I have long used the phrase argumentum ad labelum to describe a particular type of logical fallacy that is almost ubiquitous in political discussions. This type of argument is used to dismiss someone’s arguments rather than answer them. It’s pretty much the only form of argument David Barton ever uses, and more so now than ever as he attacks his critics as liberals, atheists and “academic elitists.” Evangelical historian John Fea blasts him for it:
If Barton was shaken-up by the Thomas Nelson decision, he is certainly not showing it. As expected, he and his followers are using the opportunity to trash the publisher and the “godless,” “liberal,” and “elite” historians who pressured Thomas Nelson to drop the book. I am sure Glenn Beck has already weighed in on his behalf. His fans on the Wallbuilders Facebook page are fired-up. Rick Green, his right-hand man at Wallbuilders, compared historians and writers who are critical of Barton to Adolph Hitler. And Barton recently went on a radio program and suggested that Throckmorton’s criticism of his book was somehow linked to the Grove City College professor’s views on homosexuality. Barton promises to prove that all of his critics are wrong. Green says that he is “ready to rumble.” …
But even if we allow Barton to dismiss non-Christian historians, he will have a hard time dismissing his fellow evangelicals. Many of his critics have very solid evangelical credentials. Throckmorton is a Romney supporter (or at least “likes” Romney on his Facebook page) and is a conservative evangelical Christian. When I spoke at Grove City College in January 2012, he apologized for having to miss one of my lectures. It turns out that Throckmorton is an elder at his local Evangelical Free Church and had to attend a meeting there on that particular night. Ray McMillian, one of the Cincinnati pastors who led the boycott of Thomas Nelson, runs an organization called “Race to Unity.” Speakers at Race to Unity events have included evangelical luminaries such as Tony Evans, Joseph Stowell, Ed Dobson, and Bill Hybels.
Gregg Frazer, one of the ten historians chosen by Jay Richards, teaches at The Masters College, a school founded by popular evangelical preacher John MacArthur. (Frazer has also written an excellent book on the religious beliefs of the founding fathers which I highly recommend). Glenn Sunshine is a graduate of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, IL—certainly not a bastion of godless liberalism. Charles Dunn, who has endorsed Getting Jefferson Right, is a Distinguished Professor in the School of Government at Pat Robertson’s Regent University. Even the folks at WorldView Weekend, an organization that used to partner with Barton, have turned their collective backs on him.
I recently took an informal survey on my blog and learned that the history departments at some of the most conservative or fundamentalist colleges in the country, such as Bob Jones University, Liberty University, and Patrick Henry College, do not, and will not, use Barton’s books in their classes. Actually, the only place I could find that does use Barton’s books appears to be Liberty University Law School. Though I realize that this is only a rough survey, it is worth noting that historians at these kinds of institutions also reject Barton’s pseudo-history. If you are a David Barton fan, and you have a college-age son or daughter, you will be hard pressed to find a Christian college history department in the United States who embraces his views.
But the real message here should be that it simply doesn’t matter who is making such criticisms of Barton’s work. It’s true that Barton’s audience is more likely to accept criticisms that come from their fellow Christians, but that is only because they have bought in to Barton’s logical fallacy that it matters. But it doesn’t. Chris Rodda’s excellent work debunking dozens of claims made by Barton is valid regardless of whether she’s an atheist, a liberal or any other irrelevant trait. Her arguments are either valid or they are not; her factual assertions are either true or they are not. And the same goes for every other critic.
Barton’s fallacy is not an attempt to engage those criticisms on a substantive level, it is a means of avoiding having to do so.
21 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
Gregory in Seattle
August 20, 2012 at 9:29 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
It has been a while since I took debate and logic, but argumentum ad labelum (“argument from the label”) is a special case of the Straw Man, isn’t it? Slap a label on someone, then proceed to attack the label? It’s kind of unsettling that this specific subtype of fallacy has become so common that it needs a formal name.
dobby
August 20, 2012 at 9:55 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Isn’t this the same thing as argumentum ad hominem?
d cwilson
August 20, 2012 at 9:56 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I’d love to see someone corner Barton with the list of evangelical historians who can spot his lies. I doubt he’ll ever let himself be put into such a situation there. He’ll never face such a challenge Beck’s show.
Dr. Strabismus
August 20, 2012 at 10:10 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
argumentum ad labelum: While it is perfectly clear what you mean, and I agree with your intent, I think your Latin may be dicey. “Labelum” doesn’t seem to be a Latin word at all, certainly not the word for “label” or “name”.
I could be wrong, I’m using a “concise” Latin dictionary limited to the classical period. Perhaps it is Medieval Latin?
I think you should check on this with a real classical scholar or logician. As Dobby said, “ad hominem” seems to cover the case.
D. C. Sessions
August 20, 2012 at 10:32 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
That may be your opinion, Ed, but that’s not the way it works in the religious world. In a world where the whole Universe started with a Word, where all reality depends on an Ultimate Authority and where Truth is known by Revelation, you have it exactly backwards.
Ed Brayton
August 20, 2012 at 10:46 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I know the Latin isn’t accurate, but I don’t really care. It gets the point across.
This particular type of fallacy is actually related to several others. It could be considered an ad hominem (a genuine one, not the “he insulted me” kind that so many people think is an ad hominem. It could also be considered a non sequitur.
Ichthyic
August 20, 2012 at 11:58 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Barton’s next act:
He will chop down a tree with…
a herring!
a red one, in fact.
busterggi
August 20, 2012 at 11:59 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
“But even if we allow Barton to dismiss non-Christian historians, he will have a hard time dismissing his fellow evangelicals.”
Not as long as the “No True Scotsman” can be invoked.
Hercules Grytpype-Thynne
August 20, 2012 at 12:46 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ed,
Please seriously consider not using “argumentum ad labelum”, if only because it’s a Latin phrase and labelum is not a Latin word. I’m not sure if “argumentum ad hominem”, which others have suggested, is really appropriate here (though it does have the advantage that hominem is an actual Latin word); if you really need a separate term please consider something like “argumentum ad titulum”.
(you want titulum instead of titulus because that’s the correct form for an object of the preposition ad.)
FWIW the closest word to labelum in Latin is labellum which according to the Lewis & Short Latin Dictionary can mean either “a little lip” or “a small water-vessel, a tub, bathing-tub.”
John Hinkle
August 20, 2012 at 1:56 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Someday Barton will be squeezed entirely out of his tribe. He will become a minority of one, therefore insane.
Geds
August 20, 2012 at 1:56 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Hercules Grytpype-Thynne @ 9: if you really need a separate term please consider something like “argumentum ad titulum”
Or he could go with one of my favorites from Sadly, No! Argumentum ad sparkleponium,”an appeal to a mythical race of creatures or a non-existent phenomenon.”
I’m pretty sure that the Evangelical Christian Founding Fathers count as a mythical race. And an explicitly Christian America certainly counts as a non-existent phenomenon.
Ace of Sevens
August 20, 2012 at 2:37 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I take it argumentum ad Hitlerum is right out?
Chiroptera
August 20, 2012 at 2:45 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
This is joke Latin. It’s a pretty common joke to label a fallacy as argumentum ad [English word with -um added to the end].
Dr. Strabismus
August 20, 2012 at 3:57 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Hercules Grytpype-Thynne: I was hoping you’d pipe up on this. Thank you.
Chiroptera: I understand joke Latin, and nonce words. But it is a serious subject, and deserves a serious term.
zmidponk
August 20, 2012 at 5:30 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
dobby #2:
I would say it’s more like a special case of argumentum ad hominem, combined with sort of false guilt by association, where you categorise someone as part of a group, and then, through implication, insult and denigrate this group as justification for dismissing any and all arguments from them rather than actually addressing them.
Ed Brayton
August 20, 2012 at 6:41 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
No, I fully intend to keep using this phrase, as I have for years. I know full well that it isn’t correct Latin. I just don’t care. And I can’t imagine why anyone else would either.
Dr. Strabismus
August 20, 2012 at 10:29 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
” I just don’t care. And I can’t imagine why anyone else would either.”
Not to make a big deal out of it… it isn’t. It’s a neologism, then, a coinage. People do it all the time. As Sarah Palin once said about Shakespeare.
And evidently you find the term useful.
But it does bug me a little as a matter of principle. This is what the other side does. Make stuff up. Why not be accurate?
John Phillips, FCD
August 20, 2012 at 11:42 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Not to make a big deal out of it… it isn’t, but I’ll use some false equivalence to make it a big deal.
dingojack
August 20, 2012 at 11:43 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Dr. Strabismus – so argumentum ad castorem* is OK then.
;) Dingo
——
* Argument that appeals to the eponymous ‘Beaver’ from Leave it to Beaver. Using hokey old sitcoms of days gone by as indicators of the way things were in the past, rather than historical sources that tell us the way they actually were.
“‘When I make a word do a lot of work like that,’ said Humpty Dumpty, `I always pay it extra.’”. argumentum ex ovo :D
Dr. Strabismus
August 21, 2012 at 1:10 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@J.Phillips “…but I’ll use some false equivalence to make it a big deal.”
Perhaps I did not put that well. Clearly, misuse of Latin is not equivalent to the misuse of history by Mr. Barton, or the misuse of science by creationists. In comparison, it is insignificant.
But it is misuse, as Ed himself recognizes, and some few people, call us pedants if you will, care about using Latin correctly, even if Ed can’t imagine why.
John Phillips, FCD
August 21, 2012 at 11:02 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
It’s OK doc, I was only pulling your leg, mostly, I simply forgot to add a /jk tag.