Leon of logical fallacy (not of QC) fame
I’m not a regular reader of the blog in question, not by any stroke of the imagination and I don’t believe I’ve mentioned it here before. A chap going by the nom-de-plume of Leon Bertrand (ahem) QC, has been doing the rounds of the blogosphere for a while now, and for the most part, I’ve been ignoring him. He turns up on the occasional comment thread here and there, and occasionally is the butt of jokes at GrodsCorp and Random Brainwave (often on the grounds of amusing, but ultimately trivial typos and other not so trivial boo-boos.)
The thing that I find makes Leon’s tripe readable only as a comedy of errors, is his insistence on being an exemplar of reason (the sub-title of his blog is “Leon Bertrand’s Blog of Reason”), while practicing some of the worst primary reasoning skills I have ever seen on the blogosphere. Seriously.
He’s familiar with enough of the names and positions of various political and social philosophers, so he’s obviously not poorly read, but… I’ve seen him engaged in argument with other bloggers, and I’m yet to see him put forward a case in these exchanges that isn’t compromised by an obvious logical fallacy.
I’m sure he’s made arguments that aren’t entirely vapid before, or at least not compromised by faulty syllogisms. But smart people don’t screw up quite so much and smarter people still don’t get on their soapbox and make an ostentatious display of their fallacies. I’ve seen right-wing bloggers apparently less well read, make much less of a fool of themselves.
Take his latest effort, Australian leftists pwned on immigration.
“Rightists right
Remember how strongly, consistently and dogmatically most lefties were denying that the Rudd Government’s “soft touch” policy on immigration would encourage boat people and their smugglers? Well it appears that after mounting evidence, it’s quite clear that the Rudd Government’s open door approach has led to a surge in illegals:”
(Leon Bertrand, 2008)
Leon goes on to cite an Age article that identifies an apparent increase in boat people coming to Australia, but does not identify a causal relationship between the increase, and Labor’s reforms to treatment of illegal immigrants and refugees. Similarly, other articles identified by Leon across his posts on the topic also fail to identify a causal relationship, but rather just allege one, or point to the fact that it appears like there is a relationship.
So how badly has Leon stuffed up (again)? Let’s look at the logical fallacies.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Toaf warned him back on the 8th of October.
“In that case, Leon, I should also clarify: many would suspect that this is a result of government policy, but little evidence really supports this notion so anyone saying so is silly.“
(Toaf, 2008)
There is a sequence of events and that’s all Leon has given us. He hasn’t given us evidence of a causal relationship. Just because A occurs before B, doesn’t mean that A causes B. This is some pretty basic logic, but for some reason, Leon’s Blog of Reason isn’t managing to employ basic (i.e. primary school level) reasoning skills.
Back on the 8th of October, in response to Toaf, Leon was saying, “I’m undecided. I believe the jury is still out and we will have to see if there are any more arrivals since the policy change.“
Of course, more arrivals do not demonstrate a causal relationship. There are other possible causes that one has to analyse; strife in neighbouring countries being a biggy, and the historical cause for a great number of the mass movements of people.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Learn it Leon.
Keri points out an exception (amongst many) to Leon’s allegation of the “leftist” position when she states, “No-one actually claimed that Rudd’s policies weren’t responsible for any increase, only that there wasn’t any increase at the time Iain was claiming there was. “
Indeed, if you want a take on what the “stupid lefties” in question actually think about the topic, I’d commend TZ’s post, So What?
Now, how does Leon respond to Keri? By claiming, “I don’t have access to your comment Keri, so I am quite limited in what I can say in response. However, I remember some lefties at Iain’s blog were comparing the number of arrivals in the couple of months after the policy change to the previous year. As I pointed out, that’s not comparing apples with apples, and even based on that dodgy stat, it indicates an increase in the annual rate of arrivals. “
A backpedal with a but? Craigy, one of those “stupid leftists” cited by Leon as denying an increase stated, “Yep Leon you’re right, the answer is no.”, in response to Leon’s comment on the same thread:
“The policy was only changed a few months ago. So that’s 3 boats in a small handful of months.
That would make for an annual rate of about 10, no?”
(Leon Bertrand, 2008)
Craigy’s comment wasn’t a denial of an increase, it was a denial that the annual rate suggested by Leon was supported by the rate of three boats in three months. Leon is misrepresenting Craigy’s comment.
Other comments cited as denying an increase don’t. They simply refute that an increase was not supported by the evidence given.
Or to put it into terms of logical fallacies, hasty induction. The sample given was of insufficient size to draw conclusions.
So far we have post hoc ergo propter hoc, strawman and hasty induction fallacies. It’s not looking good for the blog of reason. Call me a cynic, but Leon seems to be a slave of his childish, emotional need to “pwn” lefties, rather than an exemplar of reason.
Let’s try for some other problems with Leon’s post.
“For some reason, one of their quirks is to deny or minimise the extent to which humans are rational animals who act in accordance with their perceived self-interest.”
(Leon Bertrand, 2008)
I’m sure this resonates with the Randians in the audience, but this is just ideological pap. Without fallacies of equivocation, how can Leon explain the audiences that go to creation museums to be indoctrinated, suicide bombers, the thoughtless investment that lead to the 1990s NASDAC bubble (and obvious subsequent burst), the very popular call for revenge on Iraq for 9/11 (which had nothing to do with 9/11) and other mass stupidities that are and have been greatly deleterious to the people who engage in them?
If the rewards offered by the political right are so attractive to a rational majority, why did the Howard Government get so thoroughly repudiated and replaced by the very Labor Government that Leon is less than fond of? Are the majority of the electorate suddenly stupid and unable to see their own best interest?
Apparently, people are only precisely as rationally self-interested, at any one given point, as will support any given policy point or position presented by the egoist ideologue. No more and no less and not at any point in time not convenient. But such flexible justification and the necessary equivocation in face of counter-evidence is the trademark of the ideologue, isn’t it?
Rational self-interest obviously clearly exists, but simply assuming that it is ubiquitous amongst humans is no substitute for an empirical measure of the tendency. Even if being charitable and assuming that it is a pervasive trait, one also hazards is-ought fallacy in assuming that such imperatives should be catered to on the grounds of a position in human nature.
And on a closing note, as a (ahem) QC, does Leon consider pilfering a Metallica graphic for his blog (these guys are notorious for their attacks on Internet pirates after all) to be rationally in his best interest?
~ Bruce
Afterword: This is the last time I want to fisk one of Leon’s pieces of fallacy ridden piles of rubbish. It’s good for a laugh, and a critique of the lacking areas of Internet culture, but I can think of more rewarding things to do. Consider it an experience checked off of my list of things to do.
Bruce, I could kiss you on the Sandilands.
Ant, you know I rather strongly suspect I could do without that.
Leon deleted the post in response to this post. Bless you, Bruce. A true comprade.
And he deleted it without any explanation to his legions of readers. Unreasonable comrades!
Nice work, Bruce. Leon has been pulled up on his misuse of the Metallica cover many-a-time but thinks because he changed it he can do what he wants.
Leon deleted the post in response to this post.
You mean this one?
Leon: Furthermore, Bruce seems to have completely ignored the testimony of those in the front lines of border security, who believe that the increases are due to smugglers testing the waters.
Perhaps Leon can point out the evidence given in these testimonies, of a causal relationship, rather than the strongly held suspicions of causal relations. Simply arguing that because those “on the frontline” have the opinion, therefore it is so, is the argument from authority fallacy. Chalk that one up to the list of silly syllogisms.
So far, evidence of a causal relationship has not been given, and incredulity towards an increase caused by government policy is subsequently appropriate.
And he deleted it without any explanation to his legions of readers.
So there was another post other than Leon’s “in denial” one?
I didn’t delete any posts, gentlemen.
“Perhaps Leon can point out the evidence given in these testimonies, of a causal relationship, rather than the strongly held suspicions of causal relations. Simply arguing that because those “on the frontline” have the opinion, therefore it is so, is the argument from authority fallacy. Chalk that one up to the list of silly syllogisms.”
Those with first hand knowledge of the people smuggling industry are likely to have opinions on it which are worth considering. Sure it dosen’t “prove” beyond doubt, but as you yourself say Bruce, there are grounds for “strongly held suspicions of causal relations”.
I think you are trying to disagree with me simply because you don’t like what I am saying.
You did delete it, Leon. Now it has reappeared. And again you have failed to understand the points Bruce makes about your repeated silly syllogisms.
Read Bruce’s criticism again before you continue to boast.
Leon Bertrand
Only because you ignore Bruce’s post, and his quotes, and his references to various fallacies.
Bruce makes substantive, supported claims. You make assertions.
You’ve been pwned.
John, have you even read this: http://leonbertrand.blogspot.com/2008/12/minister-admits-increase-but-lefties.html ?
Chuck, stop asserting that I deleted the post when I never did any such thing. All my posts have been on my blog throughout this year.
I wouldn’t worry about it, John. Leon seems to have missed the boat on this one big time even if it’s spelled out to him in baby steps.
Leon: the post was removed today then it magically reappeared with updates. I will assert this because it is true. Further, others witnessed it. So stop boasting that it wasn’t removed. You know this, I know this and others know this. Ergo sum: you are lying.
Leon, I didn’t need to read it, for I was commenting on your response to Bruce’s post, both of which I had read.
I have read your piece now, but hadn’t at the time of posting.
I stand by what I wrote earlier.
Your post began As the left still fail to respond to the fact that there is now considerable evidence that Labor’s softening on immigration policy has caused a surge in the number of boats arriving in Australia, [...], of which the bold words are links to your previous posts.
The first piece is based on opinions by Piers Ackerman, IOM chief Steve Cook and Philip Ruddock, the second quotes Paulus Purwoko (deputy chief of criminal investigations at the Indonesian National Police) saying there’s been an increase, the third points to a July press release.
Clearly, your standards for evaluating evidence differ from mine. Care to show any actual studies on the matter?
Do you even know what specific changes Labor made to the relevant legislation?
John, even the Labor Immigration Minister admits there has been an increase in boats. There have been quite a few in recent months, as I have documented on my blog.
Chuck, the only way I can think that my post was temporarily removed was as I was updating it. At one stage I clicked ’save’ and I recall reading the word ‘draft’ appear next to my post. I was not aware that the entire article was removed as a result of this, if it indeed was. Unfortunately, I was at work, so I couldn’t update my post as quickly as I and you would have liked.
Leon, what you claimed was that the increase was either primarily or totally due to Labor’s policies, a contention you sustain by appealing to correlation and opinion.
Your ‘considerable evidence’ is not convincing evidence, yet you write as if it were.
I think you are trying to disagree with me simply because you don’t like what I am saying.
You think I’m trying to disagree with you simply because I don’t like what you saying? What are you doing on this thread then? It’s not like you’re arguing on the grounds of logic.
…even the Labor Immigration Minister admits there has been an increase in boats.
More recently, yes. But that’s not in contradiction to what “the stupid leftists” have actually argued in the past*. Nor can you conclude from this that it is because of Labor policy. Do you not comprehend the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy?
In the meantime, I’d start studying Harry Stottlemeier’s Discovery. It’s not geared to adults, it’s a bit corny, but it’s a good start and it would seem to match your current ability.
Don’t feel ashamed. There are plenty of adults in the same boat (although most of them don’t go out and start a “blog of reason”).
* Get it through your head – saying “there has been no increase” is not the same as saying “one can’t support the notion of an increase with this data”…
I wonder if Leon will incorporate this story into his evidential base,
, inasmuch as it is of similar evidentiary quality.
Well, I’ll stop after this other one, since my point is made.
Well, I’m not going to take Linda Briskman on face value just because she’s an expert, but seeing how Leon has been so credulous to those “on the frontline”, I don’t see how he has any choice.
Bruce, I revisited this one for no apparent reason and caught up with the comments. And this is a gem: “What are you doing on this thread then? It’s not like you’re arguing on the grounds of logic.” Tidy work.
Tidy work.
Things needed a tidy after what’s been an example of some pretty sloppy thinking.