I remember my children asking me once, when they were very small, “dad, do you know why the sea is blue?” good grief! How could I explain to small children optical concepts I barely remembered? And so before my hesitation… both said at the same time “because the fish go blue blue”… followed by laughter.

If it is true that humans are profoundly curious, we also love simplicity. Imagine a supermarket where they sold explanations to life, which in one shelf would sell two products: one that promises to make us question and reflect upon to find our own solutions and next to this one that promises an easy life, if we follow the 7 habits or rules it proposes. Which one would you buy? I’ve got the impression that the majority would chose to follow rules.

The problem is that the advice we are given, the ones that promise a life of success, are not always useful. The majority of books, videos and self-help converences only achieve their author’s success. Why are they so successful? Why don’t they fulfill their promise?

Because they are full of what logic calls non-sequiturs. An argumentation whose conclusion is not consistent with its promises, whose conclusion can be true or false. But fake in and of itself, since there is a disconnection between premise and conclusion.

Generally speaking, the majority of bad arguments are varieties of non-sequiturs: they come to conclusions that don’t follow through.

The problem is that non-sequiturs are not only in self-help literature. They are also present in ancestral traditions, in the way parents educate their children, ideologies, in the ideas over which legal systems and public policy are built.

Rabbi Shmuley Boteach proved to be a brilliant exponent of NON-SEQUITURS at the debate that he participated in against Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett at the “La Ciudad de las Ideas” festival in the city of Puebla last November (you can see this debate on YouTube titled “debate en Puebla” or at www.ciudaddelasideas.com)

His surreal argumentation went something more or less like this: 1) Hitler, like other totalitarian dictators, perceived himself as atheist; 2) Totalitarian dictators have been genocidal; 3) “which is why” atheism leads to genocide.

Shmuley Boteach, nevertheless, doesn’t offer solid arguments as to why we should link Hitler and the beliefs he loathes. His argumentation is based on implying guilt by association: placing two things that don’t have an apparent connection, with the hope of one thing’s bad rep tainting the other.

The same trick can be applied to an astonishing quantity of beliefs and practices. Would love be bad if the devil would’ve loved? Would books be bad since “Mein Kampf” (‘My Struggle’ by Adolf Hitler) is a book? Should we avoid teaching history and geography since Pol Pot promoted them? Of course not.

The Nazis were very keen towards ecology, public manifestation, mandatory physical education and staying in shape. If you do not agree with any of these things, then mention Nazi politics next time you want to add an argumentative punch in your favor. And if a vegetarian bothers you while you eat your T-bone steak you can always challenge your critic reminding them that Hitler also avoided meat.

But, like there are bad arguments that base themselves on guilt by association, there are others just as dangerous that use “values by association.”

An example of this is Mario Cuomo, who being a public server exposed vehemently, before the Auditorium at the University of Notre Dame, that as a catholic he has the firm conviction of disapproving abortion. Nevertheless, given the fact that he also has the responsibility of being the representative of people with diverse respectable convictions and values, he should put the people he represent’s convictions above his own.

The problem with value by association is that it fails to prove what is really good or bad with the things it criticizes or defends. If the majority of the citizenship wants to annihilate those who have green eyes or exempt women into public office, should we all allow this, even when we think it is atrocious and we oppose it, just because the majority decided so?

Nothing is good nor bad simply because it has been touched by the hand of evil; or that a good cause enters into conflict because of any conviction. If someones sustains that something is wrong, why, instead of trying to make it seem wrong by association, not prove it so.

Let’s pay attention when argumentative conviction is defended under democratic pretexts or under associations for evil. Let’s pay attention in the arguments and not believe everything that is said since we can fall into a non-sequitur trap. Let’s bet on conviction, not arguments.

Published in Opinión y Análisis
El Universal
December 12th, 2009