Enchanting words | When deductive thinking becomes the logic of the masses

It is crucial to realise that while words can be seductive and magnetic, they can also put us in great danger if we let ourselves be carried away by their charms, driven by emotional impulses without reason.

The idea that there are musical sounds that become irresistible to the human ear is well present in mythology and fairytale. Homer imagined how Ulysses had to tie himself to the mast of his ship, while his sailors covered their ears, in order to resist the melodious voice of the sirens. And the brothers Grimm narrated the traditional tale of a piper, who takes revenge on the avarice of the Hamelin town leaders by charming children to follow the notes of his flute.

Both stories tell of the irresistibility of sound, but it is not by chance that both warn of the danger of following it: death, in the case of the sailors seduced by the siren song and in the case of the children of Hamelin, imprisonment in a cave. Following the senses, devoid of reason, is an enormous danger.

History is also replete with other types of “artists” who have ideology as their scores, words as their notes, and voice, pen, and key as their instruments. They are able to identify with the masses, to convince their minds, to enthuse their morale, to lead their will and action. Let us remember one of these men, perhaps the first that the Classics identified, who thoroughly upset the thinking of the illustrious aristocrats Thucydides and Aristophanes. We refer to Cleon, a fifth century BC Athenian leader whom Thucydides described as “the most violent man at Athens, and at that time by far the most powerful with the commons.”

Cleon was held up as the example of the demagogue, from the Greek words δῆμος (demos), meaning people, and ἀγωγός (agogos), meaning leader. The demagogue is, then, strictu sensu, the leader of the people. To be so, however, he develops a type of speech with some peculiar characteristics, illustrated in the rhetoric of this Athenian leader. Cleon’s speech quoted by Thucydides contains the main rhetorical elements of the leader who desires the favour of the people, and is willing to manipulate their emotions to obtain their will. Advocating the ruthless killing of the citizens of the defeated city of Mitylene, Cleon dehumanises the Mityleneans and incites hatred against them, appeals to the traditional values of Athens and warns about the danger and weakness of the law, praises the superior morality of the masses over the elites, and warns his countrymen about the plots of the traitors of Athens. He does all this through a convincing and fiery speech, presenting himself as one among the people, who feels, interprets and speaks like the people, and, at the same time, the only one capable of defending and leading the people.

Yes, this was in the fifth century before Christ, and they called it demagogy. But we see it in many places in the 21st century, and we hear it called populism.

Demagoguery and populism in the 21st Century

Demagogy is defined as the use of discourse and action in order to manipulate the emotions and will of the people, with the aim of conquering, maintaining, and applying power. Demagogic discourse is one of the most visible and distinctive elements of the phenomenon that has come to be called populism, which is in structure and conjuncture much broader. The term “populism” derives from the Latin word populus, which literally means “the people.” The term can be defined as a set of political speech and practices, present mainly in extreme ideologies of both the Right and the Left, which are based on characteristic types of protagonists, themes, and forms. What the various “populisms” have in common are the following aspects: 

1. The existence of a charismatic leader, who identifies with the people, shows that he understands and represents them and proposes to lead them; 
2. The choice of a small collection of popular themes, in the sense that they are easily perceived and felt by the people, which are presented through simple slogans and for which simplistic solutions are proposed; 
3. The denunciation of a battle between the people, who are good, and the elite, who are seen as detached from popular problems, corrupt in their actions and who try to eternalise their privileges; 
4. As a consequence of the two previous points, there is a rejection of knowledge and science, and of course experts from the elite, to which is opposed an alleged popular common sense, accessible to all and expressed in the “wisdom” of the leader; 
5. An appeal to a certain “group spirit”, be it class, ethnic, national or other, as well as to popular passions; 
6. Derived from the above, the exposure of one or several external enemies, who have to be fought and defeated, which implies unity and courage of “our own”; 
7. The popular belief that there is a “truth” beyond the visible one, which is hidden from the generality of people, and which, to be revealed, has to be exposed, explained and corrected by the leader, the group or the party.

Although populist phenomena can be found throughout history, the identification of this type of discourse and action has gained importance, breadth, and depth in recent years. In fact, with the advent of the Internet and in particular with the emergence of social networks and media, the possibility for individuals and groups to communicate with each other has increased exponentially.

In the terms of communication technology experts, freedom, a sense of belonging and participation in the public space have increased proportionally. The opportunity for true digital citizenship has been born, in which information circulates more freely and each person has gained a direct and autonomous voice. We have all gone from being information consumers to information producers, we are all everywhere at the same time, both sources and recipients of the rivers of information—we are now communication “producers.” This amazing opportunity has materialised in everyone’s daily life and the youngest no longer refer to it as extraordinary, so present and natural is it in their lives.

However, this digital citizenship has brought, on the other hand, several side phenomena, some spontaneous, others manufactured. The digital world today is to a large extent the transposition of the “tribes” of the real world, with their idiosyncrasies, differences and attacks, even more aggressive, because they are now cowardly hidden or practically unpunished. Today, the digital world is also the space where lies, rumours and conspiracies are spread, by people, groups and bots, without any mediation, above and below the surface of the web, where it is increasingly difficult to identify and distinguish the real and the true. The digital world is a torrent of information, both factual, benevolent and useful, and dubious, incorrect and false, where a large number of people obtain data simply and quickly without assessing its credibility. This is the reason why political literacy is inversely proportional to the use of reliable sources of information: the more information obtained through social media at the expense of conventional media, the less knowledge about politics on the part of voters.  

For all these reasons, the digitalisation of communication has boosted the success of agents who know how to use it and are able to use it.

Types of arguments and their use

Logic, dialectic and rhetoric are three disciplines of pragmatics—the study of words in the context of communication—that help us understand and apply the basic rules of dialogue. They are devoted, respectively, to the validity, the counterposition and the public explanation of arguments. There are basically six types of dialogue, whose aims and forms are easily understood from the designation of each: information, negotiation, enquiry, deliberation, persuasion and eristics.

In a dialogic social environment, the most commonly used types of dialogue are the deliberative, which leads a group of people to a decision, and the persuasive, in which the agent of discourse seeks to guide the adherence and support of a group of people to his or her conclusions and, therefore, to their actions. In today’s public space, the informative type of dialogue has also gained prominence as a tool of persuasion, insofar as the management, control and even creation of information is used as a way of influencing and convincing the public. And, unfortunately, also eristics has gained space, i.e., simply seeking to counter arguments instead of presenting one’s own, often resorting to insulting, offending, and discrediting the other.

Logic, dialectic and rhetoric are three disciplines of pragmatics—the study of words in the context of communication—that help us understand and apply the basic rules of dialogue. They are devoted, respectively, to the validity, the counterposition and the public explanation of arguments.

In this permanent environment of dialogue between people and groups, arguments have a very significant weight. An argument is defined as a set of premises that support a conclusion, which is the basis of a claim by one interlocutor towards another or towards an audience. The validity of arguments—the degree to which they are accepted or rejected—depends on their nature. The deductive type of argumentation follows the truthfulness of a premise, and therefore produces conclusions that are certainly valid or invalid. Inductive argumentation does not follow certainty or validity, but rather the strength and probability of a conclusion. Finally, there is presumptive argumentation, whose premises converge to a conclusion that one can only presume, with a lesser degree of certainty and credibility than induced or provable conclusions, and even less than deduced or certain, valid conclusions.

Herein lies a central problem in the analysis of deliberative and persuasive discourse, the two that lead people to make decisions—it is common to present merely presumptive conclusions as being valid and credible conclusions drawn from the premises chosen and offered to people. This approach allows for the harmful and infamous role of conspiracy theories, to which we will return later. They often distort reality, proposing erroneous conclusions as valid and credible, based on unclear or unjustified premises. Conspiracy theories can cause confusion, provoke fear and fuel demagogy, and are a cause for concern for the integrity of public discourse and the well-being of our societies.

In today’s digital world, it is therefore essential to understand and properly evaluate arguments and dialogues. Everyone has a duty to inform and communicate critically, while respecting the facts and other participants in the discussion, and promoting authentic and effective dialogue. In a digital environment where everyone can become a creator of information, we all have a crucial role to play in shaping and sustaining a culture of healthy and responsible dialogue.

Populist arguments

Arguments can also be classified according to their basis: a recognized authority, practical usefulness, commitment, generalisability, or appeal to emotion. It is easy to identify in populist discourse a tendency to rely on three types of arguments among these categories:

1) Public opinion, invoked as a source of authority, is used through an assumed identification with reality, necessity, so-called common sense and the will of the majority. We hear phrases like, “People know we’re on their side,” “Everyone knows what’s going on,” or “I can’t be stopped from speaking out because I am your voice.”

2) The argument for the decision to avoid adverse consequences, a pragmatic argument, is used to argue for action to avoid a range of effects presented as harmful to the community. The most common example is imagining or exaggerating undesirable future events, such as “If we let everyone in, there will be no jobs for us.” The limits of this kind of argument lie in the sophism of the slippery slope.

3) Appeals are made to emotions, usually based on negative feelings, such as fear (“One day we will be a minority back home…”) or envy (“They drive nice cars and we are the ones who work”).

It is obvious that these and other types of arguments are used in any form of communication, be it political, educational, advertising or even religious. In the populist phenomenon, however, their use as a unitary whole is more evident as a means of stimulating public support and encouraging the public’s decision to support the proposed actions for change.

Precaution against deductive reasoning

By definition, a deductive argument should only be used when the conclusions are certain and indubitable. A simple example of a deductive argument would be: “All ducks have beaks. This is a duck, so it has a beak.”

There is no room for exceptions here, and the conclusion is inevitable and certain. The problem is that, in a dialogue environment, the premises are almost never so clear and even less so the conclusions that are offered. When misapplied, deductive reasoning inevitably leads to error, as in this fallacy: “All ducks have beaks. That bird has a beak, therefore it is a duck.” By the mere assertion of the consequence, the conclusion is fallacious—it deceives. Sounds too basic? Let’s change the subject. Someone may say, “Sociopaths are intelligent. That man is intelligent, therefore…” What a dangerous fallacy! And it is so often applied to groups of people, who thus suffer from stigmatisation.

Decisions in dialogue are mainly made by probabilities and presumptions. Using the duck example, if we were told, “All the birds in the pond have beaks and half the birds in the pond are ducks,” we would know that the probability of a bird with a beak in that pond being a duck would be 50%, by inductive reasoning. And if someone said, “I walked by the lake and saw a bird that looked like a duck,” we would have to presume that it might be a duck, but hypothesise that it might not.

It is at this point of presumptive argumentation that the human ability to put methodical doubt into practice, through critical questions that increase confidence in the credibility of an argument, comes into play. To test this credibility, we might question who produced the statement about the bird—did it have feathers, beak and fins, could it swim, did it dip its head, did it squawk? Or we could question the person’s position as a witness—had he seen ducks before, could he tell a duck from a goose, could he see clearly at what distance the duck was? We may even wonder how likely it was that there was a duck there—are there ducks in that place, do other types of birds live in the lake? The list of questions can go on…

It might seem ridiculous and even comical for someone to go to so much trouble to find out if someone has seen a bird and if that bird is a duck. But what is certain is that, nowadays, we receive, process, analyse, believe and use more information than any other generation in history, often in an unprepared and uncritical way. To be fair, not many go to so much trouble to check information and arguments and validify their credibility. And this facilitates, to a great extent, the work of those who, unintentionally or on purpose, wish to make people believe in the many “duck” tales they are told.

The conspiracy theory: instrumental to populism

A conspiracy theory is a speculative hypothesis that attempts to explain an event or situation. It is based on the assumption that there is a secret conspiracy orchestrated by a small group of people who are deliberately keeping vital information from the public for a purpose that could be harmful to the majority of the population. Fascination, belief and even addiction to such theories fuel the interest of millions of people around the world, regardless of their personality or group affiliation. But it is notable that the potential for the creation and spread of conspiracy theories has a functional utility for some of today’s movements and actors. Let us look for some connections between these phenomena.

First, populists attract followers by claiming to have access to hidden knowledge, an “enlightenment” that exposes what is hidden from the general public. Now, conspiracy theories are, in their genesis, speculative explanations of reality, which become attractive precisely because they are based on the revelation of what had remained secret.

Second, populists seek to stir up the rebellion of the masses against the elites, manifesting their own provenance among them and their willingness to set themselves up as their tribunes, in a Manichean view of reality. Conspiracy theories generally denounce precisely a small, usually elitist, group that finds, applies and maintains a way to oppress the people—whether this group is politicians, clerics, financiers, pharmaceutical companies, believers, minorities, or any other. 

Third, populists use their arguments with the aim of producing trust in themselves and their vision, in what is instrumental in eroding trust in the “system” and the “authorities” that represent it. Conspiracy theories are a simple, practical and useful way of eroding confidence in the authorities to whom they are addressed, preparing the public for those who reveal “the truth” and propose to correct it.

Ultimately, modern populism adopts a manipulative approach to information and communication, in which facts and truth are debatable concepts and are often counterbalanced by alternative narratives, which in turn become virtual facts and truths. Conspiracy theories, built on deductive conclusions drawn from sets of unverified premises, are an effective tool for generating confusion in communication, contributing to an increasing difficulty to assess credibility and truth in the public sphere.

Simplicity and caution as a method

One of the most harmful repercussions of conspiracy theories is the creation of confusion and ambiguity. On the one hand, they prey on people’s beliefs to lure them into unsubstantiated or insufficiently justified ideas; on the other hand, by diverting attention away from reality, they induce so much scepticism that people stop recognising real conspiracies, which do exist and can be dangerous.

Another problem with conspiracy theories is that they rely on the good faith and unpreparedness of many people. By using partial and often unverified data, they offer a simple answer to complex doubts that they themselves raise. It is like trying to assemble a hundred-piece jigsaw puzzle from only ten pieces, or to project a complete painting with only the corner of the picture, or to watch a film on a giant screen on which only a few pixels work. It is to project the whole with only a few parts—that is, to deduce.

The Bible contains precious advice on how we should approach, reflect on and use information. Jesus warns us that the world is adverse to the ones who love Him: “Now I send you out like sheep into the midst of wolves” and how we should guard against it: “Be cautious as serpents and simple as doves” (Matthew 10:16).

The apostle Paul teaches how God can help us to distinguish what is good and useful from what is evil and harmful: “Rejoice always, pray continually, give thanks in all circumstances; for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus. Do not quench the Spirit. Do not treat prophecies with contempt but test them all; hold on to what is good, reject every kind of evil” (1 Thessalonians 5:16-22).

Wise King Solomon counsels us to doubt everything, including ourselves, but to trust in God: “Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways submit to him, and he will make your paths straight” (Proverbs 3:5-6). And Paul, again, exhorts us to be honest and faithful in our own actions: “May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through and through. May your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. The one who calls you is faithful, and he will do it” (1 Thessalonians 5:23-24).

Jesus warns us that the world is adverse to the ones who love Him: “Now I send you out like sheep into the midst of wolves” and how we should guard against it: “Be cautious as serpents and simple as doves” (Matthew 10:16).

Bible study also requires a careful and faithful approach. Ellen White, a 19th-20th-century Christian author, advocated an inductive and comprehensive method of studying Scripture, encouraging readers to extract general meanings from the whole biblical context.[1] At the same time, she warned against a deductive approach that can lead to limited and misleading interpretations based on a selective reading of the Bible.[2]

In a world which is becoming ever more nebulous and complex, may we be ever more attentive to the theories that appear to us and be prepared to approach, understand, and share reality. It is essential to let the Word of God and the presence of the Holy Spirit in our lives be our most trusted guides on this journey.

References

1. Andrew Chadwick, Internet Politics: States, Citizens, and New Communication Technologies (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007)
2. Zarefsky, “Strategic maneuvering through persuasive definitions: Implications for dialectic and rhetoric” (Argumentation, 20(4), 2006)
3. Douglas Walton, Media Argumentation: Dialectic, Persuasion and Rhetoric (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1984)
4. Douglas Walton, Chris Reed and Fabrizio Macagno, Argumentation Schemes (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008)
5. Douglas Walton and Fabrizio Macagno, “A classification system for argumentation schemes” (Argument and Computation, Vol. 6)
6. Ellen White, Counsels to Parents, Teachers, and Students.
7. Isabela Fairclough and Norman Fairclough, Political Discourse Analysis. A Method for Advanced Students (London and New York: Routledge/Taylor and Francis Group, 2012)
8. Fabrizio Macagno and Douglas Walton, “Practical Reasoning Arguments: A Modular Approach” (Argumentation, Vol. 32, 2018)
9. Frans Van Eemeren and Rob Grootendorst, Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions (Amsterdam: Foris Publications, 1984)
10. Jaime Nogueira Pinto, Bárbaros e Iluminados. Populismo e Utopia no Século XXI (Lisboa: Dom Quixote, 2017)
11. Matthew Hindman, The Myth of Digital Democracy (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2009)
12. Michael Butter and Peter Knight, Routledge Handbook of Conspiracy Theories (London and New York: Taylor and Francis Group, 2020)
13. Pew Research Institute, “How Americans Navigated the News in 2020: A Tumultuous Year in Review” (https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2021/02/22/misinformation-and-competing-views-of-reality-abounded-throughout-2020/)  
14. Pew Research Institute, “Many Tech Experts Say Digital Disruption Will Hurt Democracy” (https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2020/02/21/many-tech-experts-say-digital-disruption-will-hurt-democracy/)
15. Stephen C. Levinson, Pragmatics (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1983)
16. Thucydides, The History of the Peloponnesian War (https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7142/7142-h/7142-h.htm. Book III, Chapter IX)
17. Tom Nichols, The Death of Expertise (New York: Oxford University Press, 2017)
18. W. Russel Newman, Bruce Bimber and Matthew Hindman, “The Internet and Four Dimensions of Citizenship” (In The Oxford Handbook of American Public Opinion and the Media. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011)