Forgive me for any errors in my fallacy identification, feel free to PM me with corrections or suggestions. My intention is to explain to PA lurkers reading Carl's post lacks substance in the face of evidence and why.
Carl Baxter said:
Can it be said that belief in the purpose of Publish America is nothing more than a blind commitment of the will?
Logical Fallacy: Red Herring
Who actually stated that PublishAmerica is nothing more than a blind commitement to will? It is not part of the "Great Debate", nor has it been part of the NEPAT thread. While some here at AW and other websites have likened PA to a cult, the references are to the seemingly blind defense of the organization in spite of unflattering evidence. Carl has chosen very emotive wording to sway the reader, but the "detractors" of PA never actually made this claim, but Carl wants you to think they did.
Are more than 17,000 writers wrong?
Logical Fallacy: Ad Populum (Appeal to Popularity)
The idea that a large group of individuals cannot be mistaken in their thinking has been disproven many times. This argument is legion when discussing religion and the existince of god. Numerical superiority is not equivelent to correctness. Carl also takes the liberty in presuming that all 17,000 authors support his argument. They most certainly do not, if the folks at AW are representative.
The denial of PA as being good for authors of the world has less to do with facts and more to do with the bent of what a person is prejudiced to conclude. It is not the absence of evidence, but rather the suppression of it.
Logical Fallacy: Ad Hominem or Poisoning the Well
Carl chooses to attack PA detractors by presuming they're prejudiced. This apparently alleviates his burden of responsibility in showing that PA's detractors are in fact incorrect. While a detractor might be biased in their opinion of PA, this does not eliminate the facts of the detractors claim. Carl hopes you'll forget about the publication and discussion of these facts by prejudicing the reader. The fact that some of the detractors are prejudiced is irrelvant in the debate.
Of all the enterprises in which the human heart engages, none but religion lends itself more to abuse and manipulation than the activity of writing for publication—acceptance—validation.
How succinct. I am personally inclined to agree with this statement. However, it comes across as an "Appeal to Emotion", implying indirectly
that PublishAmerica equates with acceptance and validation. Herein
lies the heart of the dilemna and debate. If PublishAmerica indeed accepts
anything within the day's quota, are the feelings of acceptance and
validation, valid? Carl makes no attempt to elucidate his rationale here.
Publish America antagonists cannot control their rage demanding a sign that PA justify its business model but to PA’s credit rabid zealots are countered with quiet solitude.
Logical Fallacy: "Poisoning the Well" or Ad Hominem
Appeal to Ridicule
Red Herring
Appeal to Spite
Carl uses emotionally manipulative and derisive words to make PA detractors look bad. This technique is used in absence of an actual logical argument. By ridiculing his opponents, Carl hopes to invalidate their claims. As opposed to actually presenting evidence to do the job. Carl also mentions opponents desire to "justify its business model" which is neither part of the ongoing debate, nor has been mentioned by any of the known PA opponents. Carl is trying to divert your attention away from the real debate, and that is identifying whether or not PA can rightfully claim to be a "traditional publisher, that is not in any way a POD or vanity press." Furthermore, we ask if PA's business model is based on getting authors to buy their own books.
I think those questioning Publish America’s right to run their business as they see fit seem to retain selective sovereignty over what they allow as the purest method of publishing and what is not, an exercise in allegorical interpretation—believing in what one wishes, not what is.
This might be another "Red Herring", and another backhanded Ad Hominem for good measure. I'm not sure where "selective sovereignty" comes into the picture or who Carl is even referring to at this point.
This might also be the classic "Straw Man" fallacy, because PA detractors have in fact, made similar claims. Carl has turned that argument around by phrasing it using his own words, then attacking it. The difference here is that the detractors present evidence to support their claims, Carl does not.
I don’t care for the anti-PA published authors; they have their reward. I care for the unpublished, whom are merely pawns in a fruitless struggle. What a remarkable illustration of self-inflicted poverty, knowing it possible to hold one’s life quest, bound in hand, but opting instead for the wrapping.
Carl is an excellent emotive writer, but there is no meaning behind his words. Who are the unpublished pawns and who is using them? I presume that Carl is referring to the big publishing houses and people like Jim McDonald, but who knows? Who is illustrating self-inflicted poverty and what does it have to do specifically with the debate being held? This strikes me as "Appeal to Fear", implying the PublishAmerica is the only hope for the outright survival of would-be authors. This may be the greatest fallacy of them all. The entire purpose of NEPAT is to warn these same individuals that PA is a threat to their financial wellbeing through their misleading website and emails encouraging their authors to buy large quantities of their own books, at inflated prices, that cannot be reasonably sold to the trade market. Additionally, PublishAmerica encourages its authors to spend money on promotions, which are likely to fail due to the problems we've outlined many times in NEPAT and through other venues.
PublishAmerica's books that are priced outside the market. The books are poorly discounted, poorly edited, poorly designed and not available in most bookstores. When you weigh these factors together, you cannot justify authors spending their money on lavish promotions or buying batches of their own books for resale. This is the heart of our argument and Carl has not offered any refutation of these statements.
PS: The existence of logical fallacies does not mean that Carl is wrong.
However, it does demonstrate that he has not presented an
argument that can be validated or debated. He may well be
correct, but he needs to present us with concrete facts and
he may well do so at a later time.
Regards,
Mike
