Logical fallacy alert!
I decided a few days ago to read the NRO’s blog The Corner. Oh boy, was I in for a treat. Let me show you a stunning example of logical fallacy, courtesy of Victor Davis Hanson:
I confess I haven’t followed the Ayers matter — except for one key and persistently bothersome detail — the continued communications following 9/11. Relying on the unimpeachable New York Times, I learned two fact: (one), Bill Ayers, in 2001 said that he felt that he had not done enough bombing and could not rule out the possibility that he might have done it all over again; (two) for the next four years (until 2005 when Obama reached the Senate), Obama communicated with Ayers by phone and email (e.g.: “[they] have not spoken by phone or exchanged e-mail messages since Mr. Obama began serving in the United States Senate in January 2005.” NY Times)
Here’s the fallacy: he is assuming more information than he has. That Obama and Ayers have not communicated since 2005 does not give us any nature of the communication to that point. Obama asserts that it was minimal. we have reason to believe him: there is no evidence otherwise, whatsoever. Hanson misconstrues this to mean that they were in continued, regular contact. That’s just not possible to ascertain. He also seems to take Ayers’ statement that he felt he had not done enough bombing as the start of communications. I don’t know what cavernous orifice he pulled that one out of, but I’m sure there’s lots more where it came from.














