I've never heard of that fallacy either. Not every error (assuming that Morris is comitting one) is a "fallacy".

I have heard of the Fallacy of False Causation, though. The illustration of that fallacy that we learned in Logic Class, was a witch doctor saying "Every time I beat my drum during a total eclipse, the sun reappears". Of course in that case, we know that the drum wasn't the cause. If every time you lower the capital gains rate, you get more money, it's certainly a reaonable hypothesis that the rate reduction had something to do with it. If stating it as a 100% certainty does make it a fallacy, that's easily gotten around by simply stating it as likely. At the very least, it contradicts the people who say that lowering the rates always means more money.

As I recall from school, Fallacies were divided into formal and informal fallacies, and informal fallacies were divided into fallacies of relevance and fallacies of ambiguity.

Formal fallacies are ones that apply to syllogisms. For example the Undistributed Middle Fallacy, which says that the middle term in a syllogism must be "distributed". (I'll be glad to explain what that means if anyone cares, but it's a bit involved). Another one was illicit distribution of an end term, which states that any term that is distributed in the conclusion of a syllogism must also be distributed in one of the premises (you can see why these are called "formal" fallacies).

Fallacies of ambiguity were fallacies where the meaning of a term might change in mid argument, or be unclear. The most numerous ones were the fallacies of relevance, which all had the common factor that the claim was simply irrelevant to the conclusion.

For example ad hominem abusive. "Congressman Smith's view on Proposition A is wrong because Smith is an idiot." Or argumentum ad hominim circumstantial: "Smith's view is wrong because he benefits from it." Or argumentum ad populum: "X is true because everyone knows it". Or argumentum ad verecundiam: "X is true because some authority says so". Or argumentum ad misericordiam: "X should be acquitted of crime Y because he's suffered so much already." There are a lot more like this, but the common theme in all of them is that the fact cited is completely irrelevant to the conclusion.

Agreed.


I would argue that claiming the rate change as the likely cause would still be overly strong absent a great deal more evidence. If, for example, capital gains tax rates were always lowered near the end of a recession and raised near the end of a boom, you have the same situation as the guy drumming during the eclipse.

It is also plausible that we are looking at single year anomalies--with impending changes in tax rules normal December/January dividend payouts may get moved a week or two. December/January stock sales can also be strongly impacted by policy changes taking place on January 1.

At this point the strongest we can reasonably claim is that the information is suggestive and warrants a careful follow-up investigation.

Hi guys, I can't post for a while. I'll catch up.

But in Washington, it's SOP to appoint a comission to study such things and then ignore its findings if they don't report what you want them to. That happened most recently with Obama's debt comission.

That's because the commission is composed of politicians who never took courses that taught them even basic rational thinking skills. They equate belief with with proof.

If they ever had an open mind it was jammed shut the first time they attended a legislative caucus.

Legislators very quickly loose interest in right/wrong preferring instead to rely on party unity. I've seen it frequently in my own legislators. (Yes, I am relying on anecdotal evidence here, I would be thrilled if someone could produce actual research showing that I am wrong.)

Maybe, but then why appoint them at all?

The same belief systems that drive them to equate belief with knowledge drive them to believe that such commissions are useful.

There are a whole host of interrelated things going on, but basically humans believe that they are rational when they are not. People in positions of power sincerely (and falsely) believe that their position endows them with superior thinking and problem solving skills.

Everyone really needs to read "Thinking, Fast and Slow" (and take the time to comprehend it) to get a sense of the full breadth and depth of problems with human reasoning.

Here's a good disquisition on special pleading.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/specplea.html

Morris is usually perceptive, but his own biases blind him here. What sank Santorum was his own faults, in a Greek tragedy kind of way: his strong points proved to be his weak points. His strong moral convictions led him to say self-destructive things (the JFK comment, the Obama-is-a-snob comment). He got off-message; as the only candidate, the only one, who emphasized rebuilding American manufacturing, he got a lot of votes. But he killed himself with self-inflicted wounds.

In 2008 McCain came back from the dead by not making mistakes and by constantly hitting on themes that resonated with voters. Santorum could have pulled of the same comeback but did himself in with his comments.

I disagree with Morris' analysis that it was wedding himself to the evangelicals that cost him. It is strange that Santorum, a Roman Catholic, got the evangelical vote, while Romney, a Mormon, got the Roman Catholic vote. Had Santorum not made his comments about JFK's speech to the Houston ministers he would have carried more Catholic votes, and he would have won in Michigan and Ohio. He'd be the nominee today but for that one gaffe.

I myself was hoping Santorum would be the nominee. The Republican party's four wings were represented in these primaries: Social conservatives (Santorum), Rockefeller Republicans (Romney), Libertarians (Paul), and, for lack of a better term, Neo-Orthodox Conservatives (Gingrich). The only newbie was Santorum. I was hoping that if he won the nomination the other three would be relegated to Harold Stassen status (if only because of their ages) and that Santorum would lose to Obama. By doing this the Republican party would be purged of its old leadership and in 2016 we would see some genuinely new candidates with genuinely new ideas. Sadly, it seems that Santorum is now the man for 2016 and we won't have the healthy purge that the GOP desperately needs.