|
|
Damning With Faint Praise |
| Description: | ||
| The argument "attacks" a position by complimenting or praising the opponent or the opponent's argument. However, the praise is misdirected or unenthusiastic, suggesting that relevant, enthusiastic praise would be undeserved. | ||
|
|
||
| Comments: | ||
|
||
| Some common forms of faint praise might include calling an opponent's position "well intentioned," "a fine ideal," or "based on legitimate concerns." They might include saying that the opponent "makes some good points," or "shouldn't be blamed." | ||
|
|
||
| Examples: | ||
| "Unilateral disarmament is a fine ideal, and we cannot help feeling a certain respect for the blindly innocent faith that prompts people to adopt such a position." | ||
| "[William] Paley was not a particularly original writer. For example, his famous analogy of the watch at the beginning of the work was not his invention. And he probably took too much for granted. But he showed very considerable skill and ability in his arrangement of his matter and in the development of his argument. And it is, in my opinion, an exaggeration to suggest, as is sometimes done, that his line of thought is worthless." | ||
|
--Frederick Copleston |
||
|
|
||
| Discussion: | ||
| A well-known precept of journalism is that "Dog Bites Man" isn't
news, but "Man Bites Dog" is. Apparently "Damning With Faint Praise"
derives it perceived validity from the principle that only exceptional statements are
worth reporting. On this principle, saying something faintly favorable about an opponent
implies that unfavorable statements are more frequently true. For example, there is a
classic story about a British sailing ship on which the first mate was occasionally too
drunk to write the daily entry in the ship's log. On one such occasion, the Captain noted
the mate's condition in the log, writing, "The mate was drunk all day." The next
day the mate (who had sobered up) got his revenge by adding to the log entry, "The
Captain was sober all day." Along the same lines, there is an important principle that the philosopher P. T. Grice labeled "conversational implicature." This is the principle that we are generally expected to make the strongest statement that we can (given our knowledge of the facts). For example, if someone asks directions to the restroom, and I know it is down the hall to the left, then it is somehow dishonest for me to say, "It is down the hall, either to the left or to the right." My statement is literally true - and might even be an appropriate thing to say if my own knowledge were less imperfect than it is - but it implies something that is not true, namely that the restroom could be to the right. "Damning With Faint Praise" operates on the same principle. Even true statements can be deceptive. Normally we offer the strongest, most enthusiastic praise we feel is justified. Offering weak or unenthusiastic praise suggests (without asserting) that no stronger praise is warranted. "Damning With Faint Praise" mimics good reasoning by voicing only premisses that both sides in a debate are willing to acknowledge as true. Normally, if both sides admit the premisses are true, then both agree to the conclusions, including conclusions that are only drawn by "conversational implicature," as well. In this case, one side in the debate agrees that the premisses are true, but only because they believe even stronger statements would be true. |
||
|
|
||
| Classification: A Fallacy of Irrelevance (a deductive fallacy of soundness with a falsehood in the major premiss) in the Ad Hominem family. | ||
|
||
| Source: Please contact me if you can point me to a potentially useful clue regarding the original source of this fallacy. | ||
Go to: WELCOME EXPLANATION of PRINCIPLES TABLE of FALLACIES EXERCISES INDEX