Chapter 3 of the text talks mainly of “good reasons” which can be offered in support of a claim. It lists a few different ways of supporting a claim through good reasons. Which are as follows: reasons that are drawn from logic, are consistent, are not contradictory, arguments can be made sensible through a good story, and through science and observation. The textbook describes all of these good reasons in great detail throughout the chapter. Reasons in support of a claim often come from a place of personal authority, power authority, moral obligation, social pressure, or listener benefit. The claim is made that these reasons are developed in early childhood and are likely even innate on some level.
The test of good reasons is also a part of the text in chapter three. Which is a series of ways to test reasoning to see if it is good enough to support a claim. Reasons should be non contradictory, reasons should be consistent, arguments should not patronize the audience nor should they assume the audience knows more than they do, everyone involved in the argument should be using the same interpretation strategies, reasons should be complete, they should be drawn from logic, and they must be reasonably related to the point they support.
Relating this to our real world life I am left with the question: Why do so many people believe wild conspiracy theories when all of these tests on good reasoning exist? People like Alex Jones, a purveyor of nonsense, attracts a large audience and concepts like Q anon permeate large segments of our society. My question then are these wild and unbelievable ideas justified with any kind of good reasoning? Why do people trust them fervently if they aren’t? And most importantly, what does this say about argumentation and reasoning as a whole? As a process for finding truth a large segment of the population seems surprisingly willing to believe lies.
The test of good reasons is also a part of the text in chapter three. Which is a series of ways to test reasoning to see if it is good enough to support a claim. Reasons should be non contradictory, reasons should be consistent, arguments should not patronize the audience nor should they assume the audience knows more than they do, everyone involved in the argument should be using the same interpretation strategies, reasons should be complete, they should be drawn from logic, and they must be reasonably related to the point they support.
Relating this to our real world life I am left with the question: Why do so many people believe wild conspiracy theories when all of these tests on good reasoning exist? People like Alex Jones, a purveyor of nonsense, attracts a large audience and concepts like Q anon permeate large segments of our society. My question then are these wild and unbelievable ideas justified with any kind of good reasoning? Why do people trust them fervently if they aren’t? And most importantly, what does this say about argumentation and reasoning as a whole? As a process for finding truth a large segment of the population seems surprisingly willing to believe lies.
I agree with what you say and yes, it seems senseless that certain ideas or theories that come from people such as Alex Jones are believed by so many, but I do believe there is a reason to that. Like the textbook states, there are things we acknowledge to be “good reasons” which are defined as “good enough to warrant adherence to the claim” (37) and if “your arguments are consistent and are not contradictory.” (38) Good reasons are also ideas that have been taught to us since a very young age and something we can personally believe to be true and valid. The reason Alex Jones or Donald Trump do still have a big following, is because the ideas and theories these men talk about are just a magnified version of things that have been taught to certain people at a young age. Because these ignorant ideas are all they know, they believe that they are good reasons and valid enough to believe. The same way that you and me may believe things to be “good reasons” because that’s what we grew up with and how we were educated, while others might think that what you and I believe in is absurd. Although it is true that good reasons stem from what we know and what we’ve been taught, there still needs to be structure and credibility to them in order for these reasons to nicely structure an argument; which is why it is complicated to fully understand why someone like Alex Jones gained so much fame.
ReplyDeleteOddly enough, I think people are able to rationalize some of Alex Jones's arguments based on the "Good story" principle (p. 39). While his narratives are not coherent or generally believable, they are entertaining. The things he says are amusing - completely false, but amusing. He identifies his villains, his heroes, some sort of plot, and the outcome of the dispute. In his stories the conspiracy theorist or radical conservative wins every time, giving consistency to the narrative.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing that could explain why Alex Jones is popular is that his goal is not to argue in-person against someone, but cast doubt on others through a barrage of lies, conspiracies, and confusion. It is easier to simply plant the seed of doubt in others than it is to completely support it. Alex Jones has an incentive to tell as many lies as he can with maximum conviction. Poring over these statements is left to the viewer who is unlikely to fully research every claim made. High school policy debates thrive in-part off of this principle: if one team makes more claims than the other team, and the other team fails to respond to a claim, the failure to respond results in a penalty. Thus arguments are at least in part judged simply based on the sheer volume of claims. While I think that this strategy is deceptive, not scholarly, and relies on gaps in knowledge in the audience, it is highly effective.
Alex Jones also has some sort of authority. He is somewhat "popular" now which could be a form of authority, but he has also manufactured authority through high production quality. His show looks like a CNN newsroom. Of course, in evaluating an argument for the purposes of this class "production quality" probably seems irrelevant, but for an uncritical audience it could mimic the authority of "mainstream media."
To go along with your thoughts on this chapter, I have also asked myself the same questions. When reading chapters and getting further explanation on things it makes me think and wonder how could people still give attention or go along with certain things when there is so many things you could use, like good reasoning for instance, to get you closer to the truth of things. It makes it hard to believe that good reasoning is a good way to support anything if there are people in the world that continue to look over it and not use it to justify that some things cannot be real or ideal. So i totally agree with you on the questions you came up with about this chapter. I hope we will find some answers soon as this course goes on.
ReplyDelete