Students are sometimes skeptical about why they have to learn careful logic, writing skills, and careful citations of evidence in their writing. Well, I saw a very good example of what happens when you do not make these skills part of your intellectual toolbox.
Donald Trump was interviewed by Lester Holt. Here is a transcript, with my added emphasis (from politicsusa.com) [note how I cited my source!]:
Lester Holt: You also made the claim that her email, personal email server had been hacked by foreign governments….
Donald Trump: But you don’t know that it hasn’t been.
Holt: Suggesting that she would be compromised as president. What evidence do you have that?
Trump: Well, first of all, she shouldn’t have had a personal server. She shouldn’t have had it. What she did was illegal. It’s illegal. Now, she might not be judged that way because you know we have a rigged system. But what she did was illegal. She shouldn’t have had a personal server.
Holt: But is there any evidence that she was hacked other than routine phishing attempts?
Trump: I think I read that, and I heard that, and somebody also gave…..
Holt: Where?
Trump: also gave me that information. I will report back to you. I’ll give it to you.
First, the specious argument “If you don’t know something didn’t happen means that it did.” Yikes. Second, “My evidence is that I think I read it or heard it from someone…” Wow.
Lets try something out: “Barack Obama is secretly plotting with terrorists to overthrow America. How do I know? Well, you don’t know he isn’t – he may very well be. What evidence do I have? I think I heard it or read it.” Oh wait, Donald Trump already used that one.
If this was an argument made in a paper by an undergraduate student in my class, it would not be acceptable. Is this acceptable for someone who wants to be our president? I think not.
But, I’m just one of those liberal elites fixated on logic, accuracy, and reason (yes, that was a sarcastic ad-hominem attack on myself).