Evidence You're Reading Garbage

We live in a world full of terrible arguments. Not just from frothy blogs, but from academics (especially in law schools), campaign operatives, and snarky pundits. It's good to have strong opinions if they are supported by good evidence and sturdy logic. It's important to know what these say, and what they do not say.

There are a few red flags. A few arguments and rhetorical structures that are tell-tale signs you're reading people that either aren't very bright or are fairly manipulative. Either way, you're reading garbage when you see these.

• The author compares the opposition to a religion. (non-unique)

  • The global warming orthodoxy...

  • The anointed Hillary Clinton...

  • And any Republican who disagrees is considered a heretic.

• The author uses naive cross-sectional or time-series comparisons. (unobserved heterogeneity)

  • The economy grew quickly while marginal tax rates were highest. (the growth was likely attributable to other factors)

  • Right-to-work states have stronger job growth. (Right-to-work states are fundamentally different, having more pro-business policies)

  • Public medicine must be better because countries with social medicine have longer life expectancies. (diet and exercise better explain longer life expectancies. There is good evidence that the for a given condition (pancreatic cancer) you're far better off within the US healthcare system)

• The author applies the logic of one member of the group to another member of the same group. (inappropriate standard, assumes homogeneity)

  • Several Republicans have said this strategy will not work. Why are you therefore pursuing it? (why should they have to shoulder the implications of someone else's statement)

  • Atheists usually argue that there are no moral values and duties. Does this not affect important social morals?

• The author asserts that current members of a group should do the same thing that previous members of the group have done. (assumes constant circumstances)

  • Your hero, Ronald Reagan, incurred a large debt; why are you all of the sudden concerned by spending.

• The author repeats the same appealing phrasing of his argument. (Reveals that the claim relies on attractive phrasing rather than fact and reason)

• The author points out a policy did not lead to nuclear war or some other distopia. (inappropriate standard)

• The author's description of the opponent appears untenably stupid, inconsistent, or unfair. (straw man)

• The author seems to appeal to jargon rather than reason or relevant facts. (gives the appearance of competence without fact or reason)

• The author cites polls as an argument for what should happen. (assumes that poll members have complete information)

• The author ignores the claim and makes personal attacks describing irrelevant perceived inconsistencies. (ad hominem, irrelevant)

One test you can use to see if the argument is bad, is can it achieve the same effect in the opposite direction:

"Will the Supreme Court stifle efforts to reform campaign finance?" (article)

But watch how easily it turns--"Will the Supreme Court stifle the most fundamental political right, speech?" Using the word stifle isn't an argument, it usually expresses and unsupported assumption.