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.
