The use of loaded “weasel-logic” to subtly promote a position or point-of-view is ubiquitous. I say "subtly" because this sort of reasoning tends to slide through the audience's "listening gates" in support of a hidden agenda of the writer/speaker. This oily offense occurs instances beyond number, and in every discipline, but the following are three examples of what I mean, where I cite police news releases (because you all have seen insidious clones of these examples):

1. "Police on scene say that a bag found at the murder site may have contained heroin."

2. "Investigators looking into the 60-car pile-up that occurred on the 401 say that weather contributed to the accident."

3. "Police say that speeding was a factor in the automobile accident."

Did you spot the offenses? Respectively, they are as follows:

1. The bag also may have contained cabbages, kings, or someone's lunch. After all, until it is examined carefully, an empty bag could have contained anything that would fit in it, or indeed, it may have contained nothing at all. It is pure police prejudice that puts heroin forward as the possible bag contents. This is quite different from a report that states, for example, "Traces of heroin were found in the bag".

2. The ambient weather either (a) never contributes to an accident, or (b) always contributes to an accident. To show what I mean, consider two accidents: (a) Accident A is a crash that occurs in the middle of a blinding snow storm, and (b) Accident B is one that occurs in the middle of a clear and sunny day. Which of these accidents does the weather contribute to? General opinion would say accident A, but is not weather equally a contributor to B? After all, in Accident B the crash vehicles were probably traveling much faster than the ones in A precisely because the day was clear and fair, and so, the weather was a contributing factor to accident B! The truth is that the conditions were simply the conditions, and the only responsible factors in the accident lie with driver and vehicle. Always.

3. This says nothing at all about the accident's causes, and is simply "police-speak" for "speeding is bad". Indeed, all that is required to draw down this annotation on the accident's cause is for at least one of the vehicles involved to have been exceeding the speed limit at or around the time of the accident. But in a moving-vehicle accident where none of the vehicles was speeding, could I not, with equal validity, claim that "not speeding was a cause of the accident"?

.... as I said, I hate the above sort of pseudo-reasoning, especially when used to promote Authority's agenda or prejudice.

We are urged (by editors) to use weasel-logic all the time in presenting research results. "Research suggests..." is much preferred to "Research finds..." I have always hated that. Now I know why - it's weasel-logic!

Indeed, although I do not know whether I would see your example as a clear instance of weasel logic. This is something we might discuss.

But once you start to look for it (to "zone in" on the matter, as 'twere) you may be surprised how frequently weasel logic occurs. Moreover, whenever you run across an instance, it is worthwhile looking closely at it to see if you can espy its motive. In my examples, the motivations behind 1 and 3 seem clear, but I am less certain of that for number 2.

Yes, I suppose your "contributed to" is similar to my "research suggests." However, I often wish they'd just cite what the research found. I think the "suggests" is weasely.

Hi Kalleh; To my mind it is never so much choice of diction that makes weasel-logic, but rather, the general misapplication of reason to assist the reader to a conclusion or direction that promotes an unstated (or hidden) agenda. So, in example 2, the whole notion that weather conditions are in any way involved in one accident, but not another, is specious! The weather is "equally involved" in all accidents, and responsibility is always 100% on driver and vehicle. The weather is an innocent! This needs a little reflection to grok, but there it is! In example 2, I do not clearly see what that agenda is - beyond, perhaps, a vague desire to generate a point of interest or to enlist sympathy, but this assigning blame for an accident to weather conditions is a very common argument!

Honestly - you don't think weather has any contribution to accidents? I don't think that's what you mean, but just in case - have you ever driven in blinding snow, which is on top of slippery ice? Is that the same as driving on dry pavement on a clear day? Where would one see more accidents? Hasn't the weather contributed?

No, not in the least.

You have missed my point, and God knows, it is easy to do. The weather is EITHER always an innocent, or always involved! It is not a question of the number of accidents, or whether dry pavement is the same as icy pavement! But whether the pavement is icy or dry are both simply a matter of weather. Thus weather is an innocent factor in both accidents that occur on dry pavement and those that occur on icy pavement. It is never true that weather is a factor in one accident, and not in the other!

The only "responsible" agent in either case is the driver (and his vehicle). True, most drivers are more competent driving on dry pavement than on icy pavement, but this is a comment on the driver (or the driving) and his tools, not on the weather! A subtle point, and easily overlooked.

Better pick another analogy, Kalleh; he's got you on this one!

Sorry, guys, but I just don't see it that way.

quote:

The only "responsible" agent in either case is the driver

Have you never been caught in a sudden rain squall or snowstorm which suddenly makes it impossible to see? if something is in your path and you can't see it in time to stop because of the weather, is it your fault?

Another thought, weather-related. Yesterday in Chicago a young woman riding a bicycle was killed by a tree branch which wind blew down. Was it her fault or the weather's?

Proof, you and I are on the same wavelength. My thoughts, exactly.

No! No! No!

Take either of your examples, Proofreader. The weather is an innocent; if you and your technology (the car and its bits and pieces, plus your ability to manage them) aren't good enough to handle this [admittedly severe] assault on them, then the fault and limitations lie with your abilities and your technology - and nothing else ! Else, think what you are saying; surely, it is not the weather's fault! What is less obvious, but equally true, is that the weather is not even a factor in the incident - or, at least, any more than it is in any other incident, even one where you and your vehicle are well up to managing it! After all, every incident occurs while the weather is there and doing something, if I might so word it!

The point is that you cannot logically pick and choose, incident by incident, to blame matters on the weather here, but not there, based on how well man and his machine can handle that particular weather. That is precisely the weasel logic that slips through the audience's "listening gates"! In short, the weather is either (a) never a factor, or (b) always a factor.

I did say this was subtle, but no less practical for all of that!

But I guess we've probably beaten this to death!

quote:

The point is that you cannot logically pick and choose, incident by incident, to blame matters on the weather here, but not there, based on how well man and his machine can handle that particular weather.

Why not? If the weather is bad or good is definitely a factor. What you can't do is ascribe definite cause to the weather; an accident could happen at any time regardless of the weather. The woman mentioned by Proof who was walking under the tree could have been clobbered by a falling branch at any time; it was however made more likely that the branch would fall by the windy weather.

quote:

After all, every incident occurs while the weather is there and doing something, if I might so word it!

The people and cars are doing something, too.

Perhaps you're trying to say we can't control the weather, but we can control ourselves and to a lesser extent our cars (sometimes things happen, like a blown tire, that you have no control over). Still, even if I can't control the weather, it certainly is a factor (or variable, if you will) in the accident, say, of that woman.

You miss the point. The weather is present in EVERY accident, and in effect, it is only the prejudice or bias of the observer that chooses when to jump in and assign it blame in any particular accident. Why don't you assign it blame in the other accidents as well? After all, the weather was present (and influencing things) in all of them! Look at my original example and consider it carefully!

Anyway, we are traveling in ever-diminishing circles, and I give up, totally defeated!

I agree that using an all-embracing term like weather can be misleading if the type of weather isn't described or implied (wet, stormy, foggy, snowy, etc.).

Sorry, but your premise is not logical. Certainly weather is always present but it varies from day to day and place to place. It is unpredictable and random events of weather can have catastrophic results regardless of how thoroughly we prepare for possible calamities. The most careful and experienced driver can slide off a road if he hits a patch of black ice, since that ice is often invisible. Is that the driver's fault, or the weather's? if a burst of hail breaks the windshield while I'm on a highway and, because I can't see, I hit the person in front of me, is it my fault or the weather's? If rain washes out the road and I drive into a gully, is it my fault or the weather's? If the rain washes out the road and I see the possibility that it's too deep to negotiate but try anyway, who would be at fault? Not the weather.

quote:

Certainly weather is always present but it varies from day to day and place to place.

But the decision whether it is a factor or not, in any particular accident, is entirely subject to the bias of the observer, for the weather, whatever it be, local or otherwise, is present at and exerting its influence on every outdoor activity, and in particular, on every accident! That an observer chooses in one place (eg, it is foggy, icy, dark, windy or snowy) to blame the accident on it, and another (eg, it is sunny, clear and you can see for miles) not to, is a comment only on the observer and his expectancies.

BTW, not every driver who hits invisible black ice slides off the road. Some of them do, and others do not, even under more-or-less identical conditions. That a driver can slide off the road where he doesn't, in fact, do so, probably has something to do with the skill of the driver. This is an aside, not at all germane to the discussion, but, as you brought it up, I couldn't resist commenting on it.

Also, thank you for the "sorry", for it is due! My premise is that the weather is present (and so, exerting its influence) at every accident. This is surely not open to discussion. I suggest that it is my conclusion that you are [incorrectly] raising an objection to.

Anyway, as I said, I have shot my bolt, and know not how to state matters any clearer. Maybe the penny will some day drop, maybe not, but I feel that I am beating a dead horse. Ergo, I have little more to add.

Cheerio.

quote:

BTW, not every driver who hits invisible black ice slides off the road.

If they don't, they're just lucky. You cannot control what happens when you're on black ice. If it's regular ice, you can take action and plan for it, but not black ice.

You probably dislike this cliche, too, because many do - but on this one we'll have to agree to disagree. For example, when you say "weather is always present," so is the car and the driver.

quote:

is a comment only on the observer and his expectancies.

That's ridiculous. If a weather event, such as hail, fog, a falling branch, or some other unavoidable mishap occurs, it cannot possibly be the fault of the person acted upon. If a hail stone pierces my windshield and hits me, causing me to hit something else, how can I be blamed? No one is prescient and able to foresee such an event. The only time you can be faulted is if you intentionally place yourself in a position where it's almost inevitable you'll suffer some injury, such as playing outside in a thunderstorm.

Sigh! I’ll give this one last shot!

To recap, we are talking of an accident that occurs outside somewhere on a road, with a car and its driver. My claim is that the weather is neutral, and it is only the observer that decides that it was a “factor” in one car accident, but not in another! After all, the weather was there and exerting its influence - whatever it be - in both accidents!

Look at my original example accidents:

(a) One that occurs in the middle of a blinding snowstorm
(b) One that occurs in the middle of a clear summer day

The weather conditions are a part of (or “are a factor in”, or “an influence on”) both accidents. After all, the car in accident (a) was very probably driving slowly, with the driver peering intently out and sweating. Why? Because of the weather conditions! The driver in accident (b) was probably driving relatively quickly, and was relaxed and probably not paying the same rapt attention. Why? Because of the weather conditions! The details of how the weather influenced matters are mere speculation, and unimportant to the issue at hand.

What is important is that the weather is there and exerting its influence on both accidents! It is only the bias of the observer that ignores the weather’s being a factor in accident (b), and decides that it is a factor in (a). This is not a matter of whether we agree (or “agree to disagree”)'; it is quite simply a matter of fact! I have no idea why this should prove so difficult a concept, but perhaps this is simply a reflection on my inability to explain. At any rate, as mentioned, I have shot my bolt and have reached point non-plus!

Cheerio.

WW, you can't quite now. I think you have to define what you mean by "accident" since there are at least five different meanings to the term. One is an event which cannot be predicted or planned for, which could be caused by some weather condition, as I explained earlier.

quote:

I have no idea why this should prove so difficult a concept,

Perhaps because your mind is made up that you are right? I think we are all coming from different perspectives. I did like Proof's example, though, about the hail stone piercing the windshield. That could hardly be the fault of the driver or the car.