Demagogy is an ugly sore on the body of any forum, it tears people away from work, locks in resources, makes people waste time, nerves ... In a word, it is a hindrance for everyone. Clear and undeniable. To get rid of it as a phenomenon is almost impossible. But you can get rid of a specific demagogue, at least in a specific topic.

A variety of people come to our forum. Actually, for this purpose it was created to come in, to communicate, to be able to ask questions and receive answers. Including - questions to the authors of articles and the magazine, and the site. Of course, it's great when anyone can easily contact us and get advice or find out an important question for themselves. Even if he lives in a godforsaken outback.
However, any barrel of honey can easily be a fly in the ointment. And of course she is. The disease of any forum is demagogues. From them everyone gets - and guests, and regulars, and authors. Because they bring confusion and create chaos, actively interfering with the rest. Sometimes very active. To paraphrase an old saying, one demagogue can ask so many questions that a hundred wise men cannot answer them. Thus, a demagogue can close on himself a lot of people, and then several topics, or even a whole section of the forum, will turn into a big trash heap.
Demagogy is an ugly sore on the body of any forum, it tears people away from work, locks in resources, makes people waste time, nerves ... In a word, it is a hindrance for everyone. Clear and undeniable. To get rid of it as a phenomenon is almost impossible. But you can get rid of a specific demagogue, at least in a specific topic.

To understand how to achieve this, we must first understand what demagogy and demagogue are and what goals they pursue.

So, the TSB claims that demagogy is a deceit, false promises, a deliberate distortion of facts. The Russian Encyclopedic Dictionary practically echoes the encyclopedia: Demagoguery is an impact on the feelings, instincts, consciousness of people based on a deliberate distortion of facts and flattering promises, inciting passions to achieve one's own goals. A demagogue, therefore, is a person who uses lies, distortion of facts, etc., to achieve his goal. He can pursue any goal, except for finding out the truth. As a rule, there is only one goal on the Internet - self-affirmation by winning some dispute, or creating the illusion of victory. And at any cost.
With great pleasure, our demagogue will brag to his acquaintances with great pleasure, they say, here I am, how clever and skillful I am, out of my belt, and these authors (or other opponents) are solid amateurs. Thus, the demagogue raises self-esteem in his own eyes. From which it becomes clear that this person has problems with self-esteem. And this, in turn, means that he is dissatisfied with his position in society, salary, success with women (or men), and so on. He is convinced, and sacredly convinced, that he deserves a better life, but evil fate and the intrigues of his enemies do not allow him to show himself in all his glory. That is, we are dealing with a person offended by life. Which, alas, is not curable. But this is not important to us, it is only important to understand the purpose of the demagogue. And she - I repeat - the only one: self-affirmation. At the expense of those around you.

On the forums, people sometimes argue. Disputes are different. There is a dispute to find out the truth, sometimes it is to test an idea. There is a dispute to convince the enemy. The demagogue only needs an argument to achieve victory. If he failed to realize himself in real life, he realizes himself in the virtual one. Just by such victories. But since he has no knowledge, there are also problems with logic (and there is no need for demagogy with knowledge and intelligence - you can put your opponent on both shoulder blades anyway), but you really want to win (remember: he needs to assert himself!) our hero goes to any lengths serious - lies, juggling of facts, etc., that is, engages in demagogy.
The demagogue is invulnerable - it is always like water off a duck's back. If 99% of the arguments work in your favor, the demagogue will cling to the one remaining, and will build a dialogue around it, inflating its significance. If, under the weight of arguments, he has absolutely nothing to answer, he will go off topic, ignore questions, and in the worst case, he will cling to grammar and punctuation. Or get personal. And he will certainly write a lot of petty nasty things - to unbalance you, to make you resent, in order to later accuse you of bias. And no matter how unpleasant it is to communicate with him, sometimes you still have to. It is curious that there are still ways to deal with demagogues, and very simple ones.
I even conducted a small experiment, talking on our forum with a very talented and highly experienced demagogue, having tried different methods of influence and quite quickly found leverage, and very effective ones. His name is Vadim, and the name on the forum is Ezdun. More correctly, ezdun. (You can admire his profile) Of course, this is not the only demagogue on the forum, but I chose him for two reasons. Firstly, he was given the right to edit not only his own, but also other people's messages, and this in itself is very interesting from a psychological point of view, because it is difficult to resist and not delete what you really don’t like. And it will be removed exactly what hits self-esteem the most. It is clear that it is easier to find pain points this way. Secondly, this person tried the whole set of classical demagogy, from hushing up facts and ignoring questions to petty insults, which is not always found among demagogues. Well, in order not to be unfounded, I will give a few very eloquent quotes.

- Handsome, from such a stream of bricks you will be prematurely broken by hemorrhoids.
Of course, the "handsome" here is not without mockery. As conceived by the author, such an appeal should hurt. And the mention of hemorrhoids - too. In fact, a person is always touched by that and only that which is at least somehow connected with him. For example, if a person has thick hair, it's silly to call him bald, isn't it? He just laughs. On the other hand, calling names (and trying to call insultingly) bald can only be done by someone who himself is very worried about the fact that his hair is thin, it would not even occur to another. The conclusion is simple: only the person who has complexes about his own appearance can call you “handsome”. I tested this simple guess by calling my opponent a "freak". And the fact that the “freak” immediately disappeared (that is, was erased) unequivocally confirmed the conjecture. As for proctology, he did not throw a trial balloon, fearing to offend too much and thereby terminate the experiment prematurely.
So, the first conclusion: the demagogue, without knowing it, in an attempt to offend you, very often shows his own pain points in his attacks. Using this feature, he can easily be driven away from his topic or discussion of the article - for which it is enough just to return his own question to him, a little turned around.

kozlov lovely charm. You don't understand anything about kozl....you just don't understand kozlov. no one understands kozlov
Here we see the classic method of demagogy in the form of a transition to personality. There is an attempt to offend by manipulating the name of a humble servant. Such a device can always (and should) be regarded as an act of impotence of the demagogue. He gets personal only when he has nothing to counter your arguments. Therefore, the case of distorting your surname (name, attacks on appearance, experience, etc.) is an implicit, but unconditional defeat of the demagogue. Actually, the text of the message itself says the same thing - there is not a gram of specifics in it, but there is a simple statement in “not understanding anything”, of course, not based on anything.
So, the second conclusion: attacks on a person in the spirit of “who are you” indicate that the demagogue no longer has arguments. This means that if the dispute (discussion) continues, you need to click on exactly that aspect of the topic that caused these attacks.

We are we. All honest anonymous. on whose shoulders this forum section sobsno rests
A very interesting and revealing phrase, and also a classic demagogue trick. Words about honesty, as a rule, are written after the demagogue has been caught lying (rigging facts, distorting the meaning of phrases, and other acts). So, by the way, it was in reality - the quoted phrase appeared after. The fact is that demagogues tend to ignore not only arguments or questions, but also facts. If you manage to, say, prove that nitrogen in tires does not in any way affect handling and fuel consumption, the demagogue is bound to claim "because the fact that nitrogen improves handling and reduces fuel consumption is well known, ...". Ignoring the fact allows the demagogue to continue the argument and often - to unbalance the opponent. The second part of the phrase is no less revealing and also classical. This is an attempt to oppose you alone to all “honest people”, after which, according to the logic of the story, you turn out to be a dishonest scoundrel, rejected by the society of God-fearing Samaritans. In fact, there is, of course, no ground for such a statement and cannot be, since the “honest anonymous people” do not even suspect that they are speaking on their behalf. The purpose of the whole statement is to disown the title of an unscrupulous and mmm ... not entirely truthful forum member, while at the same time trying to move the conversation away from a topic that is uncomfortable for the demagogue. It happens to be very effective.
The third conclusion: when a demagogue tries to divert the conversation, do not give in under any circumstances. If you see that the demagogue is trying to oppose you to society and (or) speaks of his honesty, you are on the right track.

Dusya, you are superfluous at this celebration of life
This is elementary rudeness, an answer that does not contain the actual answer, words spoken only to be said from the simple principle "I have the last word." They are pronounced when it is impossible to give an intelligible answer on the topic, due to the lack of arguments and unwillingness to admit it. Rudeness should simply be ignored, while noting that the topic is suitable just because of the lack of arguments from the demagogue.

Moreover, you are in your 6th decade - not a pale young man with a burning gaze. The question is elementary, as if there are no reasons to evade.
And when, instead of an intelligible answer, the anonymous male editorial worker squirms, this raises the question of who works there - adults or old m ... aki? casts a shadow on the editorial
More than wonderful words. A funny attempt to reproach with age suggests that our demagogue also has complexes about his own considerable years. And, notice, the age in one message is mentioned twice. which is indicative. Here is the standard attempt of our hero (again, a typical demagogic trick) to take on functions unusual for him, namely, the struggle for the purity of the editorial staff. Of course, he has absolutely nothing to do with her. And its workers neither dream nor spirit know with what fervor an outsider is ready to fight for the purity of their ranks. It is doubtful that they need the help of a demagogue...
But the fact is - the words are spoken. You are casting a shadow. Never mind, this is not even the opinion of a single person, these are just words. Which, of course, must be ignored for the simple reason that the speaker is not authorized to monitor the cleanliness of personnel, he has a completely different job.
The purpose of the speech is obvious and should generate indignation and a surge of emotions. The message is also interesting in that it shows the attempts of our hero to probe the weak points of the obedient servant. With the "handsome" did not work - let's try to play with the surname. It didn’t work either - click on the age. Bummer again? Let's try to come from the side of work - the need for the editorial board. Conclusion: do not respond to personal attacks. But never forget that every transition to your personality is an unambiguous sign of the impotence of the demagogue, his incompetence or even ignorance in the matter under discussion. Never change the subject.

What's question? Is there life on Mars? I'm afraid to tell you for sure
Before you is a typical answer to a directly posed question, of course, which has nothing to do with Mars. Following the developed simple principles, I insisted on my very simple, by the way, question, repeating it several times. At first the question was erased, then it was simply ignored. Then this one appeared - obviously mocking tone. Which clearly indicates that our hero is afraid to give an answer. What exactly the question is is not important now. It is important that if your question is suddenly “not noticed”, it is inconvenient for the opponent.
Takeaway: Ask the uncomfortable question over and over again. And demand an answer, and reasoned.

Handsome, I don't understand - are you going to the Barrier for your answer? Or do you prefer to get PORAGAMS?
This is an elemental threat. It speaks of the degree of nerve tension to which you managed to bring your opponent, as well as his complete impotence. Just ignore it, for it is just words, empty air shaking. As, however, and everything that the demagogue says.

Grand total.
As it turns out, the invulnerable demagogue, from whom water is always like water off a duck's back (remember the nitrogen in tires?), is very vulnerable. To neutralize it, three things are enough: simple logic, perseverance and knowledge of demagogy techniques. The simplest method of rational thinking by Rene Descartes helps well - do not take anything for granted, check and double-check sources, logic and conclusions.
Ask an uncomfortable question over and over again. And never ask several questions at once in one message - the demagogue will always choose the most convenient ones for himself. The rule is simple: one message - one question. And for each demand an answer, and always reasoned.
They will anger you, try to ridicule you. Laughter is the most powerful argument, acting not on logic, but on feelings. The narrow-minded reader does not want to be seen as a fool or lacking a sense of humor, and therefore will laugh too. Do not get angry in any way, do not react to attempts to insult, humiliate and ridicule you. Remember that the demagogue with his endless attacks will only earn himself the image of Moska, the one that barks at the elephant. If, moreover, he is narrow-minded, he will do everything possible to maintain this image. As a result, very quickly, the public, accordingly, begins to treat him, approximately like a barrel of sewage. After all, you do not swear with her, but pass by, holding your nose. There's nothing to be done: a barrel - it is a barrel ...
In the fight against the demagogue, the demagogue himself will always help you. And you don’t have to do anything special, which is amazing! The idea is extremely simple: do not react to attacks, treat them indifferently, philosophically. And they - demagogues - in this situation, they themselves will open up, begin to be impudent, write petty dirty tricks, which they themselves will willingly demonstrate their own weaknesses. After that, it remains only to slightly press on these very places. But do not overdo it, have pity for the person.

Now I will try to organize typical demagogue tricks.

1. Rejection of the main idea with a focus on particulars.
2. The use of scientific terms, foreign words, incomprehensible to most people - to make any phrase scientifically intensive.
3. Avoiding the question. The question is not answered because it is extremely disadvantageous. Instead, they ask a counter question, or get personal, or are simply rude, in a word, anything but an answer.
4. Taking the topic aside - in the case when the demagogue understands that the topic is lost or when he does not want to answer the question (paragraph 3).
5. Attributing words to you that you didn't say.
6. The transition from thought (topic, article) to personality (“but you yourself”). This is the most popular reception, the so-called "bazaar".
7. Labeling.
8. Substitution of concepts. Using the similarity of words, the demagogue replaces one concept with another. Everything is simple here. A certain statement is set “dirty gasoline is bad”, implying not its pollution, but the octane number.
9. Insult, humiliation, intimidation.

I hope this text will help the colleagues of our publication and the guests of the forum to get rid of at least part of the Internet garbage called "demagogues". Or at least fight off the most annoying commentators of articles who are not interested in thoughts, not in the information presented in the article, but only in their own ambitions.

For those who want to get more deeply acquainted with the methods of demagogues, I recommend the article by Yuri Nesterenko "Demagogy"
Special thanks to Ezdun for providing a link to the Demagogue Rules page, which is also interesting.

Probably everyone who has repeatedly participated in discussions or observed them has encountered demagogy. It is not surprising that lists of demagogic techniques (written, of course, not to help demagogues, but to facilitate the fight against them) were compiled more than once.

However, as a rule, such lists are a simple enumeration, without attempts at classification and systematization; In this article, I make such an attempt. Where a set of techniques is considered as the sum of subsets, numbers are used to number the latter, where a private one worthy of separate consideration is distinguished from the general set, it is indicated by a letter.

At the same time, this article does not pretend to exhaustive coverage of all demagogic methods and will be supplemented if new ones are discovered.

So, first of all, let's define the concept under consideration.

This is a discussion tactic aimed at achieving victory (or creating the illusion of such) by using incorrect discussion techniques. Let us emphasize that we are only talking about methods that, at least formally, are debatable, that is, say, violence against an opponent or threats to use it do not apply to demagoguery. We also note that the position defended by the demagogue is not necessarily false, but the essence of demagoguery does not change from this. We also note the fact that the definition does not contain the word "malicious" - that is, demagogy remains demagogy even if the user who uses it does not himself realize the incorrectness of the methods used. Strictly speaking, demagoguery is used to solve two problems - to refute the opponent's theses and prove one's own, but since the techniques for the second case are a subset of the first, we will restrict ourselves to the consideration of the first problem.

So, demagogic techniques can be divided into 3 classes: refutation of the argument, ignoring the argument and discrediting the argument. An experienced demagogue usually masters all three and may even combine the techniques of different classes within the same thesis. Let's take a closer look at these classes below.

1. Refutation of the argument

It is obvious that only this class makes demagogy related to correct polemics - but, of course, only in terms of goals, and not in terms of means. However, from a formal point of view, such demagoguery is a dispute on the merits, which is why it is often more difficult to catch the use of the techniques of this class, especially to an inexperienced opponent.

1.1. Unsubstantiated claims

1.1.1. Direct unsubstantiated allegations

This is the most primitive kind of demagogy. Why prove something when you can just postulate it? Of course, if the final thesis is "argued" in this way, then the demagogue has little chance of success. Therefore, most often a direct unsubstantiated statement is used only as a starting point for a chain of further reasoning, which can be formally correct and thereby lull the vigilance of the opponent and the audience. Direct lies and promises of politicians in the spirit of "choose us, and everyone will be happy" can be attributed to the same type of demagogy. Direct unsubstantiated statements are also often used in combination with third-class devices, i.e. to discredit the thesis and the opponent; in the latter case, they are made not in relation to the disputed thesis, but in relation to the personality of its author.

Often, however, they try to disguise the unsubstantiated assertion by referring to widespread stereotypes as evidence. At the same time, the stereotype itself can be both wrong in principle (for example, ideological dogmas imposed by authoritarian regimes, or once popular, but already refuted scientific hypotheses), and true for the majority, but not for the object in question (in the latter case, this technique is combined with incorrect deduction). It is also possible that the correctness of the stereotype has not been proven or refuted at the moment. In any case, in order for the argument to become correct from the demagogic, it is first necessary to prove the correctness and applicability of the stereotype for the situation under consideration. But a demagogue, instead of such a proof, can use the phrases "it is obvious that ...", "as everyone knows ...", etc. (which, however, does not mean that any use of such figures of speech is demagogy).

1.1.2.a. Using Implicit Defaults

The most dangerous form of reference to stereotypes is the implicit reference, in which the stereotype itself is not voiced, but only implicitly implied; in this case, the opponent of the demagogue is required to be extremely vigilant, because he must recognize and question the thesis that has not been voiced. For example, the statement "all women want love and children" (a simple reference to a stereotype) will be more objectionable than "women should not (or should) do this and that, because they still have children to give birth to." A skilled demagogue can use this technique both ways - both to "prove" that the stereotype fits the one who actually does not fit the stereotype, and to transfer the properties of the minority that does not correspond to the stereotype to the corresponding majority ("even my grandmother can easily solved this problem" - it is understood that the task is very simple and any elderly housewife can cope with it, but in fact the mentioned grandmother is a doctor of science). Implicit silences are also used in questions like "Have you stopped hitting your wife yet?" It is believed that a man who has never beaten his wife cannot answer this question correctly: the answer "yes" means that he beat before, and the answer "no", according to the implicit default, means that he continues to beat. In fact, the answer "no" is absolutely correct, because "stopped" means "did AND no longer does", so the inverse of "didn't stop" means "still does OR never did". The demagogue's opponent, faced with such a question, should give as detailed an answer as possible, exposing the incorrect implicit silence. Sometimes demagogues use such questions as examples, allegedly showing the inferiority of logic as such (see 2.7.)

The most "solid" way to "proof" really unsubstantiated statements is to provide links to sources. Sources may be vague ("foreign experts have proven"), unreliable ("my neighbor said", publications in the tabloid press, opinions of experts in other fields), outdated (which makes this method related to 3.1.6.b), or, in the most brazen and in a malicious case, simply invented (this also includes the situation when the source itself is real, but does not contain the allegedly cited information). In the latter case, the link is drawn up as solidly as possible, in the hope that the opponent, convinced by its scientific appearance, will not bother to double-check it; for greater assurance, a link can be given to an extremely hard-to-reach source, some second-hand rarity, and even in a language unknown to the opponent. As an option, a link to an allegedly secret document is provided. With this, the demagogue kills two birds with one stone: he makes the link unverifiable for the opponent and the audience and hints at his involvement in state or commercial secrets, which should put him a priori above the "uncleared" opponent.

1.2. Wishful thinking

Demagogy of this type is most often built on the principle "If A follows B and B is pleasant, then A is true" (as an option - "if it is unpleasant, then false"). Note that this technique is doubly incorrect, because even if B were true, it does not follow that A is true (see 1.5.1.). A demagogue has a chance of success only if his ideas of what is pleasant and what is not agree with him and the audience. For all the seemingly unpretentiousness of this technique, it has demonstrated considerable success over the centuries. Churchmen and politicians are especially willing to use it.

1.3. Issuance of analogies for proof

Analogy is a similarity between independent and heterogeneous objects (where "objects" can mean objects, actions, states, etc.) according to some sign (or signs). The key difference between an analogy and a model or related similarity is that the objects are independent and heterogeneous, that is, none of them duplicates the properties of the other, and the similarity between them is external, not systemic. Therefore, the analogy can serve only as an illustration, but not as a proof - which should be emphasized by an opponent who is faced with the techniques of this group.

1.3.1. Incorrect analogies

Since the objects of analogy are independent, it is obvious that similarity can be observed only between some of their features, and not between all (otherwise we would get just copies of one object). The widespread method of incorrect analogy is most often based on the fact that similarity is observed in one feature, while another is the key one within the framework of the thesis under consideration. Example: "fighting against sex is like fighting against food and air!" Even a double incorrect analogy is used here. First, it should have said not "food and air", but "nutrition and breath." And secondly and most importantly, the similarity is observed on the basis of "all the objects under consideration are physiological needs", while on the basis of the key implied by the thesis
sign - the need for life, the inability to live without it - sex is fundamentally different from nutrition and breathing. Incorrect analogies with something perceived by the audience as negative are often used to discredit the thesis as well (see 3.1.5.)

1.3.2. Correct analogies

Even when the analogy is correct, using it as evidence, by virtue of the above, is a demagogic device. For example, the analogy "such taxes are just robbery!" may be quite correct: in both cases, we are talking about the forcible taking of money from an honest person, and the key thesis is that this is bad and that it needs to be fought. However, if we conclude from this that the tax inspector can and should be met with a gun, the consequences will be very unpleasant.

1.4. Quantitative-qualitative substitutions

One of the techniques of this type is based on the fact that, while declaring the qualitative similarity of certain objects (scenarios, behavior patterns, etc.), their quantitative difference is neglected. Sometimes the alleged "inadmissibility" of a quantitative comparison is even emphasized on purpose: "What difference does it make whether one person or ten people die, because in any case people will die!!!" Meanwhile, the difference is obviously very significant. A classic example of this type of demagoguery is "it's better that ten guilty people escape punishment than one innocent suffer!" The fact that ten criminals left unpunished will harm a much larger number of innocents is, of course, not taken into account. Another classic example is "what's the point of quitting smoking if you still live in a dirty city and inhale car exhaust fumes!" The demagogue ignores the fact that while it is harmful to inhale exhaust fumes, it is less harmful than smoking. Similarly, outcomes with significantly different probabilities, etc., can be identified.

Another substitution is based on the exact opposite method: objects are compared quantitatively, and their qualitative difference is ignored. "The terrorists killed only one, and the special forces - ten!" It is understood that the special forces are worse than terrorists. Meanwhile, the terrorists killed an innocent person, and the special forces killed the terrorists. From the same series of arguments that all life is sacred, that all people are equal, etc.

As can be seen from the above examples, all sorts of human rights activists, opponents of the death penalty, pacifists and others like them are especially willing to use this type of demagogy.

1.5. Logic errors

Logical errors are very common in discussions, especially when opponents try to argue on the merits. They are not always malicious, which, however, as already mentioned, does not remove responsibility from those who allow them.

1.5.1. Incorrect consequence

The simplest version of the incorrect consequence is the construction "if A, then B", in which in fact B does not follow from A at all. For example, "if there is no religion, nothing will prevent people from immoral acts" (while morality - a social institution, not necessarily tied to religion). More complex option - logically
erroneous construction "if from A follows B, then from B follows A". An example of a combination of this technique with the use of implicit defaults, and at the same time with discrediting the opponent, is the thesis "Crazy people never admit that they are crazy." Note that this thesis is false in itself - mentally ill people may well be aware of their illness and voluntarily go to the doctor - so here, firstly, there is a direct reference to a false stereotype. Further, it is assumed that the opponent, accused of insanity, does not have the correct answer. If he agrees with the accusation, then the implicit silence "he confessed himself, so he is like that" will work. Note that this directly contradicts the original thesis - that crazy people _never_ admit they are crazy! However, the bet is on the fact that the stereotype will be stronger than logic. If the opponent begins to deny the accusation, then an incorrect consequence is used: "if madmen do not confess, then all those who do not confess are mad."

1.5.2. Incorrect causation

Since the establishment of true causes is an important, sometimes the main point of many discussions, demagogues quite often try to replace the true cause with a false one.

1.5.2.1. Issuing an effect for a cause

The most brazen, but, nevertheless, often effective way is to turn the causal relationship in reverse, which allows you to distort the picture to the complete opposite. For example, a demagogue compares a country with a low crime rate and soft laws to a country with a high crime rate and strict laws - and concludes that the severity of the laws only leads to an increase in crime. While in fact, on the contrary, harsh laws were introduced in response to criminal lawlessness.

It is important to note, however, that in reality the causal relationship is not always one-sided. So, there are situations of positive feedback, when the effect, in turn, begins to influence the cause, strengthening it, which at the next turn leads to an increase in the effect, etc. In addition, there are processes that proceed both in the forward and in the opposite direction; for example, both demand can generate supply, and supply (through advertising, etc.) generate demand. For a demagogue, such situations are especially convenient, because he can choose from two opposite tendencies only one that meets his interests - and he will be formally right when talking about it, because it really exists! - but it will completely ignore the other.

1.5.2.2. Issuing a correlation for a cause

This kind of demagogy is based on the violation of the rule "after this does not mean because of this." The correlation between two phenomena does not always indicate the presence of a causal relationship between them - it can be like a simple coincidence (the probability of which is the higher, the more common the phenomena themselves or at least one of them; a classic example is "90% of deaths from cancer ate cucumbers"), and the result of the fact that both phenomena are consequences of a third. Particularly arrogant demagogues are able to pass off even phenomena with a negative correlation as a cause - that is, point to single examples that allegedly confirm their point of view, while ignoring the vast majority of refuting examples (“Churchill drank, smoked, was fat and lived to a ripe old age”). Most often, such examples actually fall under the category of "not thanks, but in spite of."

1.5.3. Vicious circle

This is a logical fallacy known since ancient times, which consists in the fact that the thesis to be proved is derived from statements that are themselves proved on the basis of this thesis. The simplest (and yet still actively used by churchmen) example is "The Bible is true because the Bible says so." In practice, usually
the chain of reasoning is made longer in order to lull the opponent's vigilance.

1.5.4. Incorrect sampling

Methods of incorrect discretization are based on the fact that the entire set of options to be considered (which can be both discrete and continuous) is divided into several elements, each of which is considered as something unified. The incorrectness lies in the fact that either some of the options simply drop out of consideration, not being attributed to any element (or, what is the same, not all elements are considered), or within the framework of one element, significantly different, unrelated options are combined, which in fact In fact, it should be considered separately (“non-separation of flies from cutlets”), or, conversely, variants that can be part of one whole are spread according to different, opposed to each other elements.

1.5.4.a. Incorrect dichotomy

Most often, incorrect discretization of all three types occurs in the simplest (and, accordingly, "intelligible") form of dichotomy - splitting into only two alternatives. In the first case, the "logic" "if not a phenomenon, then its opposite" is used, ignoring the fact that we are not talking about Boolean variables that have only 2 states; from the whole set of possible alternatives, two are selected, as a rule - extreme ones ("either complete permissiveness - or totalitarian tyranny"). Another example of an incorrect dichotomy of the first type is reasoning of the form "if not more, then less" (in this case, the case when "equals" is missed). In the second case (which, by the way, is often combined with the first), they fall into one heap - more precisely, into two heaps - completely different things from each other: "either democracy, freedom of pornography and prostitution and the abolition of the death penalty - or censorship, dictatorship and death camps. In the third case, the opposition "either - or" is made in a situation where "and, and" is possible ("either freedom - or order"). Incorrect dichotomy is especially loved by politicians (primarily radicals), moreover, by opposite directions.

1.5.5. Incorrect deduction

Incorrect deduction, i.e. reasoning "from the general to the particular" is based, respectively, on the incorrectness either in denoting the boundaries of the general, or in classifying the particular as part of it.

1.5.5.1. Incorrect use of the universal quantifier

A very common technique is that some property (as a rule, characteristic of most objects of a certain class) is unreasonably attributed to all objects of this class (and sometimes also other classes). In many cases, this technique is combined with reference to stereotypes: "All people have sex" (the narrow-minded science fiction writers extend this thesis, which is incorrect in itself, also to other types of intelligent beings), "All Russians love to drink," etc. Such statements can also occur in an inverted form - "no one / nothing ..." Disputants should be extra vigilant whenever they hear the words "everyone", "any", etc., and also take into account the fact that such the word demagogue can be omitted, but it is implied ("for a woman, love and family come first"). In general, it should be remembered that in the real world, classes and properties to which the universal quantifier applies (that is, having no exceptions) do not occur very often.

1.5.5.2. Incorrect reckoning

Even if the universal quantifier is used correctly, the deduction may be wrong, because the object in question simply does not belong to the class for which the quantifier is applied. Sometimes this technique occurs in its inverse form - incorrect exclusion, when the object that refutes the universal quantifier is arbitrarily excluded from the class, while the quantifier becomes formally correct (this form is also known as the "real Scotsman's method": the demagogue states that all real Scots do so-and-so, and when he is given examples of Scots who do not do this, he replies that these are not real Scots). In both cases, to facilitate his task, the demagogue may formulate the boundaries of the class in a fuzzy way, allowing for arbitrary expansion and contraction; accordingly, the opponent should immediately insist on a clear definition of the boundaries of the class and the criteria for belonging to it.

1.5.6. Incorrect induction

Incorrect reasoning "from particular to general" is based on incomplete induction, that is, attributing some property to all objects of the class on the basis that some of them have it (as a rule, forming a more or less logical sequence). The classic example is "the numbers 3, 5, 7, 11, 13 are prime, so all odd numbers are prime."

1.5.6.a. Temporal induction

A special subspecies of incorrect induction is the application of incomplete induction to time: "if something was not in the past and is not now, then it will not be in the future either." The demagogue thus excludes development and the very possibility of it from consideration. It is clear that this kind of demagoguery is especially loved by all sorts of retrogrades and enemies of progress, as well as simply narrow-minded people who are not able to think ahead.

1.5.7. Identification of part and whole

This technique is based on ignoring the fact that the properties of the system as a whole are not reducible to the properties of its elements. It can be applied both in one direction (attributing to an element the properties of the system, say, to an individual person - the properties of social institutions), and in the other (attributing the properties of elements to the system, in particular, personal properties to society).

1.6. Theoretical formalism

Perhaps this is the most cunning of the tricks of this class, for the demagogue who formally uses it turns out to be right! The catch is that he is right only from an abstract, formal-theoretical point of view, but in practice his statements are untenable. For example, the opponent claims that A is stupid, and proves this as follows: in his entire life, A has not done a single smart deed, but he has done such and such stupid things. The demagogue, without disputing the facts presented (because they correspond to reality), in response accuses the opponent of an incorrect consequence: they say, from the fact that every fool behaves stupidly, it does not follow that everyone who behaves stupidly is a fool. Indeed, strictly formally not having a certain property (in this case, the mind) and not showing it are not the same thing. Moreover, you can even give examples when a smart guy pretends to be a fool (in a certain situation and for a certain time). However, from a practical point of view, it is obvious that if someone never exhibits a certain property, even in situations where it would be clearly beneficial for him (and the opposite is not beneficial), then he simply does not
possesses (with probability tending to one). This technique is often combined with the inversion of the presumption (see 2.4.) and is used, in particular, by adherents of "political correctness" ("proving" that no category of people, including clinical idiots, is worse than others) and churchmen ("lack of evidence for the existence of God - not evidence of its absence).

2. Ignoring the argument

When a demagogue feels that he cannot object to anything on the merits, he may try to simply ignore arguments that are uncomfortable for him. Opponents in this case should be vigilant and persistent, not allowing him to get away from the answer.

2.1. Direct ignore

The simplest option is direct ignorance, in which the demagogue behaves as if the opponent's arguments did not exist at all (in oral discussion, he may also prevent the opponent from opening his mouth or shout over him). That is, he either continues, as if nothing had happened, to develop his theses further, or, having listened to objections, allegedly in response to them repeats his previous statements, regardless of the fact that they have just been refuted by the opponent. Repeated abstracts can be changed in form, but not in substance. This simple technique works best in front of an intellectually unpretentious audience, especially one sympathetic to the position defended by the demagogue. In front of a more serious audience, demagogues can use a modified version of the technique: first, let the opponent speak out to the maximum (state many theses at once), and then begin to answer some of them in as much detail and verbosity as possible (best of all, the last or first), in the hope that for with this detailed answer, the audience will forget about the theses that remained unanswered at all. It is ideal for a demagogue if his answer is interrupted by the discussion leader, citing a time limit; "Here, they say, I was ready to answer the rest of the arguments in the same detail, but you see for yourself - they did not give me."

2.2. Distracting the discussion

A more serious method is not just to ignore the opponent's theses, but, having started to answer, as it were, to them, as far as possible imperceptibly for the audience and the opponent himself, divert the discussion aside.

2.2.1. Simple withdrawal ("translation of arrows")

When "translating arrows", the demagogue usually begins to develop a seemingly similar, but in fact different topic. Often, analogies are used for this (with subsequent discussion not of the subject of discussion itself, but of objects given as an analogy) and distortions. Arrows can also be translated not to another topic, but to another person, more often
of all - on the opponent himself, against whom his own arguments are trying to deploy (the most primitive device here is “himself like this”: “demagogues are accused of demagoguery”, “a person most actively criticizes in others those shortcomings that he himself possesses”, etc.). or come up with new ones, somehow related to the issue under discussion.

2.2.1.a. Answering a question with a question

A textbook example of "transferring arrows to an opponent" is the answer with a question to a question. The demagogue thereby turns from the defending side into the attacking side and tries to maintain the advantage he has gained by asking more and more clarifying and supplementing questions and thereby moving further and further away from the need to answer the original question himself. The opponent should stop these attempts at the very beginning, reminding them of the order of questions and answers.

However, there is a situation when the answer to a question with a question is quite correct - namely, when the original question is not formulated clearly enough, and before answering, it is necessary to clarify what the opponent actually meant. In this case, the roles may change: the demagogue may deliberately ask a fuzzy question, and, having received a clarifying question in response, accuse the opponent of using a demagogic device.

2.2.1.b. Lead to the upper level

The demagogue states: "Actually, your question is a special case of a more general one" and then transfers the reasoning to this "more general question". By itself, such a statement can be both false and true. If it is true, further demagogic tricks are used - incorrect induction (1.5.6.), identification of part and whole (1.5.7.), incorrect deduction (1.5.5.), etc.

Note, however, that the transition to a more general question may be quite correct.

2.2.2. Concentration on particulars

To divert the discussion, the demagogue can choose some insignificant particular in the opponent's arguments and try to focus the entire discussion on it. It is ideal for a demagogue if it is in this particular particular that the opponent made a mistake or inaccuracy (even if it does not affect the truth of the main thesis) - in this case, the demagogue will launch a verbose merciless criticism, which should give the audience the impression that the opponent has been defeated in all respects. But even if there is nothing to complain about to the opponent, only a detailed reasoning with the subsequent development of the topic in the direction given by this particular allows the demagogue to avoid answering the main arguments. Accordingly, the opponent (or the leader of the discussion) should return the dispute to the main topic in a timely manner.

2.2.3. Incorrect terminology

Manipulations with terminology are among the favorite tricks of many demagogues. One of the variants of this technique is the use of the term in a different meaning than the opponent, and the change of meaning can occur right in the course of the discussion: the demagogue first tries to prove the thesis using the generally accepted meaning, and then, feeling that he is failing, declares that "in fact actually meant something else." In a version that is more subtle and dangerous for the opponent, the translation of the discussion to this "other" is carried out imperceptibly, without an explicit statement of a different meaning. A demagogue can use the most ambiguous, vague and indistinct terms in order to build a thesis that allows for various, including mutually exclusive, interpretations - in the hope of either confusing the opponent or declaring himself right in hindsight, choosing the appropriate one from a variety of interpretations (this technique is often combined also with the method of implicit defaults, it is used not only in disputes - it is especially loved by various fortune-tellers and predictors, as well as negligent students on the exam). Incorrect terminology can also be used to identify non-identical concepts (for example, opponents of abortion and the death penalty love to call both murders). Another technique - instead of answering the opponent in essence, begin to find fault with the terminology used by him; for example, in a dispute about the crimes of fascism or communism, start furiously proving that in Germany there was no fascism, but Nazism, but in the USSR, China, North Korea, etc. - not communism, but socialism (which, by the way, according to the classics of Marxism, is "the first stage of communism", but if the opponent does not know this, the demagogue is already celebrating the first victory). In addition to diverting the discussion from the merits of the matter to a dispute over terms, the demagogue achieves an additional psychological effect by putting the opponent in the position of a justifying party. In all these cases, the semantics of the term can be replaced by its etymology (for example, the very word "demagogue" originally meant "leader of the people" and did not have a negative meaning). Incorrect terminology can also be used to discredit the thesis (see 3.1.3.) and the opponent, or to exalt one's own; in this case, neutral terms are replaced by pejorative or praising ones (“some writer dares to encroach on our Great Victory!”)

2.3. Substitution of the thesis

The substitution of the thesis can be of two types: either the demagogue replaces the opponent’s thesis and brilliantly debunks what his opponent did not really assert at all (often pulling the opponent’s words out of context is used for this purpose), or his own, and proves something completely different what he needs to prove.

2.3.a. Juggling and bringing to the point of absurdity

A very common form of thesis substitution is distortion, which can also be combined with incorrect discretization (when a demagogue, bringing the opponent's thesis to an absurd extreme, ignores that, in addition to this extreme, there are more reasonable and balanced options). This technique is often used by liberal politicians - in response to any proposals for any measures for control and regulation, they say: "Well, of course! Let's drive everyone to prison, let's go back to 1937," and so on. The favorite demagogy of school teachers belongs to the same category: when a student says that he has forgotten something, he is told: "Haven't you forgotten your head?"

2.4. Presumption inversion

The presumption determines which of the opposite theses is considered true by default, and which one must be proved (for example, the presumption of innocence says that a person is considered innocent by default, and his guilt must be proven). Accordingly, the inversion of the presumption is that the demagogue, instead of proving his thesis, requires (contrary to the accepted presumption) that his opponent prove the opposite. This kind of demagoguery is especially loved by believers: "Why do we have to prove that there is a god? You prove that he does not exist!" The danger of this device is that, even if the demagogue cannot justify why his presumption is more correct than the generally accepted one, he can at least insist that it is no worse, and that the choice of one of these presumptions is pure convention. Accordingly, the opponent needs to be able to justify why this is not so. Thus, accepting the "presumption of existence" would mean that everything, absolutely everything and any objects, including those invented by anyone and mutually exclusive, exist until proven otherwise; moreover, any statement is true, because (until proven otherwise) there is proof of it - which is an obvious absurdity. A demagogue pressed against the wall in this way can
to make another attempt at inversion through juggling terms - for example, agreeing that it is necessary to prove the presence, not the absence, will require to prove the "presence of absence".

2.5. Making demands

In order to alleviate his position or completely disrupt the discussion, the demagogue can put forward demands to opponents both in a polite and in an ultimatum form. In fact, this is also an ignorance of the argument, because in this case the opponent is also not answered on the merits. Note, however, that not every demand is demagogy (for example, the demand to apologize in response to obvious rudeness is quite correct).

2.5.1. Imposing asymmetric conditions

This reception, as a rule, has an ultimatum character; the demagogue makes his further participation in the discussion dependent on the fulfillment by the opponents or the leader of the discussion of conditions that, if fulfilled, would put the demagogue in a more convenient position than his opponents. As a rule, such a demand is somehow motivated by the fact that the demagogue is very busy, allegedly offended (we note that for a real insult, a single apology is enough, and not the provision of preferences), etc. If the conditions are accepted (which should never be done), the demagogue gains an advantage; if they are rejected, he declares that the discussion has been disrupted by his opponents, who are supposedly "afraid" to give him "normal" conditions. The last option is even more beloved by demagogues than the first (because, even with advantages, say, in terms of response time, it is more difficult to defend a logically flawed position than just slamming the door), so the conditions are often formulated as obviously unacceptable. To debunk this technique, it is necessary to show why the demands of the demagogue are unlawful.

2.5.2. Exchange of theses

The exchange of theses, as a rule, appeals to politeness: "I agreed with your thesis, now you agree with mine." A less polite, but exhaustive answer to this is "We are not in a money changer."

2.6. Relativism

A demagogue who understands that he has nothing to object to on the merits of the opponent's arguments may launch into rhetoric in the spirit of "Everything is relative", "Absolute truth does not exist", "Everyone is right in his own way", etc. A good answer to this is to ask the demagogue whether his thesis "absolute truth does not exist" is absolute truth or not. Generally speaking, there really are questions in which there is no absolute, more precisely, objective truth as such (the notorious "disputes about tastes", in particular - however, not everything is so simple with them, it is quite realistic to justify the superiority of high art over base kitsch ). But a competent disputant will point out this circumstance from the very beginning and simply will not enter into a senseless argument. To the statements of the demagogue that no one can know everything and that facts confirming his correctness may be discovered in the future, it should be answered that, according to the "presumption of non-existence", we recognize only those facts whose existence has been proven at the moment, all the rest consider non-existent; if in the future their existence is proven, we will return to this topic, but "if" does not mean "when", but for now we are forced to state that our respected opponent could not defend his position.

2.7. Negation of logic

Finally, a demagogue, pinned to the wall by his opponent's arguments, can apply the most absurd trick from the point of view of a normal disputant - having been defeated in the field of logic, he can begin to deny logic as such! As a justification for such a position, the demagogue can cite various logical errors and paradoxes as evidence of the "inferiority" of logic - although in fact they only prove the inferiority of those who do not know how to use logic correctly. A demagogue may not bother with any "evidence" at all (in fact, why would an opponent of logic need them), but simply declare the "inadmissibility", "blasphemy" of applying logic to such areas as faith or love. Naturally, this kind of demagogy is used exclusively by irrationalists. Classic examples of such demagoguery: "I believe, because it's absurd!" (Tertullian), "Russia cannot be understood with the mind" (Tyutchev), "You cannot see the most important thing with your eyes, only the heart is vigilant" (de Saint-Exupery). In an ironic form, this technique is played up in the aphorism "I think that sex is better than logic, but I can not prove it." In fact, the disputant, who has come to the point of denying logic, simply signs his defeat, which should be stated by his opponent.

3. Discrediting the argument

In addition to trying to answer the opponent on the merits or to completely evade consideration of his arguments, demagogues can also use an intermediate way - discrediting the opponent's arguments. At the same time, arguments can be discredited both directly and through discrediting their author. Most often, the demagogic methods of this group are not addressed to the opponent (because there are very few chances to convince him through attacks), but exclusively to the audience.

3.1. Discrediting the thesis

The techniques of this group are intended to "prove" that the thesis is bad, instead of deciding whether it is true or false. Further, the demagogue can either make the substitution “if the thesis is bad, then it is false”, or defend the position “even if the thesis is true, it is bad, which means it is unacceptable” (on the latter, such a phenomenon as “political correctness” is entirely built).

Direct discrediting of the thesis does not even contain attempts to prove it, but directly declares the worthlessness of the thesis. For this, unfounded statements such as "this is nonsense!", "complete absurdity", "the opponent's statements are superficial and ill-considered", etc. are used. etc. Including, of course, a demagogue can accuse an opponent of demagogy. Naturally, this is a very primitive trick, which is easily parried by the demand to substantiate their accusations.

In principle, all discrediting techniques are somehow based on an appeal to emotions instead of reason, but techniques of this type implement this in the most explicit form: it is directly stated that it is impossible to agree with the opponent’s arguments for purely emotional reasons. Examples: "Can some dry rational calculations make us give up the greatest happiness of love, the enjoyment of sex?", "In a country that gave so many millions of lives in the war, the very thought of questioning the greatness of our Victory is blasphemous!" "Can we agree with the inhuman atheism that robs people of faith and hope?" etc. Of course, such hysteria should be stopped with calm words that emotions are not an argument, but rather evidence of the absence of arguments (the latter is not always true, therefore the word "rather" is necessary, otherwise the phrase itself will become demagogic), and that the truth or falsity of the statement does not associated with its pleasantness for individuals, groups and humanity as a whole.

3.1.2.a. Objective-subjective substitution

A common special case of a direct appeal to emotions is the substitution of an objective picture specially selected on the basis of the most unfavorable subjective one, in the hope that the latter will be emotionally unacceptable for the opponent, and he will either retreat from his position or be branded as a hypocrite who wants to impose on others what he which he considers unacceptable. "The opponent claims that executions due to judicial errors are extremely rare - but would he himself be a victim of such a mistake?" Correct answer: "No, I wouldn't. But we are not talking about my subjective interests, but about the objective benefit for society as a whole. While the victims of the side effects of technology (in this case, the death penalty) are rare, the objective benefit outweighs the subjective harm." You can also play with the demagogue on his field and ask if he himself would like to become a victim of the position he defends (in the example under discussion, become a victim of a bandit who was not executed on time), and then compare the probabilities of both unfavorable outcomes. Often this demagogic device is combined with distortion and substitution of concepts: "The opponent proposes to euthanize clinical idiots, but would he like to be deprived of his own life?" It doesn't even require a "no" answer, it's enough to state "the question is irrelevant because I'm not a clinical idiot." In order to neutralize the emotional impact of the demagogue on the audience, it is worth adding: "But if, due to some misfortune, I become one, then, of course, euthanasia will have to be applied to me."

3.1.3. Using emotive terms

This widely used technique is to prejudice the opponent's arguments (rarely, one's own) in the audience by using derogatory (praising) terms instead of neutral ones. Instead of "a small group of oppositionists" they say "a miserable bunch of renegades"; no less classic examples - "we have
scouts, they have spies", "we have rebels, they have rebels". In addition to replacing terms with tendentious synonyms, the effect can be achieved by adding the words "so-called", "notorious", etc. to neutral terms. This technique is by no means used only in political disputes - it is "suitable" for any areas, including scientific ones, but it works the better, the more passions are heated in the audience.It can be applied not in relation to the opponent's theses, but in relation to himself, but in this case can already be classified as insults or slander.

It should be noted, however, that the use of emotionally colored terms is not always incorrect. It is certainly inappropriate in scientific discussions, but it can be acceptable in acute journalistic controversy - the main thing is that such terms should be used in relation to objects that really and undeniably deserve it. For example, the crimes of some maniac or tyrant are quite appropriate to call "monstrous atrocities."

3.1.3.a. Discrediting supporters / praising opponents of the thesis

In a particular case, tendentious coloring can be given not to the thesis itself (and its elements), but to its supporters/opponents. At the same time, unlike the methods of 3.2., formally no incorrect statements are made to the opponent himself, moreover, the demagogue can even express regret that such a worthy person repeats, perhaps unconsciously, the arguments of "extremists", "enemies of our Motherland" etc. (In the case of praise, the demagogue, of course, also does not praise himself, but modestly declares something like "let me repeat, following the glorious sons of our Fatherland ...") At the same time, in contrast to the methods 3.1.5.-6 ., "bad" (or "good") are not objectively such (or, at least, it is not obvious), but precisely because of the tendentiously used
terminology.

3.1.4. Appeal to morality

An appeal to morality is appropriate only in one single type of dispute - in disputes, the purpose of which is actually to give a moral assessment (and even here there is room for demagogy, because morality, firstly, can be very different for different groups of people, and " "the most correct" morality does not exist by definition, and secondly, it is often internally contradictory). In all other disputes (primarily scientific), the purpose of which is to establish not the morality of the thesis, but its truth, references to morality (the immorality of the opponent's theses or the high morality of the opposite position) are a crude demagogic device. Faced with such a technique, one should answer that the appeal to morality indicates the absence of substantive arguments, and if such arguments are not presented, it remains only to state the defeat of the opponent.

This technique is based on the fact that the contested thesis is declared part of some negatively perceived concept, or equally condemned individuals are recorded among its supporters (the latter may be accompanied by skillfully selected quotations from such). Difference from 3.1.3.a. is that discrediting like-minded people are "bad" not because of the manipulation of terms, but objectively (or, at least, they are unquestionably condemned by the absolute majority of the audience even without the efforts of a demagogue). In practice, this is a trick that is the opposite of 3.1.3.a.: there the real supporters of the thesis are declared "bad", here the real "bad" ones are declared supporters of the thesis. Especially popular among those who use this technique are fascism, racism, communism (Bolshevism), as well as the main ideologists of these concepts. The demagogy here is that either the thesis under consideration is actually not related to
corresponding concept (“calling a Negro a Negro is racism!”; the technique is combined with an unsubstantiated assertion), or it really enters into it, but is not specific to it and enters into others, by no means odious (“fascists loved Wagner’s music, which means love Wagner is fascism!"; the technique is combined with an incorrect consequence), or, finally, not everything in the condemned (albeit generally fair) concept is so unconditionally bad, and the idea under discussion is just one of the positive (or, as at least, deserving an impartial analysis, not stigmatization) exceptions ("sterilization of the mentally handicapped is fascism!", "only "scoops" nostalgic for communism can demand free education and medicine!"; the technique is combined with an incorrect attribution of the negative properties of the whole to all its parts ). The concept may not be generally bad (at least unequivocally condemned) - in this case, of all its ideologists, the demagogue chooses the most odious and refers exclusively to them (for example, Novodvorskaya is especially "popular" among opponents of liberalism and democracy).

This technique is "mirror" in relation to the previous one and can use all the same manipulations (unreasonable attribution to a "good" concept, belonging to its non-specific or non-positive elements), however, it is separated into a separate paragraph, since it contains additional techniques in terms of referring to approved authors.

A demagogue can refer to truly respected people who support his views - however, these people deserve respect for their achievements in completely different areas. These areas can be either very distant (say, in matters of politics or science they refer to the opinion of a famous athlete or artist), or closer (another branch of science). In the latter case, especially in front of an unprofessional audience, the demagogue has more chances, so the opponent should be vigilant and, in response to statements like "my opinion is shared by a doctor of sciences such and such", immediately be interested in: "What sciences?" This type of demagoguery is loved, in particular, by politicians who enlist well-known but clearly incompetent people in government under their banners, and by various "subversers" of official science.

In this case, the demagogue refers to figures who are authoritative in the area under consideration - but at the same time to those of their ideas that are already outdated and refuted (for example, even professional Russian psychologists, not to mention amateurs, like to refer to Freud's pansexual theory). This technique can also be used with the opposite purpose, that is, to discredit the concept as a whole; in particular, so-called creationists are fond of pointing out Darwin's individual errors and weaknesses, ignoring the fact that evolutionary theory has since advanced.

3.1.7. Intimidation of the consequences

In this case, the demagogue usually does not even try to deny the truth of the opponent's arguments - he only emphasizes that the recognition of this truth will allegedly have unacceptably difficult consequences. "Freedom of speech and creativity is a good thing, but if we use it, Muslims will be offended and arrange jihad for us", "If we admit the mistakes of our leader, people will turn away from our teachings", etc. The opponent should point out the cowardice and unworthiness of such a position, that one who is not ready to defend his views in the face of the enemy cannot be considered a true supporter of these views, that once he has compromised the truth out of fear, he will compromise it again and again, and finally, the exaggeration of alarmist sentiments.

3.2. Discrediting the opponent

This group of devices is even more incorrect than discrediting the argument, because no matter how bad the opponent is (even if it is true), the truth or falsity of the thesis does not depend on who is its author. Nevertheless, the discrediting of the opponent is widely used by demagogues; such an area of ​​political technologies as "black PR" is entirely devoted to it, although demagogy of this kind is used not only in politics.

3.2.1. Slander

The easiest way to discredit an opponent is slander, that is, deliberately false (in extreme cases, unsubstantiated) discrediting statements addressed to him; at the same time, in form, slanderous statements can be quite polite. This technique is most effective when it is carried out "behind the eyes", that is, the opponent does not have the opportunity to answer; it is not surprising that journalists are especially willing to resort to slander. However, slander "in the eye" can play into the hands of the demagogue if it puts the opponent in the position of justifying himself. To avoid this, the opponent should not refute the slander, but recall the presumption of innocence and demand that the slanderer prove his accusations - and bear responsibility (up to criminal, Article 129 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) if (when) he cannot do this.

3.2.2. Insults

Insults, unlike slander, are not necessarily false in content, but are always rude and unacceptable in form. The purpose of insults, as, indeed, in the case of slander, can be not only to create a negative image of the opponent among the audience, but also to drive the opponent out of himself, in the hope that this will further discredit him in the eyes of observers (especially against the background of the offender keeping Olympic calm and the slanderer; see also 3.2.3), and also prevent him from thinking logically and making substantive arguments. Insults should also be held liable up to criminal liability (Article 130 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). However, it should be remembered that the impartial truth, expressed in a correct (not in the sense of "tactful and sparing", but simply not in a boorish) form, is not an insult, no matter how offensive it may seem to the addressee.

3.2.3. Provoking the Opponent

This type of demagogy is aimed at pushing the opponent to some unconstructive, unapproved actions and thus causing a negative attitude towards him from the audience. Most often they provoke rudeness, harshness, etc.; the reception can be combined with slander and insults (in the hope of causing even more insults in response and referring to the stereotype "the truth pricks the eyes!"), But not always. A skilled provocateur tries to look as polite and correct as possible in order to create an advantageous contrast with a flaming opponent. One of the simplest tricks of this kind is "playing dumb", which combines direct ignorance of the opponent's arguments with a demonstrative "misunderstanding" of his theses and endless stupid questions; moreover, when the opponent realizes that he is simply being mocked, this often only increases his irritation, which only contributes to the success of the demagogue. Provocateurs also like to "hit sore points", talk about things that are unpleasant for the opponent (including the circumstances of his personal life, the lives of his relatives, etc.), which are not related to the topic (it is important, however, to emphasize that if these things relate to the topic of discussion, then addressing them is completely correct and if the opponent does not know how to "take a hit", then he is to blame for this himself; one should also distinguish between boorish attacks on the opponent's beliefs and "shrines" and impartial, but correct criticism of such ). The goal of the provocateur may also be to completely disrupt the discussion, so that the responsibility for this falls on the opponent who refused to continue it. To counteract these techniques, one should always remain calm during an argument and stop provocations by immediately pointing to them and explaining reasonedly why they are not "innocent questions", but precisely provocations.

3.2.4. Indication of condemned like-minded people

This technique is similar to 3.1.5., but the difference is that the goal is not to discredit the idea, but the author - for what reason the idea is completely excluded from consideration, and like-minded people can be found in areas completely unrelated to the topic of discussion, and then comes reasoning according to the principle "tell me who your friend is..." Like-minded people can be both imaginary (here again, it is most popular to attribute resemblance to the opponent to the ideologists of fascism and Bolshevism; to discredit politicians, it is also often rumored that they are supported by criminals or homosexuals ), and genuine (but this does not affect the truth or falsity of the opponent's thesis).

3.2.5. Emphasizing the real features of the opponent

In addition to various insinuations and accusations of "defamatory connections", a demagogue can also use the opponent's real qualities to discredit him.

3.2.5.1. Issuance of neutral and positive qualities for shortcomings

This technique is often combined with the use of tendentious terminology: for example, firmness and adherence to principles are declared "stubbornness" and "fanaticism", honesty - "naivety and ignorance of life", courage - "recklessness", caution - "cowardice", but dislike for demagogy, Naturally - "intolerance to criticism." But some demagogues are so impudent that they do not even resort to such a distortion of meaning, but openly scold people for their virtues! Thus, a science fiction writer can be criticized for a riot of fantasy, and a convinced rationalist for a dry, rational approach; at the same time, the demagogue, of course, does not try to explain why the quality he criticizes is bad - apparently, hoping that the audience will take it for granted, on the basis of already one condemning intonation. A fairly effective answer in this case is "yes, and I'm proud of it; and if you think it's bad, prove it." However, here one must be careful not to allow the demagogue to shift the discussion from the discussion of the thesis under consideration to the discussion of the personality and qualities of its author.

3.2.5.2. Emphasizing flaws that are not related to the topic

The "logic" of this technique is expressed by the aphorism "What smart can a humpbacked man say?" However, most people consider references to physical disabilities to be extremely dishonorable, so they are not used very often (although they are used anyway). Much more common are equally, in fact, incorrect references to the "insufficient" (or "excessive") age of the opponent. In general, a demagogue using this technique can find fault with anything. The opposition is obvious - to emphasize that the indicated shortcoming is not relevant to the case, and the desire to discredit the opponent at any cost indicates the absence of substantive arguments.

3.2.5.3. Emphasizing deficiencies relevant to the topic

The most insidious in this group of techniques is emphasizing the opponent's shortcomings that are really relevant to the topic under discussion. Nevertheless, this technique is also demagogic, because, no matter how bad the opponent is, it is necessary to analyze not him, but his arguments! For example, even if a person is an alcoholic, this does not mean that he cannot say anything intelligent about drunkenness; and vice versa - lack of personal experience is not proof of incompetence.

However, there are drawbacks that make a discussion with their owner really pointless. It is useless to argue with a madman, a fool, an ignoramus (especially one who is militant in his ignorance), a fanatic, an aggressive boor - and, of course, with a stubborn demagogue. However, interrupting the discussion, one should reasonably explain to the audience the reasons for this.

A special case of incorrect underlining of a flaw related to the topic is a reference to the fact that in the past the opponent has already been defeated in an argument; it does not take into account that either the topic was still not quite the same, or, more often, the opponent had new arguments.

Yu.L.NESTERENKO

Probably everyone who has repeatedly participated in discussions or observed them has encountered demagogy. It is not surprising that lists of demagogic techniques (written, of course, not to help demagogues, but to facilitate the fight against them) were compiled more than once.

However, as a rule, such lists are a simple enumeration, without attempts at classification and systematization; In this article, I make such an attempt. Where a set of techniques is considered as the sum of subsets, numbers are used to number the latter, where a private one worthy of separate consideration is distinguished from the general set, it is indicated by a letter.

At the same time, this article does not pretend to exhaustive coverage of all demagogic methods and will be supplemented if new ones are discovered.

So, first of all, let's define the concept under consideration.

Demagogy is a discussion tactic aimed at achieving victory (or creating the illusion of such) by using incorrect discussion techniques. Let us emphasize that we are only talking about methods that, at least formally, are debatable, that is, say, violence against an opponent or threats to use it do not apply to demagoguery. We also note that the position defended by the demagogue is not necessarily false, but the essence of demagoguery does not change from this. We also note the fact that the definition does not contain the word "malicious" - that is, demagogy remains demagogy even if the user who uses it does not himself realize the incorrectness of the methods used. Strictly speaking, demagoguery is used to solve two problems - to refute the opponent's theses and prove one's own, but since the techniques for the second case are a subset of the first, we will restrict ourselves to the consideration of the first problem.

So, demagogic techniques can be divided into 3 classes: refutation of the argument, ignoring the argument and discrediting the argument. An experienced demagogue usually masters all three and may even combine the techniques of different classes within the same thesis. Let's take a closer look at these classes below.

1. REFUTATION OF ARGUMENTATION

It is obvious that only this class makes demagogy related to correct polemics - but, of course, only in terms of goals, and not in terms of means. However, from a formal point of view, such demagoguery is a dispute on the merits, which is why it is often more difficult to catch the use of the techniques of this class, especially to an inexperienced opponent.

1.1. Unsubstantiated claims

1.1.1. Direct unsubstantiated allegations

This is the most primitive kind of demagogy. Why prove something when you can just postulate it? Of course, if the final thesis is "argued" in this way, then the demagogue has little chance of success. Therefore, most often a direct unsubstantiated statement is used only as a starting point for a chain of further reasoning, which can be formally correct and thereby lull the vigilance of the opponent and the audience. Direct lies and promises of politicians in the spirit of "choose us, and everyone will be happy" can be attributed to the same type of demagogy. Direct unsubstantiated statements are also often used in combination with third-class devices, i.e. to discredit the thesis and the opponent; in the latter case, they are made not in relation to the disputed thesis, but in relation to the personality of its author.

Often, however, they try to disguise the unsubstantiated assertion by referring to widespread stereotypes as evidence. At the same time, the stereotype itself can be both wrong in principle (for example, ideological dogmas imposed by authoritarian regimes, or once popular, but already refuted scientific hypotheses), and true for the majority, but not for the object in question (in the latter case, this technique is combined with incorrect deduction). It is also possible that the correctness of the stereotype has not been proven or refuted at the moment. In any case, in order for the argument to become correct from the demagogic, it is first necessary to prove the correctness and applicability of the stereotype for the situation under consideration. But a demagogue, instead of such a proof, can use the phrases "it is obvious that ...", "as everyone knows ...", etc. (which, however, does not mean that any use of such figures of speech is demagogy).

1.1.2.a. Using Implicit Defaults

The most dangerous form of reference to stereotypes is the implicit reference, in which the stereotype itself is not voiced, but only implicitly implied; in this case, the opponent of the demagogue is required to be extremely vigilant, because he must recognize and question the thesis that has not been voiced. For example, the statement "all women want love and children" (a simple reference to a stereotype) will be more objectionable than "women should not (or should) do this and that, because they still have children to give birth to." A skilled demagogue can use this technique both ways - both to "prove" that the stereotype fits the one who actually does not fit the stereotype, and to transfer the properties of the minority that does not correspond to the stereotype to the corresponding majority ("even my grandmother can easily solved this problem" - it is understood that the task is very simple and any elderly housewife can cope with it, but in fact the mentioned grandmother is a doctor of science). Implicit silences are also used in questions like "Have you stopped hitting your wife yet?" It is believed that a man who has never beaten his wife cannot answer this question correctly: the answer "yes" means that he beat before, and the answer "no", according to the implicit default, means that he continues to beat. In fact, the answer "no" is absolutely correct, because "stopped" means "did AND no longer does", so the inverse of "didn't stop" means "still does OR never did". The demagogue's opponent, faced with such a question, should give as detailed an answer as possible, exposing the incorrect implicit silence. Sometimes demagogues use such questions as examples, allegedly showing the inferiority of logic as such (see 2.7.)

The most "solid" way to "proof" really unsubstantiated statements is to provide links to sources. Sources may be vague ("foreign experts have proven"), unreliable ("my neighbor said", publications in the tabloid press, opinions of experts in other fields), outdated (which makes this method related to 3.1.6.b), or, in the most brazen and in a malicious case, simply invented (this also includes the situation when the source itself is real, but does not contain the allegedly cited information). In the latter case, the link is drawn up as solidly as possible, in the hope that the opponent, convinced by its scientific appearance, will not bother to double-check it; for greater assurance, a link can be given to an extremely hard-to-reach source, some second-hand rarity, and even in a language unknown to the opponent. As an option, a link to an allegedly secret document is provided. With this, the demagogue kills two birds with one stone: he makes the link unverifiable for the opponent and the audience and hints at his involvement in state or commercial secrets, which should put him a priori above the "uncleared" opponent.

1.2. Wishful thinking

Demagogy of this type is most often built on the principle "If A follows B and B is pleasant, then A is true" (as an option - "if it is unpleasant, then false"). Note that this technique is doubly incorrect, because even if B were true, it does not follow that A is true (see 1.5.1.). A demagogue has a chance of success only if his ideas of what is pleasant and what is not agree with him and the audience. For all the seemingly unpretentiousness of this technique, it has demonstrated considerable success over the centuries. Churchmen and politicians are especially willing to use it.

1.3. Issuance of analogies for proof

Analogy is a similarity between independent and heterogeneous objects (where "objects" can mean objects, actions, states, etc.) according to some sign (or signs). The key difference between an analogy and a model or related similarity is that the objects are independent and heterogeneous, that is, none of them duplicates the properties of the other, and the similarity between them is external, not systemic. Therefore, the analogy can serve only as an illustration, but not as a proof - which should be emphasized by an opponent who is faced with the techniques of this group.

1.3.1. Incorrect analogies

Since the objects of analogy are independent, it is obvious that similarity can be observed only between some of their features, and not between all (otherwise we would get just copies of one object). The widespread method of incorrect analogy is most often based on the fact that similarity is observed in one feature, while another is the key one within the framework of the thesis under consideration. Example: "fighting against sex is like fighting against food and air!" Even a double incorrect analogy is used here. First, it should have said not "food and air", but "nutrition and breath." And secondly and most importantly, the similarity is observed on the basis of "all the objects under consideration are physiological needs", while on the basis of the key feature implied by the thesis - the need for life, the inability to live without it - sex is fundamentally different from nutrition and breathing. Incorrect analogies with something perceived by the audience as negative are often used to discredit the thesis as well (see 3.1.5.)

1.3.2. Correct analogies

Even when the analogy is correct, using it as evidence, by virtue of the above, is a demagogic device. For example, the analogy "such taxes are just robbery!" may be quite correct: in both cases, we are talking about the forcible taking of money from an honest person, and the key thesis is that this is bad and that it needs to be fought. However, if we conclude from this that the tax inspector can and should be met with a gun, the consequences will be very unpleasant.

1.4. Quantitative-qualitative substitutions

One of the techniques of this type is based on the fact that, while declaring the qualitative similarity of certain objects (scenarios, behavior patterns, etc.), their quantitative difference is neglected. Sometimes the alleged "inadmissibility" of a quantitative comparison is even emphasized on purpose: "What difference does it make whether one person or ten people die, because in any case people will die!!!" Meanwhile, the difference is obviously very significant. A classic example of this type of demagoguery is "it's better that ten guilty people escape punishment than one innocent suffer!" The fact that ten criminals left unpunished will harm a much larger number of innocents is, of course, not taken into account. Another classic example is "what's the point of quitting smoking if you still live in a dirty city and inhale car exhaust fumes!" The demagogue ignores the fact that, although it is harmful to inhale exhaust fumes, it is less harmful than smoking in addition. Similarly, outcomes with significantly different probabilities, etc., can be identified.

Another substitution is based on the exact opposite method: objects are compared quantitatively, and their qualitative difference is ignored. "The terrorists killed only one, and the special forces - ten!" It is understood that the special forces are worse than terrorists. Meanwhile, the terrorists killed an innocent person, and the special forces killed the terrorists. From the same series of arguments that all life is sacred, that all people are equal, etc.

As can be seen from the above examples, all sorts of human rights activists, opponents of the death penalty, pacifists and others like them are especially willing to use this type of demagogy.

1.5. Logic errors

Logical errors are very common in discussions, especially when opponents try to argue on the merits. They are not always malicious, which, however, as already mentioned, does not remove responsibility from those who allow them.

1.5.1. Incorrect consequence

The simplest version of the incorrect consequence is the construction "if A, then B", in which in fact B does not follow from A at all. For example, "if there is no religion, nothing will prevent people from immoral acts" (while morality - a social institution, not necessarily tied to religion). A more complicated option is the logically erroneous construction "if B follows from A, then A follows from B". An example of a combination of this technique with the use of implicit defaults, and at the same time with discrediting the opponent, is the thesis "Crazy people never admit that they are crazy." Note that this thesis is false in itself - mentally ill people may well be aware of their illness and voluntarily go to the doctor - so here, firstly, there is a direct reference to a false stereotype. Further, it is assumed that the opponent, accused of insanity, does not have the correct answer. If he agrees with the accusation, then the implicit silence "he confessed himself, so he is like that" will work. Note that this directly contradicts the original thesis - that crazy people _never_ admit they are crazy! However, the bet is on the fact that the stereotype will be stronger than logic. If the opponent begins to deny the accusation, then an incorrect consequence is used: "if madmen do not confess, then all those who do not confess are mad."

1.5.2. Incorrect causation

Since the establishment of true causes is an important, sometimes the main point of many discussions, demagogues quite often try to replace the true cause with a false one.

1.5.2.1. Issuing an effect for a cause

The most brazen, but, nevertheless, often effective way is to turn the causal relationship in reverse, which allows you to distort the picture to the complete opposite. For example, a demagogue compares a country with a low crime rate and soft laws to a country with a high crime rate and strict laws - and concludes that the severity of the laws only leads to an increase in crime. While in fact, on the contrary, harsh laws were introduced in response to criminal lawlessness.

It is important to note, however, that in reality the causal relationship is not always one-sided. So, there are situations of positive feedback, when the effect, in turn, begins to influence the cause, strengthening it, which at the next turn leads to an increase in the effect, etc. In addition, there are processes that proceed both in the forward and in the opposite direction; for example, both demand can generate supply, and supply (through advertising, etc.) generate demand. For a demagogue, such situations are especially convenient, because he can choose from two opposite tendencies only one that meets his interests - and he will be formally right when talking about it, because it really exists! - but it will completely ignore the other.

1.5.2.2. Issuing a correlation for a cause

This kind of demagogy is based on the violation of the rule "after this does not mean because of this." The correlation between two phenomena does not always indicate the presence of a causal relationship between them - it can be like a simple coincidence (the probability of which is the higher, the more common the phenomena themselves or at least one of them; a classic example is "90% of deaths from cancer ate cucumbers"), and the result of the fact that both phenomena are consequences of a third. Particularly arrogant demagogues are able to pass off even phenomena with a negative correlation as a cause - that is, point to single examples that allegedly confirm their point of view, while ignoring the vast majority of refuting examples (“Churchill drank, smoked, was fat and lived to a ripe old age”). Most often, such examples actually fall under the category of "not thanks, but in spite of."

1.5.3. Vicious circle

This is a logical fallacy known since ancient times, which consists in the fact that the thesis to be proved is derived from statements that are themselves proved on the basis of this thesis. The simplest (and yet still actively used by churchmen) example is "The Bible is true because the Bible says so." In practice, usually the chain of reasoning is made longer in order to lull the opponent's vigilance.

1.5.4. Incorrect sampling

Methods of incorrect discretization are based on the fact that the entire set of options to be considered (which can be both discrete and continuous) is divided into several elements, each of which is considered as something unified. The incorrectness lies in the fact that either some of the options simply drop out of consideration, not being attributed to any element (or, what is the same, not all elements are considered), or within the framework of one element, significantly different, unrelated options are combined, which in fact In fact, it should be considered separately (“non-separation of flies from cutlets”), or, conversely, variants that can be part of one whole are spread according to different, opposed to each other elements.

1.5.4.a. Incorrect dichotomy

Most often, incorrect discretization of all three types occurs in the simplest (and, accordingly, "intelligible") form of dichotomy - splitting into only two alternatives. In the first case, the "logic" "if not a phenomenon, then its opposite" is used, ignoring the fact that we are not talking about Boolean variables that have only 2 states; from the whole set of possible alternatives, two are selected, as a rule - extreme ones ("either complete permissiveness - or totalitarian tyranny"). Another example of an incorrect dichotomy of the first type is reasoning of the form "if not more, then less" (in this case, the case when "equals" is missed). In the second case (which, by the way, is often combined with the first), they fall into one heap - more precisely, into two heaps - completely different things from each other: "either democracy, freedom of pornography and prostitution and the abolition of the death penalty - or censorship, dictatorship and death camps. In the third case, the opposition "either - or" is made in a situation where "and, and" is possible ("either freedom - or order"). Incorrect dichotomy is especially loved by politicians (primarily radicals), moreover, by opposite directions.

An example of an incorrect (false) dichotomy: "Where it will be better for your child to decide, of course, you, an atheist."

Another classic example of an incorrect (false) dichotomy: "It is better to be a good person," swearing "
than a quiet, well-mannered creature." Faina Ranevskaya.

Supplement from the Dictionary of the Skeptic, http://vk.com/skepdic

False dilemma

A false dilemma (or false dichotomy) is an erroneous reasoning in which some of the reasonable alternatives are deliberately excluded. It is sometimes referred to as the "either-or" error, some kind of statement that looks like a real dilemma - one must choose one or the other - when in fact, there are other viable alternatives. (There are also false trilemmas, etc.)

For example, if someone demonstrates obvious supernatural abilities, one can make the fallacy of the false dilemma by reasoning that either he is a fraud or he is truly psychic, since he is not a fraud, all that remains is to admit that he is truly psychic.

There is at least one possible explanation for these abilities: the person sincerely thinks they are psychic, but they are not. Sylvia Browne, John Edward, or James Van Praag may seem like psychics to some people, but that doesn't mean they can only be scammers or psychics with no other options. They may sincerely believe that they are in contact with another dimension of reality. In other words, they can be misled. This does not mean that they are mentally ill, but their false beliefs may be so deeply ingrained in their personality that no amount of evidence or arguments can convince them of their errors.

A person may mistakenly consider himself a psychic, having an experience that he cannot explain in a natural way. This failure to explain the experience in a way other than the paranormal can be reinforced by other people. Personal experience and the encouragement of others can lead to the idea that a person has a "gift". Phenomena that may be pure coincidence may be perceived as signs of clairvoyance. Someone can be a very sensitive person and feel other people's needs and thoughts quickly and effectively, which makes them think they have paranormal abilities when, in fact, they are just very sensitive and observant. A person may be excellent at reading body language or unconsciously understand subtle cues, such as eye movements or subtle body movements, that convey information.

Here is another example of a false dilemma: The universe came into being by accident or by design. It didn't happen by accident. Thus, there must be a reasonable design. There is at least one other possibility: the universe has always existed, in one form or another, and the form it takes at any given time is determined both by a combination of random factors and governed by internal laws. One of the variants of this example: either there is a reason for everything, or everything happens by chance. Even the so-called random changes in the process of evolution occur for various reasons. Another version of the delusion is the statement: either there is evolution or intelligent design. There may well be a designer of the universe who used evolution as part of his project.

Another example of a false dilemma: L. Ron Hubbard argued that in the form of a spermatozoon, either living cells or the human soul enter the egg at the moment of conception.

Another example: any witness to the landing of an alien spacecraft is telling the truth, or lying. Perhaps he is simply wrong.

And one more thing: either this person was really abducted by aliens or he is crazy. He's not crazy. So he really was abducted by aliens.

And one more thing: a skeptic is always either a debunker or an investigator. And why is it impossible that a person conducts some kind of investigation in order to debunk an absurd assertion?

1.5.5. Incorrect deduction

Incorrect deduction, i.e. reasoning "from the general to the particular" is based, respectively, on the incorrectness either in denoting the boundaries of the general, or in classifying the particular as part of it.

1.5.5.1. Incorrect use of the universal quantifier

A very common technique is that some property (as a rule, characteristic of most objects of a certain class) is unreasonably attributed to all objects of this class (and sometimes also other classes). In many cases, this technique is combined with reference to stereotypes: "All people have sex" (the narrow-minded science fiction writers extend this thesis, which is incorrect in itself, also to other types of intelligent beings), "All Russians love to drink," etc. Such statements can also occur in an inverted form - "no one / nothing ..." Disputants should be extra vigilant whenever they hear the words "everyone", "any", etc., and also take into account the fact that such the word demagogue can be omitted, but it is implied ("for a woman, love and family come first"). In general, it should be remembered that in the real world, classes and properties to which the universal quantifier applies (that is, having no exceptions) do not occur very often.

1.5.5.2. Incorrect reckoning

Even if the universal quantifier is used correctly, the deduction may be wrong, because the object in question simply does not belong to the class for which the quantifier is applied. Sometimes this technique occurs in its inverse form - incorrect exclusion, when the object that refutes the universal quantifier is arbitrarily excluded from the class, while the quantifier becomes formally correct (this form is also known as the "real Scotsman's method": the demagogue states that all real Scots do so-and-so, and when he is given examples of Scots who do not do this, he replies that these are not real Scots). In both cases, to facilitate his task, the demagogue may formulate the boundaries of the class in a fuzzy way, allowing for arbitrary expansion and contraction; accordingly, the opponent should immediately insist on a clear definition of the boundaries of the class and the criteria for belonging to it.

1.5.6. Incorrect induction

Incorrect reasoning "from particular to general" is based on incomplete induction, that is, attributing some property to all objects of the class on the basis that some of them have it (as a rule, forming a more or less logical sequence). The classic example is "the numbers 3, 5, 7, 11, 13 are prime, so all odd numbers are prime."

1.5.6.a. Temporal induction

A special subspecies of incorrect induction is the application of incomplete induction to time: "if something was not in the past and is not now, then it will not be in the future either." The demagogue thus excludes development and the very possibility of it from consideration. It is clear that this kind of demagoguery is especially loved by all sorts of retrogrades and enemies of progress, as well as simply narrow-minded people who are not able to think ahead.

1.5.7. Identification of part and whole

This technique is based on ignoring the fact that the properties of the system as a whole are not reducible to the properties of its elements. It can be applied both in one direction (attributing to an element the properties of the system, say, to an individual person - the properties of social institutions), and in the other (attributing the properties of elements to the system, in particular, personal properties to society).

1.6. Theoretical formalism

Perhaps this is the most cunning of the tricks of this class, for the demagogue who formally uses it turns out to be right! The catch is that he is right only from an abstract, formal-theoretical point of view, but in practice his statements are untenable. For example, the opponent claims that A is stupid, and proves this as follows: in his entire life, A has not done a single smart deed, but he has done such and such stupid things. The demagogue, without disputing the facts presented (because they correspond to reality), in response accuses the opponent of an incorrect consequence: they say, from the fact that every fool behaves stupidly, it does not follow that everyone who behaves stupidly is a fool. Indeed, strictly formally not having a certain property (in this case, the mind) and not showing it are not the same thing. Moreover, you can even give examples when a smart guy pretends to be a fool (in a certain situation and for a certain time). However, from a practical point of view, it is obvious that if someone never exhibits a certain property, even in situations where it would be clearly beneficial for him (and the opposite is not beneficial), then he simply does not possess it (with a probability tending to one) . This technique is often combined with the inversion of the presumption (see 2.4.) and is used, in particular, by adherents of "political correctness" ("proving" that no category of people, including clinical idiots, is worse than others) and churchmen ("lack of evidence for the existence of God - not evidence of its absence).

2. IGNORE ARGUMENTATION

When a demagogue feels that he cannot object to anything on the merits, he may try to simply ignore arguments that are uncomfortable for him. Opponents in this case should be vigilant and persistent, not allowing him to get away from the answer.

2.1. Direct ignore

The simplest option is direct ignorance, in which the demagogue behaves as if the opponent's arguments did not exist at all (in oral discussion, he may also prevent the opponent from opening his mouth or shout over him). That is, he either continues, as if nothing had happened, to develop his theses further, or, having listened to objections, allegedly in response to them repeats his previous statements, regardless of the fact that they have just been refuted by the opponent. Repeated abstracts can be changed in form, but not in substance. This simple technique works best in front of an intellectually unpretentious audience, especially one sympathetic to the position defended by the demagogue. In front of a more serious audience, demagogues can use a modified version of the technique: first, let the opponent speak out to the maximum (state many theses at once), and then begin to answer some of them in as much detail and verbosity as possible (best of all, the last or first), in the hope that for with this detailed answer, the audience will forget about the theses that remained unanswered at all. It is ideal for a demagogue if his answer is interrupted by the discussion leader, citing a time limit; "Here, they say, I was ready to answer the rest of the arguments in the same detail, but you see for yourself - they did not give me."

2.2. Distracting the discussion

A more serious method is not just to ignore the opponent's theses, but, having started to answer, as it were, to them, as far as possible imperceptibly for the audience and the opponent himself, divert the discussion aside.

2.2.1. Simple withdrawal ("translation of arrows")

When "translating arrows", the demagogue usually begins to develop a seemingly similar, but in fact different topic. Often, analogies are used for this (with subsequent discussion not of the subject of discussion itself, but of objects given as an analogy) and distortions. Arrows can also be translated not to another topic, but to another person, most often - to the opponent himself, against whom they are trying to turn his own arguments (the most primitive trick here is “himself like this”: “demagogues accuse demagogy”, “more actively of all, a person criticizes in others those shortcomings that he himself possesses, etc.) or come up with new ones, somehow related to the issue under discussion.

2.2.1.a. Answering a question with a question

A textbook example of "transferring arrows to an opponent" is the answer with a question to a question. The demagogue thereby turns from the defending side into the attacking side and tries to maintain the advantage he has gained by asking more and more clarifying and supplementing questions and thereby moving further and further away from the need to answer the original question himself. The opponent should stop these attempts at the very beginning, reminding them of the order of questions and answers.

However, there is a situation when the answer to a question with a question is quite correct - namely, when the original question is not formulated clearly enough, and before answering, it is necessary to clarify what the opponent actually meant. In this case, the roles may change: the demagogue may deliberately ask a fuzzy question, and, having received a clarifying question in response, accuse the opponent of using a demagogic device.

2.2.1.b. Lead to the upper level

The demagogue states: "Actually, your question is a special case of a more general one" and then transfers the reasoning to this "more general question". By itself, such a statement can be both false and true. If it is true, further demagogic tricks are used - incorrect induction (1.5.6.), identification of part and whole (1.5.7.), incorrect deduction (1.5.5.), etc.

Note, however, that the transition to a more general question may be quite correct.

2.2.2. Concentration on particulars

To divert the discussion, the demagogue can choose some insignificant particular in the opponent's arguments and try to focus the entire discussion on it. It is ideal for a demagogue if it is in this particular particular that the opponent made a mistake or inaccuracy (even if it does not affect the truth of the main thesis) - in this case, the demagogue will launch a verbose merciless criticism, which should give the audience the impression that the opponent has been defeated in all respects. But even if there is nothing to complain about to the opponent, only a detailed reasoning with the subsequent development of the topic in the direction given by this particular allows the demagogue to avoid answering the main arguments. Accordingly, the opponent (or the leader of the discussion) should return the dispute to the main topic in a timely manner.

2.2.3. Incorrect terminology

Controversy makes it possible to vary a thought and play with it, but polemic can also overwhelm a thought with demagogy. Give the impression of being right without being right. Without formulating incorrect judgments, bring the listener and reader to them, instructing them to deceive themselves. For example, to miss a fact that they cannot suspect.

In the polemical battle for the state order for the restoration of the bas-reliefs of the temple, one of the disputants stands up for the old "texture" - marble, the other - for the synthetic material decorative: “No frost, no dirt are terrible for him. The material is Italian, everyone thinks it's bronze...(not remembering that the marble originals were not destroyed by time or frost, but were blown up). The journalist-commentator clarifies that decorativit is an invention of a company owned by the disputant himself, and, according to one of its creators, is good "... in the construction of yachts and the manufacture of trade stalls."

A noticeable omission of a fact is sometimes made up for “obviously”, suggesting an incorrect conclusion. So, it is natural to assume that modern synthetic material will cost less than marble. In fact, the battle is for the same amount of government orders.

Another example. Sounds angry: “The Neskuchny Garden is being cut down!” The situation seems clear - some of the rich have become cramped. It suggests itself: down with the corrupt mayor's office! In fact, they remembered the park culture: the garden, which looks like wild thickets due to spontaneous plantings on subbotniks, is finally being thinned out ...

It is widespread to create mistrust in the audience to some fact through appropriate verbal turns. (“I am persistently told that an event of paramount importance allegedly occurred ...”).

And vice versa, unseemly content is often hidden behind thoughtful terms that give it “authority”, more weight. Goes wide in the course of the “image” of euphonious concepts (Words: “liberal”, “patriotic” are not accidentally so often used in the names of political parties ... It is known how journalists can compose “harmless” nicknames; for example, write: “Kid” and “Fat Man” ... about the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.).

If you respond appropriately to your opponent in a public debate, it is possible to create a comic effect, to belittle him, to lead to the rejection of his most reasonable thoughts.

Trying to protect himself from the harshness of his interlocutor, the polemist sometimes switches to "Aesopian language", distracting, hiding the sting of his polemical attack, softening the wording, detracting from the significance of his conclusions.

Verbal blocks of "emotional suggestion" are used ("As a smart person, you can't help but understand..."), paraphrasing, stylistic distortions, when a thought is presented as something funny, strange (“And how can we negotiate before that!”).

There is also a “Trojan horse” technique: having distorted the opponent’s thesis, rush to defend it fervently, striking both at the thesis and at the authority ... The polemicists often hint at deliberate silence (hiding some facts by the opponent).

In the modern press, all these and many other demagogic devices are widely used. Discussants often replace evidence with a reference to a big name (the ancients called it: “the argument“ He said it himself! ). They try to lull vigilance with flattery, substituting the discussion of the truth of an opinion by weighing its usefulness.

Direct rudeness and threats are used. Thus, introducing the reader to the “battle for the order”, the journalist clearly demonstrated the level of controversy by quoting a number of appeals by Zurab Tsereteli, the newly elected president of the Academy of Arts, to his opponent:

...- Your position is trash, at the level of a foreman...

- I warn you that all the artists will come here with slogans, because you are breaking the competition!

- If I annoy you, I'll leave!

- Get out and don't interfere! You personally! etc.

The so-called power demagogy, blackmail are unacceptable in civilized polemics. In modern public disputes organized by the press and television, no, no, and the phrase will flash - a denunciation of the unreliability of the interlocutor's thoughts, the "subversive" nature of his reasoning (once it was called: reception "to the policeman"), there are frequent cases of disruption of the discussion, translation her into a scandal.

Often they answer not a given, but a close question. Create deliberate confusion:

Mixing facts and opinions (For example, in response to arguments they say: "You certainly have the right think, as you please...)",

Mixing a true statement with a false one: You did not come out and refute it, being afraid ... "(And the refutation has already sounded, there was no need for it).

Demagoguery, moreover, is the ability to easily use error, to cling to words. Etc. etc. Let us recall the cruel joke of the sophists: "You are right, you only answered incorrectly"...

In general, demagogy is a path beaten by the experience of many generations to manipulate the audience, people who have witnessed public disputes. And seductive as the ways of "remaining right regardless of the truth" (as Schopenhauer wrote as early as 1820, citing over forty relevant tricks, including "arousing anger with chicanery" or "confusing a meaningless set of words"), journalists, many of whom are proficient techniques of "spiritual swordsmanship" cannot afford it in principle. Their goals are different.

Demagogy is a performance for the audience, and everything must be done so that these "conditions of the game" are not accepted, so that this craft is recognized and does not serve the purposes of manipulation. Sometimes it is appropriate to publicly motivate one's resistance to demagogy, rejection of an uncivilized manner of communication (Hamlet: "You can't play on me..."). But, most importantly, one must be able to demonstrate clearly, for the audience, to demonstrate a different manner, to oppose Demagogy with the ability to work accurately and correctly in a discussion.

Depending on the situation, clarifying questions may help. (“So, then you want to say that ...”); hypothetical options, constructing a conflict situation ("Well, let's say it happens..."). It is important to draw the attention of the audience in time to the excessive categoricalness or layering of the demagogue's thesis, to be able to prove that a logical error has arisen in conjunction with the argument, to bring the opponent into conflict with himself, to force him to admit his incompetence, using the "Socrates method" - the method of sequential questions or "boomerang method", when the opponent's argument is used against him; use other methods, drawing them from the impressive treasury of the art of polemic, filled with centuries. That is, it is necessary to demonstrate a logical culture of thinking that triumphs over both lack of culture and demagogy.

Fomenko and demagoguery

This article was published in the journal "Science and Life" N9 for 1989 under the title "Demagogy: An Experience of Classification". The author is Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences B.Z. Katsenelenbaum (MIPT). Here it is given practically in the same form, but with the addition of examples of demagogy from the new chronological books of A. Fomenko.

***

For many centuries of the existence of this term, its content has changed several times. For example, in the Soviet Encyclopedic Dictionary of 1985 edition, the words "deception", "unconscious masses" and so on are included in its definition. We will understand by demagogy a set of methods that make it possible to create the impression of being right without being right. With this understanding, demagogy is between logic and lies. It differs from logic in that it is used to defend an incorrect judgment, and from lies in that the demagogue does not formulate this judgment, but only leads the listener to it, instructing him to deceive himself.

Of course, the above definition is not the only possible understanding of demagogy, but it is the form that is probably most interesting to readers of Science and Life. From this definition follows the classification of methods of demagogy - according to the degree of their proximity to logic and according to the gradual transition to lies. Note, by the way, that a lie deserves not only condemnation, but also analysis, or at least classification.

The four main types of demagogy are given below. In each of them, a further division was made. Most of the examples given for illustration are not fictitious.

1. Demagoguery without violating logic

1a. An omission of a fact that the listener cannot suspect, but which changes a seemingly obvious conclusion. Example: "N. discovered three comets. Is he a great scientist?" "My mother-in-law discovered five comets." Omitted: "my mother-in-law is a world-famous scientist."

An example from A. Fomenko: "Materials of this conference ["Myths of the New Chronology"] were repeatedly published with minor variations under different covers."

Omitted: "the same can be said about the new chronological opuses."

1b. An omission of facts that is seen and filled in by listeners "obviously" leading to an incorrect conclusion. Example: at a meeting of the department, the issue of an error in the lecture of Associate Professor N. is discussed. It turns out that there was no error. It was decided to raise the level of teaching. Only the first and third sentences are given in the meeting report.

An example from A. Fomenko: "The groundlessness of the Scaligerian chronology is clearly indicated in the works of scientists of the 17th-19th centuries."

Omitted: "the works of I. Newton and E. Johnson have nothing to do with Fomenkovism."

1c. Skipping facts that change the conclusion; this omission can be guessed by the listener only if he does not trust the speaker. Example: "The theorem that N. proved, I also proved." Omitted: "I proved it later".

An example from A. Fomenko: "In the figure ... we present an old engraving of 1702 with a view of the Novodevichy Convent and its environs at the beginning of the 18th century. You can clearly see a large field that remained undeveloped until the beginning of the 18th century. Thus, as we see, Dmitry Donskoy, speaking from the Moscow Kolomensky, crossed the Moscow River and ended up on the Maiden's Field, where he held a military review.

Omitted: "The Maiden's Field got its name from the name of the monastery, which was built under Tsar Vasily III, that is, two centuries later than the Battle of Kulikovo."

1g Creation of distrust among listeners to any fact by means of appropriate verbal turns. Here is an example of such forcing distrust “by degrees”: “Event A happened”, “I was told that event A happened”, “They tried to convince me that event A happened”, “I was intrusively told that event A allegedly happened. However, I knew that I could not verify this assertion.

An example from A. Fomenko: "Today it is believed that the foundations of chronology were laid by Eusebius Pamphilus allegedly in the 4th century AD and by the blessed Jerome."

2. Demagogy with an imperceptible violation of logic

2a. A logical error, known to ancient philosophers, is used, when the temporal connection between two events is interpreted as a cause-and-effect (“after this, therefore, because of this”). Example: "After my speech, the vote confirmed my correctness," but the speaker does not indicate that in his speech he only supported the generally accepted point of view.

An example from A. Fomenko: "The work of Eusebius was published (?) only in 1544, that is, later than the work of Nicephorus, so the question is appropriate: is the book of the "ancient" Eusebius based on the medieval work of Nicephorus?".

2b. From A follows B or C, but option C is not mentioned. Example: "If you don't agree with me, then you agree with N." - actually I can have a third opinion.

An example from A. Fomenko: "The chronology of antiquity adopted today, we will conditionally call Scaligerian, thereby emphasizing that it is the creation of several persons, of which Scaliger is best known. Apparently, the final version of the chronology of ancient and medieval history as a whole was proposed by A.T. Fomenko in 1979 year".

2c. It is understood that if B follows from A, then A follows from B. Example: "All loafers own demagogy, N. owns demagogy, therefore, he is a loafer."

An example from A. Fomenko: "All the allegedly "earlier" segments of the dendrochronological scales shown in the diagram cannot serve for independent dating, since they themselves are tied to the time axis only on the basis of the Scaligerian chronology."

3. Demagogy without connection with logic

3a. The use of word blocks of "one-time action" ("you yourself understand that ...", "you are a smart person and you cannot but understand that ...", "you don't think that you can't be wrong", "this is not science! " and many others).

An example from A. Fomenko: "The fact that many biblical texts explicitly describe volcanic phenomena has been noted in history (!) for a long time."

3b. The answer to not asked, but to a close question. Example: "Can the speaker's statement be believed that he proved the fallacy of this theorem? - I know the speaker as a good family man and social activist."

An example from A. Fomenko: "There is obviously nothing to say to D.M. Volodikhin. The stream of his" valuable thoughts "ends after three and a half pages of the publication."

An example from A. Fomenko: "It turned out that G.K. Kasparov read many of our books and, comparing them with his own thoughts about history, came to the conclusion that we are largely right."

3y. A mixture of true and false statements in one phrase. Example: "At the seminar, you did not speak and did not refute the speaker, because you are afraid of him!". Meanwhile, the error in the report was pointed out by the very first speaker.

An example from A. Fomenko: "It is reported that on the field in the Tula region, considered by historians for Kulikovo, no traces of the battle have yet been found. This confirms our reconstruction."

3d. An incorrect statement is contained in the formulation of the question. Example: "Why were you silent at the seminar when you were being criticized?" - ask a person who was not at the seminar.

An example from A. Fomenko: "Who pasted the sheet with the Norman theory into the Tale of Bygone Years?"

In fact: there are no pasted sheets in the Radzivilov Chronicle. All Fomenko's perplexities are explained by D.M. Volodikhin in the book "History for Sale. Dead Ends of Pseudo-Historical Thought".

3e. Admitting your small and insignificant mistakes. (In response to the remark that the theorem is erroneous: "Indeed, proving the theorem, I made a grammatical error").

An example from A. Fomenko: "The final dating of the Nativity of Christ in 1152 obtained in the book ["King of the Slavs"] turned out to be not so much different from the one we proposed earlier as a working hypothesis of dating the Nativity of Christ in the middle of the 11th century."

In fact: the hypothesis of Christ-Hildebrand completely collapses (instead, Fomenko proposes Andrey Bogolyubsky), the new chronological dating of Easter "according to the conditions of the resurrection" hangs in the air, the hypothesis of a shift of 1053 years ("beginning of an era in 1054") is refuted.

4. Beyond the boundary of demagogy proper (transitional area between demagogy and lies)

4a. Forceful demagoguery (according to Krylov: "You are to blame for the fact that I want to eat").

An example from A. Fomenko: "In conclusion, let's quote Max Planck: a new scientific idea is rarely introduced by gradually convincing and converting opponents, it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. In reality, what happens is that opponents gradually die out, and the growing generation from the very beginning is mastered with a new idea" .

In fact: when Morozov died, the Morozov chronology went into oblivion with him; a similar fate awaits Fomenkovism.

4b. Blackmail, sometimes not even related to the opponent himself. Example: "You are right in proving that N. is not guilty of what I accuse him of. But if you insist on this, then I will bring him other, more serious charges. You will prove your case, but ruin him."

An example from A. Fomenko: "Recently, S.P. Novikov began to assert that he did not write this letter at all, and that I falsified this text. S.P. Novikov told the editorial board of the journal "Nature", in the mathematical department of the Russian Academy of Sciences. with this, I am forced to publish the corresponding scanned fragment of the original letter of S.P. Novikov, written by his hand and personally signed by him.

4c. Disruption of the discussion, turning it into a scandal (hysteria, complaints like "I'm being bullied", "I'm being insulted", insulting the opponent, [unfounded] accusing him of demagogy).

An example from A. Fomenko: "The scientific level of Yu.D. Krasilnikov's article is very low. However, it must be admitted that it is demagogically high."

***

The above scheme does not, of course, exhaust all variants of this method of conducting a discussion. It only illustrates the main idea: demagoguery (even in its highest forms) is effective only with the active and positive participation of listeners; the listener is also to blame for the success of demagogy. Demagogy is a performance, and it is possible only if the viewer accepts the rules and conditions of the game. But in this performance, demagogy is not an art, but a craft that anyone can master. Recognize him too.