A lot of discourse in AA is riddled with logical fallacies. If
one understands how these are used, one can counter them more effectively, and
reach a true understanding of the object of discussion more effectively.
'This is all too
clever for me. I'm going to stick to working with drunks.'
This method is used to dismiss an argument by attacking its
'cleverness'. The argument itself may not actually be particularly clever, but
the attack is sufficient to discredit it.
Additionally, there is a false dichotomy: according to the
speaker, one can (a) indulge in 'clever' arguments or (b) work with drunks, but
one cannot do both. Since working with drunks is self-evidently good, indulging
in 'clever' arguments is self-evidently bad.
'Keep it simple
(stupid).'
This is an example of argument by cliché/slogan. The cliché/slogan
in question, 'keep it simple', is at times appropriate. Clearly, it is not always
apposite. Just because hammers are good for hitting nails into planks of wood does
not mean that they are good for removing tyres from cars. This slogan is often
used, however, as a method of wholesale dismissal, as though playing this
particular card always 'trumps' any argument, as if 'keeping it simple' is always
the right approach. Clearly 'keeping it simple' could go too far: some people
claim that not drinking and going to meetings is sufficient for anyone to stay
permanently sober. The difficulty with combating this argument is that any
examination of whether or not the object of attack is excessively complex will
itself attract the instruction 'Keep it simple (stupid)!' In practice, the
phrase is often used to dismiss and shut down a line of argument that the
speaker disagrees with but cannot counter substantively.
Similarly: 'utilise, don't analyse'; 'analysis, paralysis'.
Self-evidently, there are situations in life and in recovery that require
analysis, and the Steps encourage analysis (Steps Four, Eight, and Ten, in
particular).
'I've been sober 20 years,
and ...'
This is an appeal from (false) authority. If length of
sobriety is used to support the size of the body of evidence the individual has
gathered, length of sobriety may be cited validly. But an argument is not valid
simply because the person using it is 20 years sober. A similar appeal from
false authority is to say to someone, 'keep coming back', as a way of responding
to a contribution to a discussion. This saying is often used to position the
speaker as an 'old-timer' and the opponent as a 'newcomer'; rather than
addressing the argument substantively, the opponent is belittled. This is a
variation of the 'ad hominem' attack.
'All of the old-timers
I know say that ...'
This is an appeal to anonymous authority: we do not know who
these old-timers are; they may indeed be fools. Again, the assumption is that
anyone sober a long time is automatically right.
'In early AA, they
would ...'
This is an appeal to false authority: just because something
was done in 1937 or 1941 does not mean it is automatically better or more effective
than something done now. If there were to be a presumption, it would be fairer
to presume that the greater knowledge and understanding acquired over time has
led to greater effectiveness, as this is the principle that operates in most
fields. This can go too far, also, as it is not necessarily true that things
are better now because of the passage of time and greater knowledge and
understanding acquired. Instead, each proposition must be examined on its own merits.
This is also a manifestation of the 'wisdom of the ancients'
fallacy: the 'ancients' (aka old-timers or founders of AA) are automatically
right.
'When I was new, I
used to think that ..., but now ...'
This is a 'statement of conversion', and a weak way of asserting
expertise. A conversion from one belief to another does not mean that the
conversion is in the right direction. One might well have gone from believing
something true to believing something false.
'You think too much.
Thinking won't get you sober.'
This is the fallacy of the general rule. Experience may
suggest that certain individuals cannot be induced to stay sober by application
of logic and reason. To derive a general rule, that logic and reason should be
shunned, is inappropriate, however.
'That's just treatment
centre crap.'
This is an example of the 'poisoning-the-wells' fallacy:
'treatment centres' are often a dirty word in AA (a fallacious belief itself,
because of false generalisation), so, to discredit an idea, all you have to do
is attribute it to treatment centres. This is a variation of the 'ad hominem' argument (where one attacks
the person rather than the argument).
'What you are shouts
so loud no one hears a word you're saying.'
This quotation attributed to Emerson is used to discredit
the opponent, as an ad hominem
attack. Effectively: 'you, Sir, are an cad, so everything you say is false.'
'I'm only new in AA
and I just need to be given a break ...'/'I've been through such a lot—give me a break.'
This is the card being played: 'take pity on me, so do not
challenge what I am saying'.
'He stopped going to
meetings, so he got drunk.'
This is the fallacy of false cause. Just because one thing
follows another does not mean the latter caused the former. The individual may
have decided he wanted to return to drinking, which is why he stopped going to
meetings. In that case, the decision to return to drinking was therefore the
reason he got drunk, not stopping going to meetings per se. In other cases,
stopping going to meetings may be a factor, but implying it is the only factor
is without basis.
'She was twenty-five
years sober and working with lots of newcomers, and she got drunk. I'm going to
be careful about how many sponsees I take on.'
This betrays a confusion of correlation and causation.
Simply because a factor is present does not mean it was causal. The speaker
could have chosen one hundred other factors ('She lives in Santa Monica; she watches daytime TV; she also goes to
Al-Anon') ... This also betrays 'causal reductionism'—the truth is that
there were likely many contributing factors.
'AA is a cult. I know
someone who attended a group where you had to cut ties with all of your old
friends and family and spend all of your time with group members.'
This is the fallacy of composition: just because one group
behaves like a cult does not mean that AA itself is a cult.
'AA has worked for
millions of people around the world. If you can't get sober at your home group,
that's your fault, not AA's, because AA works.'
This is a combination of the fallacy of composition and the
fallacy of division. Firstly, the speaker is concluding that AA, as a whole,
'works', on the basis that many groups are self-evidently effective. Secondly,
the speaker is concluding that, because AA as a whole 'works', any individual
group must be effective. The truth is, the individual's home group may be
lousy, with no one carrying an effective message, which is why newcomers are
not able to achieve sobriety there.
'I had a benzo problem
for years. Now I won't even take an aspirin, in case I abuse that.'
This is an example of the slippery slope/camel's nose
fallacy. In this fallacy, there is the assumption that something is wrong
because it is has some resemblance to or is otherwise somehow close to something
that is wrong. This is a very common fallacy when individuals are talking about
medication in recovery. Clearly, some forms of medication, in some individuals,
are conducive to relapse. The idea that an aspirin is the start of a slippery
slope, however, is fallacious.
'I knew someone who
drank in the middle of her Step Four. It was clearly bringing up too much
emotion, so she drank. I don't advise taking Step Four.'
This is argument by half-truth. Very often, behind these
stories, there are numerous other factors: e.g. the individual was barely going
to any meetings, was not actually following the advice of her sponsor regarding
fellowship and service, etc.
'AA has only a 5%
success rate today. It used to have a success rate of 93%.'
A common problem in discussions is a gross misunderstanding
of statistics, and innumeracy. Success rates, for example, are meaningful only
if one knows what pool of individuals is being taken as the base. Is that 5% of
people who attend at least one AA meeting? Or is that 5% of people who complete
the twelve-step programme in full? Very often, AA's low success rates measure
the proportion of people who stay sober, say, for one year, out of a population
of people who are introduced at all to AA. Since participation and
follow-through are voluntary, however, the rate measures not the success of the
programme but a combination of the ability of AA to attract and keep problem
drinkers and members AND the success of the programme, rolled up into a single
figure. It should be recalled, also, that in early AA, membership was highly
filtered, and the pool of individuals on which basis success rates were
calculated did not include anyone who was not successfully twelfth-stepped.
To summarise: when using statistics, be sure you understand
exactly how the statistic was calculated.
'I can't take Step
Two. I simply can't believe in an old man in the sky with a beard.'
'I can't meditate,
because I get restless leg syndrome.'
These are examples of the straw-man fallacy, where an
exaggerated or caricatured version of a position is adopted and attacked. The
counter-arguments: your higher power can be the spirit of the universe, your
home group, or anything you like; you could try walking meditation.
'If you don't work the
Steps, you will die of alcoholism.'
This is an appeal to force, effectively, a threat. It may or
may not be true in the case of the individual in question. Many people do
indeed die of alcoholism, and many people who work the Steps do indeed recover
from alcoholism. One cannot fairly assert, however, that this will necessarily be
the consequence if this individual does not work the Steps.
'I WAS VERBALLY
ATTACKED BY MEN; I WAS CALLED A TROLL; I WAS TOLD MY OPINION WASN'T THAT
IMPORTANT.'
Arguing in capitals is argument by vehemence. Rather than
letting the argument stand on its own, the speaker is using a tantrum to block
opposition.
This one is also an example of the appeal to pity: if you
position yourself as a victim and others as bullies, you do not have to
substantiate your argument.
'AA operates like a
cult. It has to be either their way or no way.'
This is a combination of the straw man argument, the fallacy
of the excluded middle, and the fallacy of composition. Firstly, as indicated
elsewhere, individual AAs proclaiming the 'my way or the highway' position does
not mean that AA as a whole operates in that way (fallacy of composition);
secondly, presenting this as AA's general approach is a straw man argument—this
is a caricatured version of what generally happens in AA; the fallacy of the excluded
middle is the fallacy that there are two extremes and nothing in between. This
fallacy is being projected onto the opponent (AA!) to discredit it.
Another example of the excluded middle/false dichotomy:
'Personally I'd rather
be insulted sober than coddled, drunk.'
This implies that these are the only two options
(insulted/coddled), with no other options available (e.g. being respected,
being told the truth kindly). This is also a good example of false correlation:
sobriety is associated with truth, however unpleasant, and drunkenness is associated
with being coddled.
A very common example of the false dichotomy/faulty dilemma
is this: 'When I was new, I am glad
people cared more about whether I lived or died than my feelings.' It is,
in fact, possible, to care about whether someone lives or dies and act and
speak accordingly, whilst taking care not to hurt someone unnecessarily.
'Just remember that
opinions are like assholes; everyone has one.'
By generally dismissing all opinions, one does not need to
engage substantively in any of them. In a debate setting, this is like sweeping
all of the chess-pieces off the board.
'I don't make amends
to ex-partners, because it says in Step Nine that we do not make amends to
people if we are going to harm them.'
This is called 'begging the question', where the thing to be
proved ('making amends to ex-partners is harmful') is actually the premise of
the argument (as making amends to them and harming them are equated).
Lastly, my personal favourite, often seen on online
discussions:
'In recovery, I only
do what is in the Big Book of Alcoholics Anonymous. Anything else ain't AA'.
This is an example of the stolen concept. This is where you
use what you are attacking to support your argument. In this case, engaging in
an online debate to attack recovery activities not set out in the Big Book is
to engage in just such an activity. If one were genuinely to believe that
principle, one would have to refrain from online debates, as these are not
discussed in the 'main text' part of the Big Book.