“What is the value of a liberal arts education?”

 

In our goals-driven society, this question usually elicits answers ranging from the sardonic to the scornful. This is a pity, because the current situation surrounding the Bank of Bermuda has illuminated this question anew, providing me with an answer that is at once satisfying, yet troubling.

 

In college, interspersed between courses in economics, government, and sociology, I took a few courses in public speaking and rhetoric. These courses were derided by many as “guts”, lacking the rigor of other curricula. That they have done more for me in my adult life than anything else I have ever learned proves that manner in which we apply what we learn is usually far more important than that which we learn.

 

This also explains why, more than a quarter-century since I studied public speaking, I understood fully what I was reading when I perused the Bank of Bermuda Advertorials. They are nothing but a paean to a branch of rhetoric known as The Logical Fallacies. Here, instead of offering point-by-point rebuttals to the reasons for The Deal advanced by the Bank and others (an act which, no doubt, would redefine the word ‘stultifying’ for all time), I think it would be far more useful to group them each by their respective Fallacy, along with the necessary definitions.

 

 

Ignoratio Elenchi

 

This is the fallacy of Irrelevant Conclusion. It consists of claiming that an argument supports a particular conclusion when it actually has nothing logically to do with that conclusion.

 

“Terms and conditions on current mortgages and loans will remain unchanged.” –this is true, albeit meaningless. No one party to a loan can ever unilaterally change its terms and conditions, takeover or no takeover.

 

Argumentum Ad Crumenam

This is the fallacy of believing that money is a criterion of correctness; that those with more money are more likely to be right.

Anything you have heard or read containing the phrase “…HBSC, The World’s Second Largest Bank…” falls here, neatly. If these arguments are valid, then this, (from financeasia.com) most likely the highest motivation that HSBC has for this Deal, is false:

 

“As compelling as Bermuda's traditional line of fund administration may be, the more important reason for the acquisition was its global dominance in administration for hedge funds. Bermuda has about 600 hedge fund clients around the world, around 10% in Asia; HSBC has six, and they're all in Asia, including important players such as Asian Debt Management, HT Capital and Long Investment Management.”

 

“…If the clients give permission, HSBC is expected to migrate them to Bermuda and establish that as its alternative investment division, under the HSBC brand. Paul Smith, who currently runs Bermuda's fund services business in Asia, is likely to take over HSBC's hedge fund services globally”.

 

If size were the sole determinant of ability, the world would have no gymnasts, no jockeys, and no offshore banks with superior data processing platforms capable of performing administrative work for the world’s hedge funds. Size isn’t goodness, bravery, or virtue: size is just size.

 

Argumentum Ad Verecundiam

This, The Appeal to Authority, uses admiration of a famous person or respected institution to try and win support for an assertion.

 

“The transaction supports Government's objective of developing the financial services sector of our economy.” [from Advertorial V] (As opposed to the Bank remaining an independent institution, and working toward this identical end.)

 

Kindly juxtapose the statement above with the following:

 

“As a CEO of the Bank of Bermuda trying to defend Bermuda’s interests, I have absolutely no influence in the global market, nobody cares about what the Bank of Bermuda says or the Government.”
When Sir John Bond speaks as Chairman of HSBC he speaks with some authority and sits on a number of important committees and has access to political leaders in almost every country in the world and when he says something people listen Mr. Smith said.
“If HSBC has a vested interest in this island of 1.3 billion dollars, you can be sure that when Bermuda’s interests are threatened HSBC will be speaking up.”

 

This, taken from the 12/24/03 Bermuda Sun interview, squarely places Henry Smith in the untenable position of nullifying the authority in which Government was placed in Advertorial V, and substituting Sir John Bond, who is certain to speak out vociferously when an investment representing approximately 0.17% of HSBC’s assets is trifled with. If I were Government, this would make me far from happy.

 

Committing Argumentum Ad Verecundiam is always messy; changing your horses in the middle of the stream while doing so just makes matters that much worse.

 

Audiatur Et Altera Pars

Although not strictly a logical fallacy, the principle of Audiatur Et Altera Pars is that all of the premises of an argument should be stated explicitly. Assertions such as

 

“HSBC offers a unique fit with the Bank's commitment to community and philanthropy.” along with all that followed in Advertorial V, failed to quantify the level and timeframe for Foundation support proposed by HSBC. In other words, we are left wondering just what the “unique fit” is.

 

And finally…

 

Argumentum Ad Misercordiam

This is the Appeal to Pity, also known as Special Pleading. The fallacy is committed when someone appeals to pity for the sake of getting a conclusion accepted.

 

This, from The Royal Gazette, 11/13/03:

 

“Mr. Smith continued: "Part of me is a little disappointed to leave the place I have worked in for 30 years – and by then it will be 31 years.
"I'm losing my job. That is a fact, I will lose my job. And that does concern me, when I lose my job I will be 55.
"I could retire at that age, but in terms of my abilities and my desires, I am well before retirement age. I am going to have to go find another job," he said…”

 

This is quite a mouthful, coming from a millionaire who, arguably, is the driving force behind this entire sick, misbegotten mess of a Deal. As should be obvious, of all Logical Fallacies, it is Argumentum Ad Misercordiam that most sickens the soul.

 

I derive satisfaction from knowing that, in the main, it is my liberal arts education–rather than my business experience–which has provided me with the framework for analysis needed to have a full understanding of the situation confronting us with the Bank of Bermuda. What troubles me is that it is the much-derided academic study of rhetoric, shared by all too few of us, which provides the clearest understanding of all that which is afoot.

 

If you own something, and an outside entity is attempting to seize ownership of that property, what matters to you is the answer to the question: “What recourse do I have?”

You are not interested in how prestigious, well thought-of, or large the outside entity is. You want to know what you can do to stop the outside entity from doing something that is to your detriment, and in their favor.

 

If we were talking about a neighbor erecting a garage encroaching upon your land, your response would be an instantaneous trip to your lawyer’s office, and rightfully so. You certainly wouldn’t take the attitude “Well, he’s building it, and he’s a far more important man than I, so we’re just going to let things ride.”

 

All you have to do is wipe from your mind’s eye the image of a portion of your land being encroached, and substitute for it an image of someone forcing you to relinquish your ownership of stock in your Bank at a time and valuation not of your choosing. If you believe that “They Have All The Votes That They Need To Do Whatever They Want”, ask yourself the following three questions:

 

  1. Why, if The Deal is a fait accompli, has the management of the Bank chosen to hold serial meetings to sell the virtues of both The Deal and the potential acquirer to the press and to the public?

 

  1. Why, if The Deal is a fait accompli, has the management of the Bank continued to hold these meetings even after it became obvious that, at each successive meeting, the level of vilification being endured by  Management from the audience was on the sharp rise?

 

  1. Why, if The Deal is a fait accompli, has the Bank resorted to running paid Advertorials, each successive one more desperate, vacuous, and laughable than its predecessor?

 

 

My answers are:

 

  1. The Deal is not a fait accompli. Remember, this is the same management that couldn’t drag itself from their offices to hold exactly these sorts of meetings in front of institutional investors to sell the story of the Bank and its businesses as an independent entity, at a time when this would have done considerable good.

 

  1. The Deal is not a fait accompli. If it were, why would management subject itself to ever-increasing levels of rancor from the audience? Certainly, no rational person ever would.

 

  1. The Deal is not a fait accompli. If it were, why would the Bank pay to beat a dead horse in the pages of the Gazette, thereby committing Argumentum Ad Nauseum (the logical fallacy which posits that the more often an assertion is put forward, the more likely that it will be accepted as true)?

 

Management’s words, then, are belied clearly by Management’s deeds. If you are against The Deal, if you believe that Bermuda has no business exporting employment, and if you believe that business does not have the right to act in a manner designed to destabilize Government, then vote against it. If you believe that The Deal is the best thing ever, then vote in favor of it. However, don’t make the mistake of voting either way because you think ‘that is what everybody is doing’, for if you do that, then you commit the single most dangerous of The Logical Fallacies, Argumentum Ad Numerum, the Logical Fallacy that asserts that the greater the number of people who support or believe a proposition, the more likely that proposition is to be correct. Argumentum Ad Numerum has been responsible for more of the world’s misery than any other of The Fallacies, for it was the one Fallacy most profitably exploited by the Nazis, effectively toppling the Weimar Republic; it is the one Fallacy that present-day Bermuda needs least.