“Anthony Fauci's Darkest Hours”

Good evening, I'm Professor Reid, and this is ReFrame. Tonight... ZeroHedge reports: Anthony Fauci's Darkest Hours. ZeroHedge reported this on October 24. The headline: Anthony Fauci's Darkest Hours. “Out, damned spot! Out, I say!” said Lady Macbeth as she paced in a hallucinatory state, reliving in her subconscious the murders she helped plan. Let's grade the headline. We ask four questions of every argument. Is it valid? If the reasons are true... must the conclusion be true? Is it cogent? Are the reasons believable... and do they make it likely? Is it supported? Does the article actually show the evidence? And is it fallacy-free? Does it avoid reasoning tricks... like attacking the person? Argument one. It comes from Jeffrey A. Tucker (Brownstone Institute), via ZeroHedge. The reasons. Reason one. Confidence that the virus was a lab creation was growing, and that 'points directly to Fauci.' Reason two. Fauci first hoped the virus would disappear into a bad flu season; after a sequence was posted, he 'launched plan B' to deny a lab leak and prepare nationwide inoculation. Reason three. The scheme was to keep population immunity as low as possible through lockdowns until shots were ready, because he 'knew for certain' the virus would mutate rapidly. Therefore... Fauci knowingly ran a cover-up: suppress natural immunity, deny a lab origin, and vaccinate the country to make his responsibility go away. Let's put argument one on the board. P stands for its reasons, all together. C is the conclusion. Here's every combination of true and false. Row two. The reasons are true... but the conclusion is false. Nothing in the reasons rules that out. That's a counterexample. One is enough. The argument is invalid. To make it valid, you'd need a missing link. If P... then C. Now, whenever both premises are true, C is true. No counterexample. Valid. But valid doesn't mean true. Someone still has to show that link is true. Is it valid? No. The reasons could all be true and the conclusion still false. Is it cogent? No. The reasons don't make the conclusion likely. Is it supported? No. The article doesn't show the evidence. Any fallacies? Yes. One: non sequitur. That's a D. The fallacy in argument one... non sequitur. Here's the line. Quote... Confidence that the virus was a lab creation was growing. That points directly to Fauci. What is non sequitur? A conclusion that does not follow from the reasons given. Why does it fail here? A rising belief about viral origin does not identify a culprit. The text inserts no premise tying Fauci to creation or concealment, then treats the leap as obvious. Why D? Put plainly, and kindly: the conclusion reaches further than the reasons can carry; the article doesn't show the evidence for it, and non sequitur stands in for the missing steps. A more modest claim would earn a better grade. 'Points directly' is a spotlight, not a proof. Literary certainty is not a premise. Argument two. It comes from Jeffrey A. Tucker (Brownstone Institute), via ZeroHedge; Biden's warning is relayed, then adopted as a foil. The reasons. Reason one. The shots were 'not working,' not stopping infection or spread; Delta 'disabled their protection.' Reason two. Omicron was the fastest-spreading and least virulent strain and functioned as 'a form of inoculation itself.' Reason three. Biden warned of 'a winter of severe illness and death for the unvaccinated' while saying the vaccinated and boosted were 'protected from severe illness and death,' even as 'evidence poured in' of 'no protection whatsoever.' Therefore... Officials knowingly issued false, terrifying warnings to maximize shot coverage, because the injections provided no protection at all. Is it valid? No. The reasons could all be true and the conclusion still false. Is it cogent? No. The reasons don't make the conclusion likely. Is it supported? Partly. Some of it is shown. Some is only asserted. Any fallacies? Yes. One: hasty generalization. That's a D. The fallacy in argument two... hasty generalization. Here's the line. Quote... even as evidence poured in that these injections provided no protection whatsoever What is hasty generalization? Drawing a broad conclusion from too few cases. Why does it fail here? Incomplete protection against infection is inflated into zero protection of any kind. The text never shows the evidence, and it erases the very distinction Biden's quoted claim was about: severe illness and death, not sterilizing immunity. Why D? Credit where it is earned: Biden's warning is quoted, not ventriloquized, and it is a checkable public claim. Put plainly, and kindly: the conclusion reaches further than the reasons can carry; only some of it is shown, and hasty generalization stands in for the missing steps. A more modest claim would earn a better grade. A partial observation is not a universal. Argument three. It comes from Jeffrey A. Tucker (Brownstone Institute), via ZeroHedge. The reasons. Reason one. Fauci became obsessed with avoiding Covid, panicked in crowds, and cancelled dinners and meetings. Reason two. He 'knew' the virus was lab-created and that the shots would not protect him, and those facts 'began to eat at him.' Reason three. He later took the Fifth repeatedly, wrapped himself in fame, and was pushed out as a liability. Therefore... His germaphobia, denial, and silence are the psychological residue of guilty knowledge; the 'spot' of what he did never washed off. Is it valid? No. The reasons could all be true and the conclusion still false. Is it cogent? No. The reasons don't make the conclusion likely. Is it supported? No. The article doesn't show the evidence. Any fallacies? Yes. Two: begging the question, and argument from ignorance. That's an F. The first fallacy in argument three... begging the question. Here's the line. Quote... Thinking through why, consider that he knew that this virus was created in a lab and he knew that the shots would not protect against it. What is begging the question? Assuming the very thing you are trying to prove. Why does it fail here? The diagnosis assumes the secret knowledge it is supposed to establish. Ordinary caution explains avoiding infection just as well; the Macbeth reading is scenery, not evidence. The second fallacy in argument three... argument from ignorance. Here's the line. Quote... His last public appearance consisted of 110 invocations of his right to remain silent under the 5th Amendment. What is argument from ignorance? Treating a lack of proof as if it were proof. Why does it fail here? Silence is staged as the stain that will not come out, as if refusing to speak confirms the scheme. Non-testimony is not positive proof of the acts alleged. Why F? Put plainly, and kindly: the conclusion reaches further than the reasons can carry; the article doesn't show the evidence for it, and begging the question and argument from ignorance stand in for the missing steps. A more modest claim would earn a better grade. Avoiding a virus does not entail guilty knowledge of its origin, and assuming that knowledge to explain the avoidance is circular. Fame, fear, and the Fifth are atmosphere; they are not a confession. Now, the whole scorecard. Valid: 0 percent. Cogent: 0 percent. Conclusion supported: 17 percent. Fallacy-free: 20 percent. Four fallacies... twenty points each. Overall... a D. In one line: Macbeth gets the monologue; the diaries never make the record. Three arguments. Zero valid. Zero cogent. None fully supported. Four fallacies. Don't just read the news. ReFrame it.