Category error and expertise

A great example of 1) how common is the logical mistake of creating a category error (comparing different types of things without recognizing they are different, and 2) why "experts" are so often wrong and out of their death.  From Theologian John Piper’s Case Against Trump Is Intellectually And Morally Bankrupt by Kylee Zempel.  

She is an assistant editor at the Federalist and looks to be perhaps 23-4 years old.  John Piper is 74 years old, a evangelical theologian, and author of dozens of books.  What does this pipsqueak know that Piper does not?

She leads with:

John Piper, in an article last week exploring “Paths to Ruin” in the 2020 election, didn’t so much tell Christians who to vote for as much as he projected guilt and shame onto those who support Donald Trump for president. Piper is “baffled” that Christians could think one candidate’s immoral character is less deadly than another candidate’s pro-abortion policies.

The famed pastor and theologian’s purported purpose in writing the article was “to point to a perspective that seems to be neglected.” His musings, however, are far from a “neglected” perspective. They fill every column of NeverTrumper David French and litter the smooth rhetoric of Democratic Mayor Pete Buttigieg — and they merit a response, especially coming from such an influential evangelical figure.

[snip]

I’m “baffled,” Piper said, “that so many Christians consider the sins of unrepentant sexual immorality (porneia), unrepentant boastfulness (alazoneia), unrepentant vulgarity (aischrologia), unrepentant factiousness (dichostasiai), and the like, to be only toxic for our nation, while policies that endorse baby-killing, sex-switching, freedom-limiting, and socialistic overreach are viewed as deadly.”

His argument boils down to this: It’s crazy for Christians to think Trump’s sins are less serious than Biden’s policies. 

I have to assume that Piper knows far more than theology than Zempel.  But she recognizes argument structure.  And it eviscerates his position.

Piper’s framing is at best problematic and at worst intellectually dishonest, for he doesn’t make an appropriate comparison. Piper doesn’t juxtapose Trump’s character with Biden’s character or Trump’s policies with Biden’s policies. Instead, he compares Trump’s immoral character with Biden’s immoral policies.

It’s here that he finds himself “baffled” that Christians don’t take Trump’s character seriously. Many Christians, however, refuse to equate these two unequal realms. Character should be weighed against character, and policy against policy. Piper’s value judgment comes at the disposal of Trump’s policy victories, many of which are advantageous to those pursuing godliness, and at the oversight of Biden’s demonstrably depraved character.

Perhaps Piper compares Trump’s character with Biden’s policies because his analysis is based on typical media characterizations rather than the men’s actual merits. In Piper’s article, Trump’s character is a caricature, and Biden’s character isn’t covered at all — on par with the mainstream portrayal. Although Piper insists it’s OK to disagree with him and concludes he will vote for neither candidate, his entire piece maintains the same flavor: condemnation for Trump and implicit commendation for Biden.

In one section, Piper signals he is about to cover the left’s errors when he asks, “Where does the wickedness of defending child-killing come from?”

Just as fast as he pivots to Biden’s pro-death policies, he returns again to Trump’s character. This “wickedness,” Piper says, “comes from hearts that are insubordinate to God. In other words, it comes from the very character that so many Christian leaders are treating as comparatively innocuous, because they think Roe and SCOTUS and Planned Parenthood are more pivotal, more decisive, battlegrounds.”

This is interesting. It reveals that Piper does, in fact, see a connection between character and policy. Instead of exploring the depths of Biden’s character unto death here, however, Piper immediately uses this as another opportunity to dunk on Christian Trump supporters for valuing pro-life policies too highly.

“I think Roe is an evil decision. I think Planned Parenthood is a code name for baby-killing and (historically at least) ethnic cleansing. And I think it is baffling and presumptuous to assume that pro-abortion policies kill more people than a culture-saturating, pro-self pride,” Piper says. “When a leader models self-absorbed, self-exalting boastfulness, he models the most deadly behavior in the world. He points his nation to destruction. Destruction of more kinds than we can imagine.”

Notice once again that Piper isn’t using the discussion about Biden’s policy as a doorway to talking about the sinful hearts that led to those policies. Instead, he repeatedly juxtaposes the Biden, pro-abortion crowd with the evil character of the other side: Over here is Biden supporting baby-killing. And over here is Trump being self-absorbed and boastful. And Christians are nuts if they think the intentional killing of babies in the womb is more lethal than a single narcissist. It’s absurd.

The article continues, exploiting the failure of Piper to think clearly and commit a category error.

It is pretty remarkable to see a novice writer so clearly hone in on the core error of an argument so ruthlessly.  

But Piper's position is not uncommon at all.  As documented thoroughly in other research (see Philip Tetlock for example), experts are often indeed expert . . . in a very narrow domain.  As soon as they step out of that domain and prognosticate on wider matters, they depart from their certain ground and undermine their reputation by not understanding or recognizing the broader context within which their narrow expertise operates.  Not all the time but very frequently.  

Zempel almost certainly does not understand theology as comprehensively as I imagine Piper does.  But whatever his expertise might be, once he commits a category error, comparing two unlike things as if they were the same (behavior and policy), then she has him on the mat.