Guilt By Association
By JAMES K. FITZPATRICK
There was a time when serious students in college or high school would be familiar with the terms “arguing ad hominem” and the “post hoc ergo propter hoc” fallacy. I don’t know why our schools no longer introduce our young people to these errors in logic. Perhaps it is because they are in Latin and are thought to be outdated for that reason. Or it could be that our educators have concluded that these concepts can be taught without using the Latin terminology.
There is something to the latter proposition. Informed younger Americans are aware that it is a mistake to conclude that an argument is erroneous simply because the person advancing it is a villain or a fool, even if they have never heard the term ad hominem (“to the man”). They know, for example, that you cannot discredit vegetarians simply by pointing to stories about Hitler’s aversion to eating meat.
They also know that because B follows A, it does not necessarily mean that A caused B: correlation does not prove causation. Arguing post hoc ergo propter hoc (“after this, therefore because of this”) does not close the case. If you passed your physics examination the day that you wore red socks, it does not mean the socks had anything to do with your success. Studying hard the night before, on the other hand, probably did make a difference.
It is an understanding that should be kept in mind when politicians try to make a connection between things that they — and their opponents — have said and done and events in the world.
Did, for example, Barack Obama’s economic policies bring us out of the recession we were in when he took office? Did Hillary Clinton’s attempt to “reset” our relations with Russia lead to Russia’s aggression in Ukraine? Is the high crime rate in cities run by Democrat mayors a result of those Democrat mayors? Correlation does not prove causation. More evidence is necessary.
Teachers can make up their own minds if it makes sense any longer to use Latin in covering this topic. In my opinion, it does. The Latin phrasing still pops up in books and essays that our young people will come across. But even if the Latin terms are not stressed, the concepts should be covered. It can make for an informative and lively class, especially during a presidential election season.
There are many examples. Students can be asked to analyze whether candidates should be held responsible if disreputable individuals back their campaign. In recent weeks, the Clinton campaign has pointed out that racists and neo-Nazis can be found in the crowds at Donald Trump’s speeches and making statements in support of his candidacy. Does that say something unfavorable about Trump? In turn, the Trump campaign is calling attention to Communists, black radical groups, and Muslim extremists that favor Hillary Clinton. Should that detract from Clinton?
Where does one draw the line between unsavory fringe elements that support a candidate and a substantial core of support from those groups? Are we responsible for the character of the people who say they agree with us?
Also, should a position taken by one of these radical groups be dismissed out of hand because of the nature of the group? Might it be possible, even if conceding the point makes us uncomfortable, that a radical and contemptible group will have an insight that is worthy of consideration? Might the new Black Panther Party or the Ku Klux Klan, for example, have something to offer in the debate over racial violence in the country?
We have all heard the clichés: “Even a broken watch is right twice a day” and “even a blind squirrel sometimes finds a nut.” How does this notion apply to a presidential campaign? Most people will not refuse to listen to Wagner’s music simply because of the anti-Semitic comments in his essays, or shut off a Frank Sinatra song because of his ties to organized crime. How far can we stretch that analogy? It can be discussed and debated.
On another topic: J.L. of Florida writes to offer the opinion that First Teachers may be paying too much attention of late to the loss of the Catholic identity at Catholic colleges these days, and not enough to our elementary schools. “It is not only the colleges that are negligent in Catholic education, in my opinion. It is the elementary schools as well. The teachers may teach sound principles in the classroom, I cannot judge that, but the example they set at Mass is definitely detrimental, at least in our area in Fort Myers, Fla., where we live part of the year.”
J.L. offers an example: “We entered the church this past Monday prior to a weekday Mass, to see two middle-aged adults chatting in the third pew. We could hear most of the conversation. Soon they were joined by about 15 others all of whom sat together, up front together talking as though they were in an auditorium. One turned to my husband who was kneeling behind her and suggested we move since ‘we are all teachers and it will likely become noisy!’ Had we even spoken a word prior to Mass, the dear sisters of old would have certainly corrected us.”
Continuing, J.L. says, “When the students from the parish school began walking into the church, talking and pushing, none of the teachers reprimanded them. The students were there to do the readings for the Mass. Unfortunately, they did their readings so rapidly that they were nearly unintelligible. One can easily get the impression that the Children’s Mass is meant to be a showcase of the students rather than a celebration of the Sacrifice of Christ Himself.”
J.L. observes that perhaps “the teachers do not discipline the children or even pay attention to what the students are doing during Mass, because they are not that observant about how to behave at Holy Mass themselves. As for the manner of dress of the teachers, tight pants is the uniform of the day and, of course, low-cut tops. At least the students wear uniforms!”
J.L. thinks back to when “we had one sister for each class, attended daily, there was silence in Church, coming, during, and leaving. We came out of those years with a great education because the sisters saw to it that we behaved not only in the classroom but at Mass as well.
“And many of us today are still attending daily Mass through the Grace of God and because of the wonderful example that we received from the dear nuns.”
J.L. concludes with the following: “I’m sorry to say it, but I believe the Church is failing the students and the families who pay tuition. The teachers of today do not know how to behave at Mass, and it appears that the priests are scared to death to demand and expect silence at Mass. Thanks be to God at least we still have the Eucharist!”
+ + +
Readers are invited to submit comments and questions about this and other educational issues. The e-mail address for First Teachers is fitzpatrijames@sbcglobal.net, and the mailing address is P.O. Box 15, Wallingford, CT 06492.
