech where the guy was obviously just being funny. Does anyone have an actual example of an if-by-whiskey argument?

~~ Paul

Heads I win, tails you lose..

 

[fls]

I assume that the speaker was gently sending up both sides in the debate by echoing their question-begging language.

Same here. Which means that he was making the dual nature explicit, rather than non-explicit. Which means that while it was amusing, it wasn't really an example of the fallacy. I was attempting to move beyond that in order to consider whether there were legitimate examples of the fallacy. I will admit that I am thinking of a real example from another thread on this forum, but I've been reluctant to mention it in order to avoid stepping on anyone's toes here.

Well, assuming we take the speech straight rather than as a joke, there is certainly a fallacy in there. But I'm not sure that it's a special case of begging the question. When we have two incompatible descriptions of a thing, we can get out of trouble by accepting that they apply to different things, but we can also give one of the descriptions up. Much the same applies to incompatible evauations: we can't wholeheartedly support and wholeheartedly condemn in the same breath, but we can accept that we are talking about two different things, or we can give up one of our evaluations.

Since the speaker isn't going to come off the fence, he pretends that the former is the only option. So I'd see it as a case of ignoring or suppressing possibilities.

But what if the intention is to deny that the two incompatible descriptions apply to the same thing?

Linda

 

[Sherman Bay]

Yes, a major disadvantage of the new flat screen tv's.

If only they had something we could hold onto...like knobs.

 

[The Man]

Same here. Which means that he was making the dual nature explicit, rather than non-explicit. Which means that while it was amusing, it wasn't really an example of the fallacy. I was attempting to move beyond that in order to consider whether there were legitimate examples of the fallacy. I will admit that I am thinking of a real example from another thread on this forum, but I've been reluctant to mention it in order to avoid stepping on anyone's toes here.



But what if the intention is to deny that the two incompatible descriptions apply to the same thing?

Linda

I’d probably be more inclined to say that they are simply different perspectives of the same thing. The descriptions may seem incompatible from a singular perspective, but I don’t think the speaker was attempting to deny that either of those perspectives can be and have been taken about whiskey even by just a single person (although perhaps at different times). At different perspectives a circle appears as an ellipse or even a line and although those descriptions may seem incompatible with a circle or each other they do describe the appearance of some particular perspectives of the same thing.

 

[fuelair]

Perhaps you differ, but I feel that sex on TV is uncomfortable. I much prefer a bed.

The old big console monsters weren' that bad - and the top was warm!!. These new thin things can't hack it though.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Heads I win, tails you lose..

I can conjure up statements that fit the description of an "if by whiskey" argument. I'm looking for an actual example where a person succumbed to the fallacy without realizing it.

You see this all the time. Unless there is some other name for it, it represents hypocrisy in an argument - someone characterizes an action or idea one way if it supports their argument and characterizes it another way when it is used to justify their opponent's argument.

But presumably in a debate they would be trying to argue against the idea if they disagreed or argue for it if they agreed. Why would both legs of the "if by whiskey" argument come up?

I'm sure there are examples, I just can't think of one.

Edited to add: I guess if someone was willing to respond to a question on either side of the coin, choosing the one that the questioner seemed to prefer, then that would be an if-by-whiskey argument even though both sides of the coin weren't explicitly argued. Again, though, I find it hard to see how someone would make this mistake without knowing it.

~~ Paul

 

[Lord Muck oGentry]

But what if the intention is to deny that the two incompatible descriptions apply to the same thing?

Linda

Well, if he's talking about two things rather than one, there are, presumably, samples of each to be found. I'd take the man into a bar and offer to buy a glass of the Good Stuff for him and a glass of Daddy's Ruin for me, if he'll just explain to me how to tell one from the other.

 

[fls]

But presumably in a debate they would be trying to argue against the idea if they disagreed or argue for it if they agreed. Why would both legs of the "if by whiskey" argument come up?

When it isn't explicit that the two legs refer to "whiskey". So the use of the fallacy would essentially be negated by the use of the phrase "if by...", because it would become explicit that both descriptions are being used by the party to refer to the same thing.

It would be like someone who states that they are in favour of small government but in favour of banning gay marriage. This could be made explicit as "if by government interference you mean the stealing of honest wages in order to provide welfare moms with abortions I'm against it, but if by government interference you mean the protection of family values then I'm for it."

What do you think? Is that a distinct fallacy?

Linda

 

[krx]

Ahhh...

Sounds almost like a Clixby (from The Meaning of Liff, by Douglas Adams).

CLIXBY (adj.)
Politely rude. Briskly vague. Firmly uninformative.

 

[Miss_Kitt]

"I am in favor of reducting government waste; but we must not attack any necessary programs that protect deserving people from the effects of tragic accidents."

Those who favor government paying for levee systems and emergency transportation and lodgings in hurricane season can think the foregoing refers to those sorts of programs, but not gov't-subsidised breakfasts for school children. Those who think that poverty is a 'tragic accident' that is unjustly impacting those kids will think that the food program is not going to be cut.

This kind of double-talk is the basis of most political speaking up here, sadly.

MK

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

It would be like someone who states that they are in favour of small government but in favour of banning gay marriage. This could be made explicit as "if by government interference you mean the stealing of honest wages in order to provide welfare moms with abortions I'm against it, but if by government interference you mean the protection of family values then I'm for it."

What do you think? Is that a distinct fallacy?

If we assume that by "small government" the politician means a government that does not interfere in states' rights at all, then that would be a double standard or something like it. I suppose that might be an "if by whiskey" fallacy. But I'm sure the politician would simply argue that his definition of "small goverment" is more nuanced than that, and could exclude one interference but include another. I don't think we could hold him to some sort of all-or-none definition of small government.

~~ Paul

 

[fls]

If we assume that by "small government" the politician means a government that does not interfere in states' rights at all, then that would be a double standard or something like it. I suppose that might be an "if by whiskey" fallacy. But I'm sure the politician would simply argue that his definition of "small goverment" is more nuanced than that, and could exclude one interference but include another. I don't think we could hold him to some sort of all-or-none definition of small government.

~~ Paul

Well I didn't mean for you to pay attention to the letter of my hastily drawn comparison, but rather the spirit. After all, more nuanced arguments could still contain hypocrisy. I am often forced to ask just how one goes about excluding one but not the other, on a variety of topics, and frequently do not receive satisfactory answers. It would be nice if I could put a name to that.

ETA: Perhaps Miss Kitt's is a better example?

Linda

 

[blutoski]

yes, I'm having trouble accepting that this is actually a fallacy.

Looks more like a joke poking fun at sophistry or rhetoric by demonstrating how somebody could treat an issue with fairness, or alternatively, could choose to poison the well.

 

[Garrette]

My thoughts are that this is common in large staffs (or perhaps even small ones) and occurs when one staff member is charged with reconciling the opposing views of two executives. A weak staffer will state his own opinions in a manner tailored to the audience of the moment, not with an intent to persuade or defend but with an eye toward avoiding confrontation at the moment.

 

[dogjones]

According to wiki it's a variation of the relativist fallacy.