The following is a chapter from the book
Kettle logic: Supporting a conclusion with contradictory arguments.
AKA: Logical Inconsistency, la logique du chaudron
- The kettle was not damaged when I returned it to you.
- Also, the kettle was already damaged when I borrowed it from you.
- In fact, I didn’t even borrow your kettle.
The kettle fallacy gets it’s name from a story of a man being confronted over damage to a kettle he had borrowed. He responds with the three statements, each of which would prove his innocence if true. However, the statements are mutually exclusive; if one is true, the others cannot be. How could he have returned the kettle undamaged if it was damaged when he borrowed it. How would he know the kettle was not damaged when returned it if he never borrowed it? The inconsistencies prove the man is lying about something.
While our kettle-borrower is clearly dishonest, it is still possible that he didn’t cause the damage. Maybe he panics upon being accused. Instead of calmly responding “you must be mistaken, I never borrowed your kettle,” he jumps into defense mode and rattles off excuses. Or perhaps Mr. Kettle-Borrower is protecting someone. Say he borrowed the kettle and his brother damaged it. He doesn’t want to incriminate his brother so he lies about the damage, even though he didn't do it himself.
Either way, it’s important to avoid the ever so tempting fallacy fallacy—assuming the use of a fallacy proves that a someone is entirely wrong, not just their argument. The Kettle logic only tells us that they’re lying about something, not that they're wrong about everything.
For example, take Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi. She received a $25,000 campaign donation from Donald Trump while her office reviewed complaints against him and Trump University. They ultimately declined to press charges. Since this appears wildly unethical, Bondi had to explain her actions. Here’s what a spokesperson for the office had to say:
While there was never an investigation, staff, doing due diligence, reviewed the complaints and the New York litigation and made the proper determination that the New York litigation would provide relief to aggrieved consumers nationwide.
Bondi herself commented as well:
...no one in my office ever opened an investigation on Trump University nor was there a basis for doing so. Any news story that suggests otherwise is completely false.
Let’s boil this down to two points:
- It it completely false to suggest there was any reason to investigate Trump University or Trump Institute.
- Aggrieved consumers can benefit from the New York Attorney General’s litigation.
These two points work against each other. If there are aggrieved customers, aggrieved to the point that they could benefit from litigation, that would indicate something happened that deserves to be investigated. If there is no reason to investigate, how could there be aggrieved customers that could benefit from a New York’s litigation?
Here are some quotes from the over 20 complaints by aggrieved customers the Florida AG received before declining to press charges:
- I received nothing...I think this is a big scam.
- We want a full refund of our $19,072. Trump Institute took our money.
- Scam operation.
- We’re being ripped off. And lost money
- Still owed sessions but have been given no direction
- I can’t see any value received from this package.
- I have yet to recover any of my investment or communication from them
- The company has deleted prior email correspondence
- The Trump Institute failed us
Maybe the complaints were enough evidence to require a state investigation, maybe they weren’t. But for Bondi to say there was no basis for an investigation and to call any suggestion to the contrary completely false is an absolute lie.
The kettle story this fallacy is named for comes from the book The Interpretation of Dreams by Sigmund Freud. He uses this line of thinking to illustrate the way logic is distorted in dreams. In other words, the twisted events of a dream make as much logical sense as the arguments of our own politicians. But enough about Freud; that perv thinks you want to screw your own parents. Instead, here’s a topic even more disturbing: Dick Cheney.
After the release of the Senate Intelligence Committee Report on CIA Torture, Cheney was interviewed by Bret Baier on Fox News about the CIA’s enhanced interrogation program. First we’ll look at some of Cheney’s answers and then we’ll toss them into the kettle.
Baier asked if President George W. Bush knew “the details” of the program, to which Cheney responds “I think he knew the, certainly the techniques. We did discuss the techniques...The notion that the committee is trying to pedal that somehow the agency was operating on a rogue basis and we weren’t being told or the president wasn’t being told is just a flat out lie.”
When Baier asks about “interrogators pureeing food of one detainee and then inserting it in his anus” Cheney responds “I don’t know anything about that specific instance, I can’t speak to that...That was not one of the authorized or approved techniques.”
When Baier asks about one detainee who died on the CIA’s watch, Cheney again responded that “I don’t know the specific details.”
Baier asked “about one detainee being chained to the ceiling of his cell, clothed in a diaper and forced to urinate and defecate on himself.” Cheney responded “I’ve never heard of such a thing.” He went on to say “the men and women of the CIA did exactly what we wanted to have them do in terms of taking on this program.”
Into the kettle they go:
- Bush and Cheney were informed about the techniques being used.
- Bush and Cheney were in control, the CIA was not “rogue.”
- Cheney doesn’t know about the forced sodomy with pureed food technique.
- The CIA was using techniques that were not authorized or approved.
- Cheney doesn’t know the details about the detainee who was killed.
- Cheney doesn’t know about the chaining a detainee to the ceiling technique.
- The CIA did exactly what Cheney wanted them to do
These statements cannot coexist as facts in the same universe. Even if you believe the torture was justified, or agree with any other part of Cheney’s stance, these comments contradict each other. They cannot all be true.
If Cheney is aware of the techniques being used, and the CIA did exactly what he wanted, then he must be aware of the puree anal-rape technique, or the chain a man to the ceiling until he defecates on himself technique. If not, then the CIA used these techniques without Cheney’s knowledge and were indeed “operating on a rogue basis”. If the CIA did exactly what Cheney wanted, and the CIA used techniques that were not authorized, then Cheney must have wanted them to use unauthorized techniques. We can’t tell which statements are false based on these contradictions alone, but we do know they can’t all be true.
If the rhythm of logic sounds familiar here, it could be that you’ve seen A Few Good Men a few too many times. Despite excellent performances by Tom Cruise, Jack Nicholson, and Demi Moore, the real star of the film is kettle logic. Oh and Kevin Bacon! Kevin Bacon is in it too.
In the climactic scene, Navy lawyer Lt. Daniel Kaffee (Cruise) calls Col. Nathan Jessup (Nicholson) to the witness stand. Jessup contends that he did not order the code red, an unofficial and violent punishment for marines that ultimately killed Private Santiago. Jessup claims the opposite, that he gave the order to leave Santiago alone. He also states (rather passionately) that his orders are always followed, and that he was even transferring Santiago off base for his own protection. Kaffee then points to the kettle logic in those statements:
Kaffe: If you gave an order that Santiago wasn't to be touched, and your orders are always followed, then why would Santiago be in danger? Why would it be necessary to transfer him off the base?
A visibly annoyed Jessup repeats some of his earlier claims, but Kaffee points out the contradictions.
Jessep: Santiago was a substandard Marine. He was being transferred because—
Kaffee: That is not what you said, you said he was being transferred because he was in grave danger.
Jessep: Sometimes men take matters into their own hands.
Kaffee: No, Sir. You made it clear a moment ago that your men never take matters into their own hands. Your men follow orders or people die. So Santiago shouldn't have been in any danger at all, should he have, Colonel?
Not only did this film use kettle logic as a major element in the conclusion, in a rare moment of accuracy for Hollywood it acknowledges the fallacy’s limitation. Kettle logic only proves Jessup is lying about something, not that he is guilty of the crime in question (ordering the code red.) To get a confession, Kaffee taunts Jessup about his kettle logic contradictions until anger builds and the now household lines are delivered:
Jessep: You want answers?
Kaffee: I want the truth.
Jessep: You can’t handle the truth!
Further heated courtroom banter ensues until Jessup becomes so enraged that he actually admits to the crime.
Kaffee: Did you order the code red?
Jessep: You’re goddamn right I did!
Soon after, realizing he just incriminated himself and holding Kaffee responsible, Jessep delivers another wonderful line:
Jessep: I am gonna rip the eyes out of your head and piss in your dead skull!
For some odd reason, this last line did not become a household phrase.
If you enjoyed this chapter, get the full book here!
