Steelman
Kettle logic
Also called inconsistent excuses.
Defending one position with several arguments that contradict each other.
What it is
Offering multiple defenses for the same position that are inconsistent with one another, so that at most one of them can be true.
The pattern
Defense 1, defense 2 and defense 3 all support X, but they can’t all be true together.
An example
A neighbor who returned a borrowed kettle with a hole in it says: “I gave it back undamaged. Besides, it already had a hole when I borrowed it. And anyway, I never borrowed your kettle.”
If he never borrowed it, he can’t have returned it undamaged. The excuses cancel each other out.
Why it fails
If the defenses contradict each other, some of them are false. Piling them up signals the arguer is reaching for anything that might work rather than reporting what actually happened.
When it’s not a fallacy
Most lists skip this part. Calling a fair point a fallacy is a mistake too.
It can be fair when
- Arguing “even if”, with each fallback clearly flagged: “I returned it undamaged, and even if you think it was damaged, it was already that way when I borrowed it.” Alternative lines of defense are legitimate when presented as alternatives.
Try one
A question from the app. The wrong answers are its usual look-alikes.
Town hall on renewing the rent cap. Diane, a landlord: “That cap never saved a single tenant a dime.” Marcus: “My rent went up 3% instead of the 11% my landlord wanted.” Diane: “Then your landlord tacked on fees to make up the difference, like they all do. And the tenants who did save money used it to move into pricier places, which pushed rents up for everybody.”
What’s the flaw?
Diane says the cap never saved any tenant a dime, then that landlords clawed it back in fees, then that the tenants who did save spent the money moving somewhere pricier. If nobody saved, there were no savings to spend, so her defenses can’t all be true.
A fair reply
“Did tenants save money under the cap or not, because you’ve just argued both?”
Often confused with
- Gish gallop
A Gish gallop floods the debate with many claims. Kettle logic’s claims specifically contradict each other.
- Special pleading
Special pleading exempts a case from a rule. Kettle logic stacks incompatible excuses.
Where the name comes from
The name comes from a joke about a borrowed kettle. Accused of returning it with a hole, a man says he returned it undamaged, it already had a hole, and he never borrowed it. Picture that kettle whenever excuses cancel each other out. “Inconsistent excuses” says it plainly: they can’t all be true.
From a joke Sigmund Freud tells in The Interpretation of Dreams (1900) and Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious (1905). The philosopher Jacques Derrida gave it the name “kettle logic”.
Sources
- Kettle logic, Wikipedia
In the app
Practice spotting it on arguments that sound real.
Steelman has more examples of kettle logic, how to answer it in a real conversation, and practice rounds that mix it with its look-alikes, so you learn the difference, not just the name. Coming soon to iPhone and Android.
You’re on the list.
We’ll email you the day Steelman is out.
Thanks for offering to test. We’ll write before the beta with how to join.