« Research Canons: Comparative Law | Main | The Conference that Blogs Built »
Friday, October 27, 2006
Statement that refutes itself
I have a question. But first the (long) intro.
I admit that diplomats are masterful at issuing slippery and meaningless statements as well as careful euphemisms that mean the opposite of what they say. Nevertheless, I was struck by the following statements of Javier Solana, the EU's "foreign policy chief." I don't recall seeing recently such a wonderful example of a statement that refutes itself.
In an interview with the Jerualem Post, Solana explained that Hamas does not really want to to destroy Israel, even though the terrorist organization is quite explicit about its goals not only to eliminate Israel through jihad (Hamas charter, articles 11-15) and raise the banner of Islam over all of historic Palestine, inclusive of Israel (article 6), but also annihilate all Jews on Judgment Day (article 7). Why is Solana so sure of this? Solana explained that history shows that people and nations "adapt to reality" and Solana "cannot imagine that the religious imperative, the real religious imperative, can make anybody destroy another country"; thus, said Solana, "I don't think the essence of Hamas is the destruction of Israel." It seems to me that Solana's remarks do a wonderful job of demonstrating that at least some people can steadfastly refuse to adapt to reality.
So here's the question -- can anyone who has studied such matters tell me what the formal name is of the logical fallacy committed by a self-refuting statement?
Posted by Avi Bell on October 27, 2006 at 05:47 PM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c6a7953ef00d834f5896169e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Statement that refutes itself:
Comments
Recognizing self-refuting statements is critical for being a clear thinker and a good apologist. By self-refuting, I mean a claim that is undercut by its own criteria. There are other “practical” forms of self-refutation that pertain more to the speaker than to the actual words he utters. If a person says that he hates beans, but he gorges himself with large helpings of them, observers may well claim that his behavior refutes his statement.
Posted by: Essie | Feb 15, 2021 1:17:12 AM
What do you expect of solana? The Europeans are terrified that the Arabs are making a terrorist attack on European soil and believe that when they are agreeing with them - the Arabs - there won't be any terror in Europe. All the while the Arabs have to be taught the Koran - Sura 5 - I believe 20 - 23 -- where Mohammed explains that the Jews recieved the Holy Land from G.d
Posted by: michele | Nov 1, 2006 7:32:03 AM
How can Solana say such rubbish? Listen to what Hamas say and consider all its deeds. The best we can expect is, that if Israel returns to the borders 0f 49 and become vulnerable, and agrees to a flood of a million Arabs unto her tiny country, Hamas will agree to give his "worg of hor" (the value of which is notorious) not to atack Israel and not to try to destroy her during next 10 or 20 next years.
Posted by: moshe Zipor | Oct 31, 2006 4:46:16 PM
I think what it can be translated as is:
"Hamas is the elected government of the Palestinian Authority. Therefore we must deal with them. The Hamas that we are willing to deal with cannot have any ambition as barbaric and out of civilized norms as the destruction of Israel. Therefore, we choose to deal with the Hamas that does not have that objective."
There's another benefit to operating this way rhetorically. If you hold a person or entity to a higher standard than they operate, it makes it easier to criticize them. If the Democrats were to say, for instance, "President Bush, who we all know to be a sterling and valiant truth teller, seems to have made some statements and actions at odds with his unquestionably wonderful nature," Bush's supporters would have a more difficult time dismissing the criticism. If you start off from the point of view that the person is evil and unredeemable, its like giving them a free pass to do whatever they want. I think this is why shock and horror tend to accompany Democratic sleeziness and Republican sex scandals and not so much the other way around.
So, maybe we should be happy that the Europeans are privileging Hamas with an artificially high standard of behavior.
Posted by: Bart Motes | Oct 29, 2006 4:45:09 PM
I like to say that such an argument "collapses in on itself."
Posted by: Bev | Oct 28, 2006 10:49:42 PM
Re: 'some people can steadfastly refuse to adapt to reality.' I suppose that goes for the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and West Bank, for they persist in the crazy belief that they should be allowed to govern themselves, that their democratically elected govevernment should be given a chance to demonstrate its ability to govern, but the Israelis continue their siege of Gaza, dropping bombs that kill 'suspected militants' and civilians alike, systematically destroying the territory's infrastructure, giving the Palestinians a lesson in 'reality orientation.'
See B'Tselem: The Israeli Information Centre for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories: http://www.btselem.org/English/index.asp
and the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights:
http://www.pchrgaza.org/
and Amnesty International:
http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/israel_and_occupied_territories/summary.do
and the International Humanitarian Law Research Initiative: IHL in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory:
http://www.ihlresearch.org/opt/portalhome.php
Posted by: Patrick S. O'Donnell | Oct 28, 2006 5:15:28 PM
This is often referred to as the Epimenides paradox (Epimenides, of Crete, famously said that all cretians are liars). This is about as formal as I can imagine it gets.
Posted by: Steve | Oct 28, 2006 5:02:48 PM
To follow up on what Bruce says...
For those interested in knowing what the current Hamas leadership thinks about its relationship with the state of Israel, among other things, the following are more informative than quoting chapter and verse from the Hamas Charter:
Graham Usher, ‘The New Hamas: Between Resistance and Participation,’ Middle East Report, August 21, 2005.
Helena Cobban, ‘Hamas’s Diplomatic and Leadership Strategies Unfold,’ at ‘Just World News’ by Helena Cobban: http://justworldnews.org/archives/001737.html
Kim Murphy, ‘Hamas Victory is Built on Social Work,’ Los Angeles Times, March 2, 2006.
Hussein Agha and Robert Malley, ‘Hamas: The Perils of Power,’ The New York Review of Books, Vol. 53, No. 4, March 9, 2006.
Henry Siegman, ‘Hamas: The Last Chance for Peace?’, The New York Review of Books, Vol. 53, No. 7, April 27, 2006.
Scott Atran, ‘Is Hamas Ready to Deal?’, The New York Times, August 17, 2006.
Posted by: Patrick S. O'Donnell | Oct 27, 2006 6:35:39 PM
I don't know that there is a fallacy. It's been a while since I've done logic, but if I recall correctly, there's nothing obviously malformed in a statement such as "I am lying," which is why it's such a hard problem.
On the substance, I also don't think there's anything inherently contradictory in saying a group's charter does not reflect its true nature. For example, the old Soviet constitution had all sorts of guarantees of individual liberty in it, which were regularly observed only in the breach. It would not have been inherently ridiculous to say, "I don't think the essence of the Soviet Union is the protection of individual liberties." Of course, it may be ridiculous as a factual matter to say Hamas has gone all lovey-dovey, but that's a different issue.
Posted by: Bruce Boyden | Oct 27, 2006 6:07:31 PM
I don't know if it's a formal name or anything, but "self-referential incoherence" is the phrase thrown around by, e.g., Al Plantinga, who points out frequently how it plagues, e.g., empiricist criteria of meaning, or foundationalist criteria of justification or warrant.
Posted by: Chris | Oct 27, 2006 5:58:47 PM