argument by prophesy?

[gfunkusarelius]

edited to say dang i wish i wouldve noticed i spelled prophecy wrong before posting, haha

i have one i havent seen anyone talking about, but maybe i just missed it. i have seen and heard a lot of CTists, especially 9/11 LCers, arguing that the whole war on terror conflict is esentially "1984." it's a really sexy argument because people who are predisposed to believe in CTs are typically also going to love the idea of prophecy and the coming of this nightmare vision. while i think there are definitely warnings to be heeded from the vision of those who have written such books, i think it can definitely be dangerous to try to fit your worldview into a text and blind yourself to all the issues at hand. the general line i hear on the war on terror is that"osama bin laden is just emmanuel goldstein" (manufactured by the govt so we are all blind to real issues) and we all flip out viewing screens to fox news to have our hatefests, etc, takes the perspective that this is all manufactured and there is no threat from islamic fundamentalism, etc.
so my point is, is there a name for this sort of argument and whats the best way to counter it without getting into laborious detailed examination of a fictional text and reality? of course there is probably even some reality in the more general concept that some people in the govt are probably happy that there is someone to "hate" but frankly if that was there plan it doesnt even work very well, haha

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by gfunkusarelius

so my point is, is there a name for this sort of argument and whats the best way to counter it without getting into laborious detailed examination of a fictional text and reality?

Specifically in regards to this argument, I think it can be fairly well documented. Islamic Terrorists do not try to hide their hatred towards the west - they infact are proud of it.

I would suggest as a starting point the documentary Obsession. It is also available at Google Video.

The position that Terrorists are fabricated by the government as an enemy is easily refuted by showing anything that demonstrates the culture of hatred that islamic terrorists embrace. Much of the material in this documentary is from TV broadcasts in Muslim countries. They also have insight from a daughter of a suicide bomber, a Palestinian journalist, and a former PLO Terrorist, amongst others.

I'm not sure what you'd call this form of argument, except... wrong?

I think it is a classic case of crying wolf. A few questionable laws does not make 1984.

I have a good friend who grew up in Russia under the Soviet Union. He often fids it amusing when people compare western countries like the USA to something like 1984. Unlike them, he HAS lived under an Orwellian type state (though he will be first to point out it was never remotely as bad as in 1984).

He thinks those that see the US as a police state have clearly never lived in a police state, otherwise they would appreciate how free their society is.

The problem is, with CTers bleating about 1984 (most of whom have probably never even read it) every time government scandal is unearthed, in the event of something happening that really IS worth worrying about, people dismiss it as just another nutjob conspiracy theory. Hence the cry-wolf scenario.

On a more practical note, if a law of activity by the government IS wrong, and you protest it by bleating about 1984, you run the risk of the genuine problem being ignored because of your ridiculous exaggeration of its significance.

-Andrew

[orphia nay]

Fallacious Argument by Superstition about Fiction?

That's a guess, but good question, and good post, gumboot.

[blutoski]

Originally Posted by gfunkusarelius

i have one i havent seen anyone talking about, but maybe i just missed it. i have seen and heard a lot of CTists, especially 9/11 LCers, arguing that the whole war on terror conflict is esentially "1984."

I think their argument is half-correct in that Nineteen Eighty Four was a warning about the threat of totalitarianism and its mechanisms. In this case: invent an unwinnable war to establish a perpetual state of martial law, invent a scapegoat with a face and a name, toward which the public's hate and fear can be directed, and sieze control of the media in order to interpret events to look good and distort the public's perception of history (who remembers today that Kansas was a pioneer in unionization, land reform, industry regulation, public education, and abortion rights?)

What the CTers miss is that there is bucketloads of evidence that Orwell was writing about Germany and the Soviet Union, and that his literary devices were inspired by his contemporary examples (Goldstein was Germany's Jews and the Communists' Borgeois class).


What they're doing is not a logical fallacy, but just bad reasoning.

I always use the RAS approach: is their evidence relevant? Yes: Orwell was talking about just this type of thing. Is their evidence acceptable? Yes: it could be used to support the claim. Is it sufficient? No. There is ample evidence that Orwell was arguing a general warning against totalitarianism, and not specifically predicting any particular event.