The Irish standard. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn. ;) 1886-1920, 1900-09-29
CLEyERLY EXPOSED BY A LOGlCIAN
M'Kinley Employed Some Very
Deceptive Sophistry.
AN IRISH REPUBLICAN DESERTS HIM
An Interesting Criticism by an
Eminent Physician.

In a letter to the Chicago Chronicle,
DIR. David J. Doherty skillfully uses
his scalpel on McIlinlcy's letter of ac.
ccptance and lays bare the many fall
lacies 1T contains in relation to his
Philippine policy. He says in whole:
Many heart-sore Republicans haa
waited for the presidents letter in tht.
hope that it would dispcl the clouds
of doubt which lower over ,nrl. ln..n.,
and obscure their cOnScienccs. AS one
of them have carefully read the let
ter -four times, have analyzed it's
statements, marshaled Its facts and
dressed Its arguments into syllogisms.
The result, l am sorry to say, is that
l am still outside the breastworks.
The whole trouble is with the Philip
pine question, which, whether para
mount or not, holds the chief place III
the letter.
Mr.. McKinlcy's letter contains a
number Of fallacies, which will be cas-.
lily apparent to any student of logic
who will take the trouble to write on,
his arguments in syllogistic form. He
is fond Of using the style of argument
called the dilemma, which Is very per
picking to an adversary and may ens
lily conceal II fallacy. quote several
instances, each of which Offends the
laws of logic by not being complete
or true dilemma. In his instruction to
the peace commission (Oct. 2S, 1S0S),
he says: I'VE must either hold the
islands or turn them back to Spain.''
Here the alternatives are not mutually
exclusive, because there is another
treat them as we have treated Cuba,
ana that is really the question which
the American people desire to have
answered, but the president dos not,
at least directly, refer to 1t.
Again, Mr.. McKinly propounds to
his advcrsaries II chain of questions
which lOgicians cali Il sortles. ThiS Is
nn instance of the fallacy plurimum
interrOgntiorium. 1t is Il multiple d.
lemmn, but not Il true one, because
all its terms do not cover the entire
truth. Ii was right to send Dewey's
fleet to Manila; it was right for the
feet to stay there; it was right to
send Merritt ITO strengthen Dewey
1t was right "tO protect the lives ana
property of those who came within our
control by the fortune of war;; 1t was
right mot to have come away before
the conclusion of peace" The presl-
dents political adversaries would have
done no less than these things, but
they would also have done more. 1t
would also have been right explicitly
to state to the Filipinos our purpose
to aid them in the establishment of an
independent government, as we did to
the Cubans. 10 throw the onus OH
congress by saying that congress
"did not see fit" to do certain things
does not relieve the republican ad-
ministration from responsibility, es-
the president uses pressure on men,
bers Of congress.
A third instance of Mr.. McKinley's
use Of the dilemma is the sentence,
"The American question is duty or
desertion." This is the fallacy Of the
ambiguous middle, because one term
contains two meanings. The word
'duty" includes the democratic plan
of an independent Filipino republic as
well as the presidents plan Of a Fill
pino colony under American sovereign.
ity. Many citizens think it higher
"duty" to recognize the natural rights
of people than paternally to nurse
that people.
The presidents statement, "When
nations make treaties they must keep
them," Is an example of the fallacy
called ignoratio elenchi, or irrelevant
conclusion. The statement is true as
to the principals to treaty. But we
made no treaty with the Filiplnos. We
even ignored their protests and ex- ;
cluded their representatives from the
proceedings preliminary to the treaty.
How can treaty with the Spaniards
excuse us from being just to the Fill
pinos? One might go farther and say
that the sanctity of treaty which In
wolves the rights of a protesting third
party is very questionable.