chapeleven

Chapter 11 focuses on three types of fallacy claims that can be made as refutation in argument. Of the three, incorrect logic, sophistry and violations of discussion rules, I find sophistry the most intriguing. Sophistry deals with the idea that fallacies in argument are often plausible even though they don’t hold true, and the danger is that they are often believed by the public and can result in bad decisions. I think this is extremely important in politics, especially in today’s political climate, because uncalled fallacies can lead to devastating policy decisions. There is a certain responsibility put on a presenter in the light of sophistry because he or she can be accountable, through their fallacies, for huge decisions for the country. Ad Hominem and countercharge are fallacies that are used regularly by politicians; it is not uncommon for them to build themselves up by tearing their opponents down, attacking their beliefs and personhood. Sadly, this does help popularity and the people affected by the fallacy seldom see the dangerous consequences that follow. One of the biggest problems, as I see it, is that fallacies of sophistry are, by definition, harmful and unethical when used, but still effective. In a sense, since politicians have the power to use them, and since the use often gains them support, questionable ethics and harm caused are disregarded and unless pointed out by someone of authority, can go unnoticed. The unregulated use of sophistic fallacies by politicians not only leads to questionable legislation, but it also creates a climate of acceptance around fallacies. In my view, politicians need to be held to a higher standard. The use of fallacies in propaganda needs to be more closely checked and considered by decision makers.