Fallacy claims in argumentation are points of weakness or flawed logic in a persons argument that another person can use against you, or vice versa, to weaken the other persons argument or discredit them. When you are able to pinpoint a fallacy, it is important not to just state that they are being illogical but to address the statement directly from which they said to make it as clear as possible to the decision makers which helps guide them through why the statement or stance the opposition is taking is being inconsistent. In addition, a fallacy can occur when a fact that an arguer is giving is either over or understated. This happens because someone may want to emphasize how important or insignificant something is to the decision makers and at face value, may look very valid, but looking into the actual stats of the statistic, it is no more than an inflated/deflated number used to gain favor quickly and can corrected. Fallacy claims and there recognition may also depend on the sphere in which you are arguing. Depending on the sphere, the decision makers may or may not deem a fallacy as a fallacy because of the amount of information gathered that is actually unnecessary. Fallacies can be found everywhere in argumentation, from the authorities, to the research that was conducted, and it is important to try and be direct as you can with them in order to discredit that information or claim. It is important that when you are arguing you use these fallacies to your advantage to appear consistent by asking yourself, who is saying it and are they an expert in that field, where and which organization did the information come from, and is this appearing consistent with my argument.
In Chapter 9, the authors of the text discuss credibility. The text remarks that credibility is not only able to serve as a claim in argumentation, but it also plays a significant role as a means to support a claim (Rieke, Sillars, & Peterson, 142). The text then goes into detail about characteristics and forms of credibility but finally goes over the general principle the authors suggest for the use of credibility. Credibility can be incredibly subjective, but there are still some general principles of credibility that can apply to most situations. The principle I found to stand out the most in the group of principles the authors presented was the principle of developing credibility from reputation. Reputation is the credibility someone possesses with decision makers before they argue (Rieke, Sillars, & Peterson, 147). When I think of reputation in argument, I always manage to think of the polarized reputation of Donald Trump. There is a significant amount of people who hat
Hi Scott. I believe you've done a commendable job of explaining how pointing out fallacies in arguments can ultimately deconstruct them. I especially enjoyed when you spoke about how fallacies occur when overstated and understated facts given by an arguer. I feel we see this commonly in casual arguments. I have a family member who is a die-hard supporter of President Trump, and I often see them overstate and understate facts when they craft an argument to defend him. For example, when we were discussing the events surrounding the migrant caravan moving through Mexico over Thanksgiving, they told me, "20,000 people are coming to steal our jobs and live off of our government. Just gigantic numbers. The biggest we've ever seen". Unfortunately, this is a rather inflated number, and I had to point out that the United Nations is only reporting 7,200 people. I normally don't like to nitpick, but the numbers my family member was reporting were simply false and fell nowhere near the numbers being reported by several reputable news sources and organizations.
ReplyDelete