A lecture given in 3-24-07 by my mentor

Dr. Robert J. Berman Ph.D., Associate Professor of Philosophy, retired, California University of
Pennsylvania

PROPAGANDA: IS IT GOOD OR BAD?

How many of you think propaganda is bad? How many think it is good? My answer is yes. It is both
useful and dangerous. I am fascinated by the number of invalid arguments I hear all the time at many of
the meetings I go to including this one, the ones I read in the newspapers or hear on the radio, TV, and
even in private conversations. I am even shocked and ashamed when I think of how often I use it to win
arguments myself. What I hope to do tonight is to give you some of the ideas I have been working on
for a phenomenology of belief systems as a part of a larger phenomenology of reality which I will not
go into. I want to examine rhetorical arguments and informal logic which are part of the paradigms of
the so-called collective wisdom that creates a culture, a society, a country and even the minds of people
universally. I want to talk about a viewpoint, a world viewpoint from the German word
Weltanschauung, which usually is established by what in German is called Zeitgeist, the moral and
cultural climate of any given era.

Let's begin with a definition from the dictionary:

paradigm: an example, pattern, expressing and outstandingly clear or typical example or archtype.
Philosophically it is a theoretical framework of a scientific school or discipline within which theories,
laws and generalizations and the experiments performed in support of them are formulated.

Now I want to broaden the definition to include the intellectual milieu of any given era in all aspects of
society and culture so that everyone in any field, not just science, follows the historical truisms
established and works within its parameters. Many in any field of science have come to the same ideas
or conclusions at the same time. We say the “the time was ripe” for the change. Paradigms change with
new evidence, discoveries, but also social patterns and fads and fashions that help establish a society
and how it works.

Weltanschauung: is a worldview or an attitude that is established from the paradigm and guides us in
our choices of the economic, social, political, scientific and philosophical attitudes and beliefs already
given in a cultural group, from a small group as the family or tribe to whole nations, great religions and
in some cases the whole human race .But within,, or really as a result of the weltanschauung we have
the zeitgeist which I said is the general intellectual, moral and cultural climate of of a whole era. And
the general thesis tonight is that propaganda is a tool used to establish the paradigm from which the
Weltanschuuang and Zeitgeist are derived. It is a tool that uses informal logic and rhetoric and
sometimes professes to be common sense, but is actually a misuse of logic and full of fallacious
arguments. These occur when the conclusions of an argument do not follow from the premises, or the
premises are mere opinions, or prejudices, emotional responses and cannot be verified by any ordinary
empirical evidence in experience, never mind scientifically. Sometimes it is done on purpose like the
Nazi and Communist propaganda for political goals as Machiavellian lies of the government. Yet,
propaganda, most of the time, is merely a result of illogical, emotional, fallacious thinking.
A fallacy is defined by the dictionary as guile, trickery, deception which can be applied to the
purposeful misdirection of the evil and hurtful propaganda of extremist regimes, but in our everyday
life it merely means a false or mistaken idea that has been popular despite its erroneous character. the
danger is that an often plausible argument uses false or invalid inference and thus causes an atmosphere

1
of distrust, intolerance and even the extremes of hatred, bigotry, persecution and war.
Yet,Propaganda can be useful when it promotes some ideal goal for the benefit of all of us for
successful living, progressive purposes, to foster freedom, morality or joyful living. However it can be
detrimental when it's purpose is to use people for one's own ends or purposes, to con them, seduce
them, control 1 them and their actions, keep them from thinking rationally or just thinking for
themselves and thus restricts their freedom, even without physical restraints.

. We find propaganda in political party lines, brainwashing with the purpose of keeping the masses in
check to prevent revolution, to establish social, religious and political norms and prevent anarchy and
chaos. It can also be used to promote worthwhile and useful projects such as safety, health and
progress. I would prefer to use the terms valid or invalid because I can't define true and false
absolutely. Propaganda can be confusing, unfair, and dangerous. Of course we are all familiar with its
uses in advertising, war, politics etc. But I want to broaden the definition to include all arguments that
are inherently illogical, and can many times be so subtle or so complicated that we just accept them and
go on about our business. But this is a a mistake. There are many social, religious and political
shibboleths that are so totally imbedded in us from childhood that we take them for granted and accept
them as self-evident. There are modes of thinking in every generation that are accepted by everyone in
the group as self-evident and though this paradigm changes in details for one era or carried on to the
next, there are many that are just remain in our psyches by our mores, folkways and even DNA, i.e., or
the stereotypes and myths that Jung and Campbell described. But there are also the pronouncements of
our parents, teachers, clergyman, politicians and philosophers and even scientists who pride themselves
on their so-called objectivity. I think we should always be skeptical of any so-called expert in one field
who give us pronouncements in some other field where they are not experts. Nevertheless we are filled
with folk wisdom from birth on with aphorisms, platitudes and cliches. These too are propaganda, some
good and some bad.

Some examples. Philosophers and theologians accept the idea that there is a meaning and purpose to
life and we need only to discover it.. Many of us have been taught by our parents we must not have sex
before marriage, or that it is dirty, or that marijuana use necessarily leads us to harder drugs. Teachers,
particularly college professors, talk about multiculturalism, as if all cultures are equal, or political
correctness instead of promoting academic freedom. Theologians bend over backwards in their
rationalizations to prove the existence of God and the and the truth of the Bible, never mind sin, heaven
or hell. Lawyers proclaim we have a justice system when what we really have is merely a legal system
where justice sometimes does and sometimes does not occur. We are all familiar with propagandist
political pronouncements but the one that gets me the most was the law passed in the early 19thth
century that black people are only 3/5 of a human being thus it is okay to enslave them. Dentists are
always telling us to brush and floss so we won't have periodontal disease. This is true. However, many
of us get the disease by carrying the gene for it whether we floss or not. Doctors have many good
suggestions for maintaining health but we still get ill even following their advice. The government,
since the Surgeon General back in the 1960's showed that smoking is bad for our health, has been
propagandizing us to quit smoking with a great deal of success. Historians proclaim that history is an
accurate account of the past when it is only a partial and an inaccurate account, prejudicial at that,
because there is more left out than is put in and the historian himself determines what to put in and
leave out. Dietitians keep changing what we ought to eat and not eat and rearrange the food pyramid. It
becomes very confusing as the fads come and go. Even the scientists proclaim that there is law of
nature or theory of everything which we will discover when we find all the small laws of nature and put

2
them together in a unified theory. And and so on for any field of knowledge or profession. You notice
that these are mostly useful pronouncements, but propaganda they are. .

Paradigms are like fashions, fads, trends and pop culture. They used to change very slowly over
hundreds of years but since the Enlightenment and the freeing of humans to use their rationality to
think, the process of change takes fewer and fewer years. More recently it seems to take only decades
to change. Think of the self-help movement and new age ideas of the 1960s and the 1970s and even
into the 80s. Think of the changes in fads such as diet's, ideas of beauty, clothing, slang, music,
entertainment, movies and TV. All of these influence our accepted norms as much or maybe more so
than even religion and philosophy. Our holidays, even religious ones, go back to early pagan religions
and some of the myths that we find universally amongst different cultures stem from early practices
and rituals, and myths were the earliest modes of propaganda.

I think propaganda may be necessary for good child-rearing, but can be very dangerous if not checked
and countered by reason. I myself prefer treating children like adults when it is safe to do so, in order
that they can learn to think for themselves and choose for themselves. We so often fall into the traps of
stereotyping people by generalizations of culture and races. Propaganda is useful and necessary for
child rearing and many of the fallacies are very harmless. For example, when Mama tells us to not
make a distorted face or it will freeze that way or the hundreds of other momisms in our memory
consciousness, or the myths of Santa Claus, the tooth fairy and other childhood fairy tales that teach
children how to be civilized and lead a productive life. However, I think they can be counterproductive
to making us adults particularly when sin and guilt and childhood myths persist. Propaganda of this
type can also produce robots, slaves, bigots and terrorists. The indoctrination of superstitions and
irrational myths can and have caused pain, harm, war and persecution. Irrationality caused by
emotional and superstitious indoctrination impedes progress, destroys freedom and dehumanizes the
human condition. We are are loathe to give them up, even the antiquated ritualistic practices, mystical
beliefs and even such mundane traditions as so-called proper dress and decorum.

The term propaganda first appeared in 1622 when Pope Gregory XV established the Sacred
Congregation for Propagating the Faith. Propaganda was then as now about convincing numbers of
people about the veracity of a given set of ideas. But propaganda is as old as people, politics and
religion. People with ideas will always want to persuade others about them and , they will pull every
string and use their power to persuade them. Propaganda has flourished throughout history.

The purpose of dangerous propaganda is to control us by brainwashing us into beliefs when they are
irrational, illogical and sometimes even fascistic. Nevertheless,despite this progress has been made
throughout history since the paradigms do change and evolve and no matter how much propaganda is
thrown at us. Some of us will resist it and eventually others will follow and a new paradigm is
established. For practical purposes, certain principles need to be followed in order to have a safe
upbringing, a stable society and a law-abiding populace or civilization would disappear. But, I am
proposing that we need to examine and re-examine the bombardment of propaganda in our lives and
use our reason to stave off the unnecessary and harmful aspects while embracing those that promote
human health, prosperity and social welfare.

We need to know how propaganda works, especially the dangerous kind. It hides itself in a logical
form that seems to be valid but in which, as I said, the conclusions do not follow logically from the
premises, or the premises are not factual in the first place, or the conclusions are already assumed in the
premises and are merely an argument in a circle. We need to examine what logic is, make the

3
distinctions between formal logic, and informal logic that uses rhetorical arguments. Rhetoric is the art
and science of winning arguments, and being in the form of an informal logic it is where the root of
propaganda lies. And in recognizing them we can at least avoid the pitfalls in our own thinking. But
why not let people be comforted or consoled by them? Because it causes pain, suffering, and hurt and
even the death of others. Rhetoric, the art of winning arguments was practiced by the Sophists in the
days of Socrates and Plato. It is a technique to help us be successful in our business and professions. It
is interesting that the Socratic method itself, and the dialectic of questions and answers which is known
as the Socratic irony of his knowing the answers to his questions before hand. And getting the listener
to answer his questions and give the answers that Socrates wants him to have. It is Socrates' already
chosen viewpoint. Actually, I think Socrates was the master propagandist. He got people to think, but
always to conform to his own beliefs, not getting them to think for themselves. Today we find Sophists
everywhere and their main technique is propaganda.

The difference between formal logic and informal logic will become clear with a few examples. Going
back to the dictionary, logic is defined 1. as the science that investigates the principles governing
correct or reliable inference, 2. also a particular method of reasoning or argumentation, or 3. reason or
social judgment as in utterances or actions. The first definition pertains to formal logic, the second is
rhetoric, but the third is the basis of propaganda. Formal logic has two types, the Aristotelian syllogism
which served us well some 2300 years until the discovery of mathematical logic defined as the logical
syntax of language {or calculus} in the late 19th and early 20th century. Syllogisms are arguments
usually formed by two premises and a conclusion, three statements so that the third follows or is
inferred by the first two. The statements are of three kinds, a class composed of the universal, usually
beginning with the word “all”, the singular, starting with a person or thing like “Socrates”, “ a dog”, “a
man”, or the third, a particular starting with the word “some”. There are 256 combinations of such
statements but only 15 valid ones. By valid I mean the conclusions logically follow from the premises.
The following is an example of a valid a syllogism:

All men are animals

Socrates is a man

Socrates is an animal
But look what can happen when the premises do not give us a logical answer, but still are following the
same syllogistic form. This can happen even when both premises are true.

All men are animals

All women are animals

All men are women

The point here is that even when the syllogism is in a valid form it says nothing about the truth or
existence of what the premise or conclusion claims, but only that they are in a valid form. It gives us
nothing that we did not already know. Good rhetoric uses the 15 valid forms and bad rhetoric, not only
does not do so, but uses factors other than logic in its arguments. I will skip the axiomatic formulations
of symbolic logic which is also known as the logical syntax of language as they are usually the methods
of science and philosophy which are not our concern tonight. And one final point about formal logic is
that that it gives us only tautologies, which are arguments that define things or propositions in terms of

4
themselves. It is not a matter of semantics or usage, but rather the logical structure itself that demands
that the conclusion follow by a valid inference from the premise or premises.

How does this differ from informal logic or propaganda? Informal logic usually is based on empirical
experience and observation and makes conclusions by testing them in real life experience for their
veracity or truth. Good rhetoric and good propaganda do this, while bad propaganda as I said, appeals
to the irrational. The bad propaganda, I repeat, appeals to the emotions from hatred to love, beliefs,
credos, mores, folkways, traditions, prejudices and myths,and it can even result in mass hysteria or
mass hypnosis. These are traps that the most aware of us can fall into from time to time. 4
5

Informal logic is not just a theoretical alternative to formal logic. It is an attempt to develop a logic that
can analyze and assess the informal reasoning that occurs in natural language contexts in all the areas
I've mentioned. It broke away from formal logic because philosophers wanted to analyze common
language fallacies that formal logic cannot because the latter is restricted to form not experience or
facts.
The word propaganda was first used by Pope Gregory XV in 1622 when he established the Sacred
Congregation for Propagating the Faith. Its purpose was to convince people of the veracity about a
given set of ideas about their faith. It was also used by reformers who wanted to change the tenets of
their faith. The methods used by the dictatorships of the 20th century and of today, as well as
democracies, include the well known flag-waving, appealing to glittering generalities such as “the war
to end all wars”, “ fight them over there so we won't have to fight them here”, the old mom and apple
pie patriotism, all the feel good momisms, “my country right or wrong”etc. It entails intentional
vagueness, oversimplification of complex issues such as “family values”, “the American Dream” and
outright rationalizations. It further introduces unrelated red-herring issues such as lumping together
liberalism, socialism and communism in one pile and conservatism, reactionary and fascist in another.
Simple slogans that do not accurately describe a position, for instance, the use of pro-life or pro- choice
instead of what they really mean, which is pro-abortion or anti-antiabortion, the stereotyping of people
and even worse worshiping the pronouncements of celebrities or experts in one field when they are
pontificating views outside of their field of experise. Albert Einstein has been so misquoted and
misinterpreted on his views on religion. For him it was Zionism, not the Jewish religion. When it
comes to physics and mathematics I uphold his authority until other scientists disprove him. But on
religion he is no philosopher or theologian and requires no more respect than any other layman. Other
techniques used are the familiar ads that use sex and partying, the subtle use of unstated assumptions
are rampant. But one of the worst these days is the technique of “jump on the bandwagon” or else be
labeled a traitor, a subversive or a sympathizer and abetter of the enemy. At the least ,one is labeled
anti-social , and at the most, labeled a psychopath when one does not follow the crowd in accepting the
Zeitgeist of the group.

The word propaganda comes from the Latin verb “propagare” meaning to propagate , to extend, to
spread. It is certainly essential in war but is equally essential when used for progressive and moral
goals. Governments always use it as Machiavelli instructed and corporations are always conscious of
their image, pushing their brand name and logo and doing things like charity in the community to keep
a positive image. It has been used successfully in anti-smoking campaigns, responsible drinking and
with some but much less success in anti-drug campaigns. This is all well and good, but when it is
purposefully and intentionally disseminating false and misleading information for the benefit of some

5
special interest group it is dangerous to freedom. Cults and anti-cults use it and it is certainly what I call
“brainwashing”, i.e., psychological warfare. Ostracization is the least of its consequences and
persecution its worst. Today the media, and the new kid on the block the blogs on the Internet, spread
many dangerous and erroneous untruths. Even art can and has been used for propaganda. The Soviet
and other communistic dictatorships come to mind immediately. But rebels and iconoclasts in this
country have used art, poetry and writing, from beatnik philosophy to putting a cross in urine. Yet, all
of these are an attempt at gaining credibility for one's own opinions or beliefs. The radio transmissions
of the cold war helped to destroy the Soviet communist regime, but the truth is the arms race by which
we bankrupted them was the real cause of their downfall.
My biggest concern is in education of our children which is rooted in developmental psychology.
Children absorb propaganda indiscriminately and the environment and processes used to develop their
cognitive abilities and understanding must be open, many faceted , and free. We must fight to not allow
prejudices, bigotry or religious one sidedness enter our public school curriculums. There is also the6
element of peer pressures,the dumbing down of the intellect as being “cool”. But if we were to teach
critical thinking in schools even as young as Junior High schools as well as High Schools and College,
rather than indoctrination by authority, we would have a better prepared electorate to keep our
republican form of democracy alive. In the current milieu of mass propaganda that reduces us to stupid
robotic consumers, perhaps we should make it mandatory for adults as well.
Let's look at some of the most flagrant fallacies. I am not going to give examples of all the fallacies. It
would take too long. I have organized them into 6 basic groups.

Techniques of self-deception which include prejudice, rationalizations and wishful thinking. These
are obvious. But one that is overlooked is casual oversimplification. For example:” Both parties
are exactly alike, so I am not going to vote for either one.”

Techniques of language which includes emotional terms , irrelevant metaphors and similes,
quotations out of context, abstract undefined terms, purposeful vagueness and use of the
ambiguities of ordinary language. Guilt by association and labeling are the most used of this
technique. Words like liberal, fascist, atheist, gay and all the derogatory terms used for racial
and cultural groups, especially when used in guilt by association.
Techniques of irrelevance which include false appearances, using the authority of degrees and titles
for status, repetition over and over, slogans and the misuse of technical jargon.

Techniques of exploitation which appeal to pity, use flattery or ridicule or prestige, prejudice and in
advertising, using bargain appeal, folksy appeal and keeping up with the Joneses or jumping on
the bandwagon.

Techniques of form which includes concurrency. A really fallacious example would be” who was
president in World War I, a democrat, who was president in World War II, a democrat, who
was president in the Korean and Vietnam wars, democrats, therefore the Democratic Party is a
war party.” Another flagrant fallacious argument would be the Post Hoc. “The banks are the
source of all our troubles. Notice every depression is preceded by bank failures.” Actually, it is
the depression that is really the cause of the bank failures. There are also in this group selected
instances and hasty generalizations and false analysis. A famous fallacy here is also the non-
sequitur because it is used so much. It means what I have talked about all evening, the
conclusions do not follow from the premises. “You deserve the best milk, Borden's is the best

6
 milk, so buy Borden's milk.” Another: “Your Mom takes care of you, Wal-Mart takes care of
you, so always shop at Wal-mart.”

Techniques of maneuver include diversion from the premise, disproving a minor point to condemn
the whole argument. A flagrant fallacy of this type is the ad-hominem where instead of
attacking the proposition as invalid, you attack the person. Also the appeal to ignorance is
flagrant in religious argument. “ I know there is a God or immortal soul because you can't prove
there isn't.” Then there is the famous leading question exemplified by the lawyer asking “When
did you stop beating you wife?”. There is no way of answering this question without
incriminating yourself because you are limited to only a yes or no answer. It is related to
complex questions when a clever lawyer asks a series of question demanding the yes or no
answer but none of them are related and require an answer that needs explanation. Another
flagrant misuse is the Straw Man set up to disprove the argument. “ Smith:I am opposed to to
capital punishment. Jones: I am not. Smith: you ought to be because capital punishment is
unchristian. Jones: People like you who oppose it nauseate me.” Another example, same
subject: “Smith: I am opposed to capital punishment, Jones: you fellows who are against capital
punishment must want your daughters molested every time they leave the house.” Still another
is victory by definition: “Jones: communism cannot help but work. Smith: I disagree, look at7
Russia, it failed there completely. Jones: yes, but that wasn't real communism. Smith: Look at
china, communism is working there. Jones: they are not communists anymore because it didn't
work.” Finally, begging the question or circular argument. “Smith: I know that God exists.
Smith: How do you know that? Jones: because the bible tells me so. Smith: How do you know
the bible is true: because it is the word of God.”

So in conclusion, I am purporting to you that our belief systems are at least partially, in some of us, and
mostly in the majority of us, determined by the intellectual climate or milieu of the paradigmatic era we
are born into and raised in. This is not a scientific theory but could be formed into one by a
psychological and sociological study to test its veracity. I offered a solution in the idea of education
with the goal of making us be the rational beings some of us have evolved into some of the time. In the
meantime I believe it is essential we deal with the problem because in the so-called information age,
the daily bombardment of advertising and other fallacious arguments and propaganda in the media and
in the internet blogs, if left unchecked, will make our children and grandchildren drones and robots
unable to think for themselves rationally. In such a climate a dictatorship by a despot may well be our
future.