Sophistry Part 2: The Shotgun Approach

A few weeks ago I did my first post on sophistry.  Sophistry is defined as plausible but fallacious argumentation, or assertions that sound right, but are actually wrong.

I am trying to help people avoid falling for bad arguments for or against something. Today, I'm talking about the "Shotgun approach."

Let's say you admire a certain historical figure. It could be Rosa Parks, Gandhi or Abraham Lincoln. And then let's say that I despised that historical figure. I could try to ruin your admiration and/or faith in that individual by using the shotgun approach.

The shotgun approach is a method of persuasion where the persuader dumps a quick list of facts (or supposed facts) on the other person in an effort to overwhelm them. The goal is to make it seem impossible for that person to counter the sheer number of criticisms. Even if you were to be able to counter some of these criticisms, there are just SO MANY, you despair of countering all of them.

The goal of the person using the shotgun approach is to stop you from defending that person or having faith or admiration in that person. Or to get you to lose trust in an argument, philosophy or organization promoting that argument or philosophy.

I label this "sophistry" for three reasons. First, it usually takes things out of context and is not a fully accurate or in depth representation of the issue. For example, I could say that Abraham Lincoln was a racist because he once said that he would keep slavery around if it saved the Union.

The second reason I call this approach sophistry is that it is not an attempt at getting an understanding of the issue, nor is it an attempt to engage in a reasonable dialogue among individuals discussing in good-faith. Rather, it's an aggressive, almost bullying approach to persuasion.

The third reason is that the shotgun approach is unbalanced. It never gives you the counter-examples. It never tells you the good things about a person or argument. Only the negatives. 

Here is an example I've made up of the shotgun approach. Let's say you admire Franklin Roosevelt.

Well... did you know...

1. Did you know that he was responsible for the Japanese internment camps in world war 2?
2. Did you know that he attempted to pack the Supreme Court with his own hand-chosen nominees?
3. Did you know that many of his policies made the Great Depression worse?
4. Did you know that he cheated on his wife with many women?

And you thought he was a good president... What were you thinking?

Do you notice how I give brute facts without any context or mitigating circumstances? Notice that I also don't mention any of the obviously good things that he did? His conservation efforts, his bold leadership in World War 2 and his efforts to end racism with the NAACP are not mentioned.

So exercise caution when dealing with literature that employs this method of persuasion. It's sophistry and won't really lead you to a full, scholarly understanding of an issue or judgment of a person. 

Bonus: In fact #2 I engaged in what is known as "well-poisoning." I'm trying to get you to disdain Roosevelt by using the term "hand-chosen nominees." Well, all Supreme Court justices are "hand-chosen." From Washington to Trump, there have never been justices who weren't "hand-chosen." It's what presidents do, it's not nefarious. But I'm trying to poison your mind against Roosevelt with a completely innocent fact presented in a sinister sounding way.