posted
"Smoking Logic" is my term for the tactics used by the tobacco industry to confound, confuse, delay and deny the scientific proof that Smoking was bad for your health.
I don't want to argue about Smoking.
I want to create a list of efficient terms, rules, and rebuttals to the tactics that they used.
I've seen the same tactics used to argue against Global Warming.
I've seen the same tactics used to argue Creationism.
I've seen the same tactics used to argue why marijuanna is good for you.
I've seen the same tactics used to argue Men Never Landed on the Moon.
I've seen the same tactics used to argue "Who shot JFK"
Its tactics such as:
1) If you can't attack the science, attack the scientists.
2) Cherry pick your facts. In particular, fine pick any reservation, pause, or unknown well out of preportion. If a wall has an mousehole, is it still a wall?
3) Purposefully misintrept the science, so that its own complexity is misused to prove your point.
4) If you can't buy the experts, make your own. People with Doctor or PHD on their names are called in to talk. No one mentions their titles do not reflect the area of expertise.
5) Changing the subject:
"I argue A" "Not A, and here's the proof." "Well, your proof does nothing to argue against my C."
6) Confuse the terms of science with simple slogans:
"Science doesn't have all the answers" "Corellation is not causation" and others as needed.
7) Misdirect with details that mean nothing.
and there are more.
I think if I could get a list of them--with cute names like "Straw Man" argument, well then we can just wade through the garbage thown by both sides of so many arguments, and come up with something closer to the truth.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems to me that these tactics and worse are used to argue both sides of most of the issues you mentioned, other than smoking. One issue, in particular, grates on my nerves to no ends because it sounds as if your saying that because these tactics are used by some people for this position, this position must be wrong. Just because some people use what you consider bad logic, doesn't make their original point wrong.
Also, I haven't seen anything from the tobacco company that denies the health risks in the slightest. But then, I'm not looking for it, and they don't advertise anymore, so... :shrug:
Edit: Sorry to argue against a position that you didn't necessarily take, but after reading your post my brain wouldn't let me not respond.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is there anyone out there who doesn't know that smoking is going to kill them?
The era covered in "Thank You For Smoking" is over. They've already paid their millions for lying, and people all know that smoking kills.
What's the point of trying to unravel an argument that has no effectiveness anymore? I haven't seen a TV ad for cigarettes in a decade. And other than the marlboro man on the back of a magazine here and there, I haven't seen any print ads for it either. Other than smoking in movies, the only place people get the idea to smoke from is friends and family.
I'd be curious to see a year by year break down on how much cigarette companies are spending on advertising from the 60's until now.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Dan is more interested in the dishonest tactics used to make those arguments and whether or not a means exists to prevent them from being used.
I'm not sure such a means does exist. I think the majority of these tactics are used precisely because they're difficult to combat, especially in a propaganda war where all arguments are inevitably reduced to sound bytes.
It seems to me that the best defense is to simply call BS in a simple and straightforward manner whenever possible.
posted
I think the truth ads do a pretty damned good job of refuting tobacco claims.
Thing is, we don't really know, because they weren't around ten or fifteen years ago when it would have really been a battle. They're running unopposed now.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the truth ads to a pretty good job of kicking big tobacco into the ground after it was hamstrung with lawsuits. Not that I consider that a wholly bad thing; I just think that the truth ads use a lot of the debate tactics that Dan is protesting. They may have all their facts lined up, but their presentation often strikes me as disingenuous.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I haven't seen a TV ad for cigarettes in a decade.
TV advertising for tobacco was banned in 1970, so if you save such ads only a decade ago you must have been in some other country.
I have noticed an increase in smoking in movies and TV shows in the past few years. I'm not sure if I'm just more sensitized to it or if there really has been an increase.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
I think Dan is more interested in the dishonest tactics used to make those arguments and whether or not a means exists to prevent them from being used.
Yep:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven:
I don't want to argue about Smoking.
I want to create a list of efficient terms, rules, and rebuttals to the tactics that they used.
This is a good thread Dan, thanks for starting it. As you pointed out these can apply to almost anything.
Also, another two which are very common;
8) Portraying your lifestyle/living as coming under attack. In the case of smoking, 'I'm just making an honest living here, selling my product to people of legal age who want it. What gives?' or in other cases, 'You believing X and arguing that my Y is wrong is an attack on my character and lifestyle.'
9) Using valid scientific proof for B in order to support your (unrelated) conclusion C.
I'm a bit preoccupied at the moment and can't contribute much, but I hope we get some good discussion on this topic.
A lot of these already have terms (the logical fallacies for example) and are widely recognised as flaws in argument, but we don't always have an effective way to fight them. A learned scientist arguing with a tobacco company PR man in a TV debate might say, 'But that argument is circular'; but especially on media like television, the scientist's counterpoint may not clear all the damage done by the original statement.
If a statement makes superficial sense to the viewer, it's filed away as fact, and it often takes an equally simple and intuitive counterpoint (not always possible, if the error in logic is hard to spot) to destroy the misconception.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: I haven't seen a TV ad for cigarettes in a decade.
TV advertising for tobacco was banned in 1970, so if you save such ads only a decade ago you must have been in some other country.
I have noticed an increase in smoking in movies and TV shows in the past few years. I'm not sure if I'm just more sensitized to it or if there really has been an increase.
I've seen the Marlboro Man on TV since the 1970's. Though considering I was 12 ten years ago, it's probable and possible that I was watching some sort of special on tobacco or something.
Juxtapose -
I don't think they are disingenous, just melodramatic. Being graphic about the truth isn't the same thing as misrepresenting it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn, I shouldn't have made it a blanket statement, andy ou're very correct about the distinction between misrepresentation and graphic presentation. The truth ads walk a fine line along the graphic, but at times I think they do indeed wander into the disingenuous and sometimes straight into the land of Purely Annoying, though that's a separate matter.
I'm thinking of, among others, the ad featuring the singing cowboy lacking a voice box. The lyrics to his song went thus:
quote:You don't always die from tobacco, Sometimes you just lose a lung.
While I agree that it's not literally untrue, I think it purposefully sets up a false dichotomy.
Part of the solution to the problem dishonest debate tactics is to confront them no matter where they come up.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: Lyrhawn, I shouldn't have made it a blanket statement, andy ou're very correct about the distinction between misrepresentation and graphic presentation. The truth ads walk a fine line along the graphic, but at times I think they do indeed wander into the disingenuous and sometimes straight into the land of Purely Annoying, though that's a separate matter.
I'm thinking of, among others, the ad featuring the singing cowboy lacking a voice box. The lyrics to his song went thus:
quote:You don't always die from tobacco, Sometimes you just lose a lung.
While I agree that it's not literally untrue, I think it purposefully sets up a false dichotomy.
Part of the solution to the problem dishonest debate tactics is to confront them no matter where they come up.
I know the ad you're talking about. I think the target group for that ad is young teens. It's scare tactics. I don't think that's necessarily the best way to do it, but against a popular media and a Hollywood that still portrays smoking as cool, and having nothing to combat that with, I can't say I really blame them for falling to scare tactics. Against kids thinking cigarettes and smoking are cool, they're trying to let them know the consequences they'll have to pay later in life, when cool doesn't matter so much as dead or maimed by cigarettes.
Between tv, radio and magazine though, they ARE a bit ubiquitous, which is annoying, but I wish them well in the fight. I've yet to feel like they've ever misrepresented the truth, even if they do go to the extreme of the truth every time. But that's my opinion. I tend to fall into the more militant group of anti-smokers. It's from personal experience, and personal hatred of smoking.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suppose it's a matter of whether you think their ends justify these particular means. It's definitely important that people are educated about the dangers of smoking, and it's a difficult job to be effective in, no doubt about it.
However, were I leading the anti-smoking charge, I would worry that using the similar tactics to the people I were fighting against would sacrifice my moral high ground. The tactics may not be identical, but I think they're two sides of the same coin (fear-mongering vs "hey I'm cool because I do X"). The truth ads being on the side of health, in my opinion, does not earn them enough moral capital that they can prosecute their campaign any way they see fit.
Dan_raven, Have you checked out the Wikipedia article on fallacies? It might contain some information of interest to you.
Also, as I indicated above, I offer up fear-mongering to be added to the list of dishonest debate tactics.
Edit - Off to dinner, will be looking forward to continuing this conversation when I return.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The cool book Tipping Point discusses the issue.
You can tell potential smokers smoking will kill them; they already know it.
You can tell them it stinks and leaves a mess; they know.
You can tell them it isn't cool; it won't matter.
The author's conclusion was that those who start smoking don't think smoking is cool; they think smokers are cool. They describe their early impressions related to tobacco as knowing smokers who are iconoclastic, spunky, suave, ready to do their own thing no matter what others think -- that is, exactly the kind of people that will smoke even if you tell them how bad it is.
We may be stuck. We can't exactly stop saying it's unhealthy, because it is.
On the other hand...they did an experiment in which they gave college students info on tetanus vaccine IIRC, and had them write papers. One group had bare info (plus the offer of free vaccination at the infirmary); the other had the same info, including the offer, plus scary pictures of sick children. The second group was much more adamant in their papers that everyone should be vaccinated...
...but they still didn't go get the vaccine.
Preach cancer and brimstone all you want. Something else seems to be the trigger for action. (In the vaccination case, it was a map of campus showing the infirmary, and the hours. Which presumably everybody already knew.)
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, I wasn't particulary looking to argue the values of smoking.
I want to crush the tactics used so well by the tobacco industry in the 1950's through the 1980's to keep the dangers of their products from mattering.
These same tactics have been picked up and used by any number of politicians and leaders on both sides of so many issues that the whole idea of having a public debate on important issues now comes down to who has the best pr man.
And if we can't defeat these techniques, why don't we at least try to use them for a worthy cause, like winning the hearts and minds of the Islamic world away from the narrow minded violent traditionalists.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I looked back over the thread, and I can't find any posts that argued the values of smoking.
The tactics you listed haven't helped the tobacco industry, if they were used to make us think smoking is safe. We all know it isn't. That turned out not to be enough.
I doubt winning Moslem hearts and minds away from Wahhabism is going to be a matter of puncturing rhetoric, either. I mean, after all, this is Internet. When's the last time exposing bad rhetoric has changed someone's mind on an issue? OK, maybe it happens, but it's not the norm.
Using dishonest tactics in the cause of good *could* work, I suppose, but I suspect liars will always have the edge when it comes to lying.
Sorry to be such a downer. I'd love to find I was wrong.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Something else seems to be the trigger for action."
We're spreading the wrong message, and you're exactly right that the iconic image of a smoker make more of a mark than the dangers of smoking. So let's spread the word about another underreported aspect of smoking.
Smoking makes your mouth taste like burnt ashes. Or, possibly, like burnt ashes with menthol. As soon as I see a woman light up my personal inner rating for her drops 5 points no matter how attractive she is.
I'm picturing a beautiful woman walking in a sensual manner towards a man, wrapping her arms around him, giving him a long, slow kiss... that ends abruptly with her coughing, hacking, and backing away fast...
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Will B: When's the last time exposing bad rhetoric has changed someone's mind on an issue? OK, maybe it happens, but it's not the norm.
I don't think that it's a matter of convincing the people using the bad rhetoric so much as convincing the people who would be otherwise swayed by it. While the person arguing will likely be set in their ways, I see no reason that calling the BS arguments wouldn't help convince third parties. As to how well this would apply in the middle east, I'm not sure, but as a general principle I think it can be effective.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Up until the mid 80's or mid 90's Tobacco companies were still proclaiming that smoking was not dangerous, or not as dangerous as radical fear mongers with an agenda were talking about.
They hired scientists and experts to disagree with everything other science was confirming.
Then, puff, suddenly "Everybody knows smoking is dangerous."
Do you know where I first heard that line?
From a Cigarette company.
As the defence against the wave of lawsuits against their dangerous product.
And we are still falling for it. We promote their company line. "Everybody knows that cigarettes are bad for you, so if you smoke then the illness is your own fault." Never mind that they lied to the world for decades about how safe and yes, even healthy, cigarettes were.
So lets add another tactic--"Switch and deny." That is where you flip/flop your position and flattly deny ever saying the other.
Kind of like some people went from, "There is no global warming" to "Humans are not the cause for global warming." or others went from, "I've seen the ghost of Elvis" to "I've seen Elvis at Krispy Creme".
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The 'puff, suddenly "Everybody knows smoking is dangerous"' happened in the 1950's at the latest. That's when people were calling them "cancer sticks."
I didn't say tobacco companies didn't deny the dangers of smoking; I said everybody knows smoking is dangerous. And we do.
You might clarify what your goal is. You suggested that it was to make bogus rhetoric less effective. It isn't clear how arguing with that which is demonstrably true will achieve that goal. If your goal is instead to express anger at tobacco companies, well, go right ahead.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: I'm picturing a beautiful woman walking in a sensual manner towards a man, wrapping her arms around him, giving him a long, slow kiss... that ends abruptly with her coughing, hacking, and backing away fast...
We have something else going here that I'm not sure what to do about. Thing is, most of us seem to think risky behavior is bad. But it's part of human nature to take risks! There is something appealing about someone who wants to burn out than to rust out.
How can we handle that risk-taking part? Not just stick a pacifier in its mouth, but use it, and honor it? It needs doing, I think.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
I mean, I just mock smokers openly and matter of factly. Really takes the joy out of their mid-day cancer breaks.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:1) If you can't attack the science, attack the scientists.
2) Cherry pick your facts. In particular, fine pick any reservation, pause, or unknown well out of preportion. If a wall has an mousehole, is it still a wall?
3) Purposefully misintrept the science, so that its own complexity is misused to prove your point.
4) If you can't buy the experts, make your own. People with Doctor or PHD on their names are called in to talk. No one mentions their titles do not reflect the area of expertise.
5) Changing the subject:
"I argue A" "Not A, and here's the proof." "Well, your proof does nothing to argue against my C."
6) Confuse the terms of science with simple slogans:
"Science doesn't have all the answers" "Corellation is not causation" and others as needed.
7) Misdirect with details that mean nothing.
It should be noted that all of these tactics have also been used AGAINST smoking, FOR global warming, AGAINST creationism, AGAINST marijuana smoking, etc.
Political argument in democracy always breaks down into tactics like these on both sides because democracy entails a population of non-experts voting on issues they don't understand. And inevitably there are parties that are so emotionally involved in their side winning the issue that they no longer even see that their arguments are incomplete or invalid. They end up believing whatever they think will convince the most average people to agree with them - whether it makes sense or not.
I think the solution is to present REAL arguments to counter the tricks. In truth, I think tricks often trump real arguments in the short run. However, I believe that in the long run, the truth tends to come out if someone is out there presenting it.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I mean, I just mock smokers openly and matter of factly. Really takes the joy out of their mid-day cancer breaks
Actually it just makes us want to blow the smoke in your face.
I don't think I could pinpoint a reason why I started smoking. Sure the "coolness" image is out there, but there were other factors too like: boredom, desire to be a rebel, etc. But these are just some of my vague memories. My decision doesn't make much sense to me now, but it did then.
Posts: 681 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Will B: Everybody knows smoking is dangerous. That horse is an ex-horse; no point in beating it any further.
Yes, people still smart smoking, but it's not because they believe smoking is healthy.
I'm twenty one, and I can tell you that my teachers in elementary school couldn't say "for certain" that smoking killed people. We had assemblies about the dangers of smoking, and for some reason they never came right out and said that smoking was a cause of death. I'm sure they said it causes cancer which kills people, but 8 year olds don't get that process so easily. I understand it now, but it wasn't made clear, at least me, when I was that age. I'm sure things are made more clear today.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
