Case in Point: Baby Bathwater Fallacy
+ Alan Watts on the Shocking Cost of Goodness
In this entry of my Case in Point series exploring real-world examples of logical fallacies and cognitive biases (past topics include hindsight bias, ad hominem, false premise, and anti-semitism), I examine the baby bathwater logical fallacy I encountered during a comment exchange on Dr. Jekyll and Ms. Bondi at Racket News.
I’m not actually sure if the baby bathwater fallacy is a formally recognized one as I haven’t managed to find it in official lists of logical fallacies, although search engine AI synopses from Presearch and Duck Duck Go act like it exists.
Duck Duck go points to a Wikipedia article on the idiom and a Law & Literacy article, but neither refers to it as a logical fallacy.
Adding quotes to the search term (“baby bathwater fallacy”) to obtain exact matches returns zero results at Duck Duck Go:
A Redditer from eight years ago asks what the logical fallacy for the idiom is, saying the closest he could find is fallacy of composition. Respondents could only come up with Nirvana fallacy, false dilemma, perfect is the enemy of good, faulty generalization, slothful induction, and jumping to conclusions—none of which captures the simple notion that a person discards everything someone has said because they dislike something else that person said or the person himself.
This is a frustration I have encountered so often, I have long wanted to write an article about it, but this Case in Point is probably the closest I’ll ever come besides this comment on What Noam Chomsky Can Teach Us About Freedom of Speech:
Thank you to everyone who took the time to read the article and listen to or read the interview before knee-jerk–reacting to the mere mention of Chomsky. I realize he is an incendiary figure, particularly for those of us whose isolation and coercion through societal deprivations he advocated for.
As I write in You Can’t Cancel Me:
“I may quote or reference someone you disagree with;
“I may quote or reference someone I disagree with.”The point of this essay and conversation is not to idealize Chomsky but rather to glean wisdom from his past words, which serve as a “Remember thou art mortal” whisper in our ears and a lesson to forever guard against the cognitive biases and menticidal manipulations Chomsky himself has succumbed to.
If you are tempted to outright reject everything Chomsky (or anyone, even those you generally disagree with) has said simply because he has made other statements you find heinous, ask yourself if you are practicing a form of ideological Cancel Culture that prevents you from being able to find truth wherever it happens to exist.
If you find yourself reaching for ad hominems, consider taking a step back and examining the content of his words quoted in this piece. Do you agree or disagree with what he said about free speech—why or why not?
Those of us who are truth-seekers aim to rise above partisan divides and instead engage on the level of ideas, respectfully refuting them with logic, reason, and evidence if we disagree.
When we find ourselves falling into the trap of attacking those we disagree with, we risk becoming like those who name-call us because they have been propagandized to fear views that counter their brainwashing.
I encourage everyone to listen to the TED talk Mickey cited and ask whether you are living as a soldier or a scout. Do you seek to defend your beliefs at all costs, or do you seek clarity about reality?
Chomsky serves as a cautionary lesson that it is easy to slip into the role of soldier, even if you once sought to live as a scout.
I strive to practice the latter, and my sense is that if you are here reading this, you do, too.
I won’t be able to respond to every comment individually due to time-sensitive deadlines but wanted to post this comment to encourage respectful discussion of the ideas captured in Chomsky’s quotes and my conversation with Mickey rather than being triggered by the lightning-rod figure of Chomsky himself.
Again, thank you all for being here and for caring about truth, freedom of speech, and humanity 🙌🤗
I have taken to adding footnotes like this when I quote someone objectionable:
Quoting individuals here and elsewhere throughout my work does not constitute endorsement of the individual, their actions, or their beliefs. I separate the quotations/art/creation from the speaker/artist/creator and appreciate wisdom where I can find it, even if the source is suspect. If their words are instructive and help us understand a concept more deeply, I am not going to throw them on the rubbish heap of Cancel Culture.
As I write in my poem, You Can’t Cancel Me:
I may quote or reference someone you disagree with;
I may quote or reference someone I disagree with.
I have frequently needed to remind people of the baby bathwater fallacy in Notes like this:
My favorite test of someone’s ability to distinguish the value of content from its source is this inspirational quote … by Hitler 😆:
“If you want to shine like sun first you have to burn like it.”
Okay, so Hitler said it, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t generally hold true that passion drives success, and this is a succinct motivational reminder of that principle.
Here’s a technique you can use to help you be more objective in your evaluation of the content of a quote:
If you encounter a quote and automatically dismiss it because of the source, try imagining someone you love saying those words and see if you feel differently about it.
The phrase “Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater” originates from the German proverb “Das Kind mit dem Bade ausschütten,” which appears in Thomas Murner’s 1512 work Narrenbeschwörung (Appeal to Fools).
If it isn’t technically a logical fallacy, it should be, so I hereby deem it official and call upon the Logical Fallacy gods to make it so.
You will likely find many occasions to deploy the baby bathwater fallacy. The following exchange (including with two participants who evidently don’t believe the accusations against Epstein and his associates) shows my own usage.
