Google Analytics

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

Why Arvind Kejriwal's use of the Fallacy of Non Sequitur is dangerous





In informal logic and rhetoric, a fallacy is usually an error in reasoning often due to a misconception or a presumption.  It has become fashionable today in the country to engage in the Fallacy of Non Sequitur:

Example

    Argument: I hear the rain falling outside my window; therefore, the sun is not shining.
    Problem: The conclusion is false because the sun can shine while it also rains.

The Arvind Kejriwal insinuations regarding Robert Vadra fall in this category. So is Narendra Modi's claim that the government of India spent Rs 1,880 crores on Sonia Gandhi's foreign trips. In both cases, conclusions are based on a series of conjectures and assumptions, each of which could be challenged or unsubstantiated. In short, an individual is slurred without hard evidence. This does not mean that the individual is innocent or guilty of any specific charge. All it means is there is no evidence accepted by court to pronounce him guilty of any specific charge. eg. LK Advani was absolved from the charge of engaging in hawala transactions only on technical grounds - a diary entry is ruled not permissible evidence by law.

So what if we apply Fallacy of Non Sequitur to Kejriwal and his IAC and Narendra Modi? This is what we could get:

Suppose Kejriwal and Kiran Bedi goes to Anna Hazare's hotel room for a close room meeting and comes out after 3 hours. Using the same slur tactic used by Modi and Kejriwal we can conclude - they did a striptease and live sex for Anna. It is upto to Kejriwal and Bedi to give proof this allegation is wrong! After all they are public figures.

In the case of Narendra Modi, he is no longer living with his wife. She left in the early years of the marriage. She now works as a primary school teacher in a state school. She lives in a modest hut. Modi neither supports her or visits her. Now it is a matter of conjecture:
a. Modi could not satisfy his wife, so she ran away from her
b. Modi's preferred sex is bestiality, his wife was horrified and so she left him
c. Modi is a homosexual, so his wife left him
d. Truth is Modi is 0f third sex - transgender. He prefers transgender
e. While Modi dresses himself in designer clothes but still do not financially maintain his wife, he is woman hater
Now Modi being a public figure should explain or refute all these allegations by rendering proof. This is how the Kejriwal logic goes.

All the above examples (Kejriwal & Modi) are against the universal principles of natural justice that states that the accuser should render the proof and not the accused. The Law of Natural Justice states everyone is innocent unless proved guilty. The likes of Modi and Kejriwal are re-writing this principle of jurisprudence. They operate on the rationale that it is instead up to the accused to prove him/herself innocent by providing the proof. This is fascism, immoral and defamatory.  Today it is the Congress. Tomorrow the integrity of whichever the government of the day can be slurred on similar basis. This would plunge the country into anarchy which is the reason why this tactic should be not only condemned but fought.

1 comment:

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.