How to Win Every Argument: The Use and Abuse of Logic (2006)

112 How to Win Every Argument

Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice; what I tell you three times

is true.

(Whereas in fact if someone repeats the same thing three times it is

because he has nothing else to say.)

The point is that repetition adds nothing at all to the logic. It is

done in an attempt to persuade an audience, either by wearing

down their resistance, or by deceiving them into supposing that

objections have somehow been dealt with. Since they add

nothing, the extra versions are irrelevant to the consideration,

and fallaciously appeal to psychological factors rather than to

reason.

'Please sir, it wasn't me!'

'But this is your catapult, Smith Minor. '

'Please sir, it wasn't me!'

'And witnesses saw you pick up the stone. '

'Please sir, it wasn't me!'

(This could go on indefinitely, unless the heavy hand of an ad

baculum cuts it short. We can all spot that Smith Minor would have

done his case more good if he had been able to find anything else to

say. Would we spot it if he simply kept saying 'Socialism means rule

by the workers', however?)

Utterly discredited political credos, which adherents cling to
for other than intellectual reasons, are supported by the ad
nauseam fallacy. If an economic system brings general prosperity
and gives ordinary people access to the things which were once
the prerogative of the rich, it is quite difficult to make out a case
that this is exploitation. Fortunately, one does not have to. The
ad nauseam effect means that the charge can simply be repeated
over and over again without argument or evidence. Eventually,
some people will fall for it.