Skip to main content

Chapter 11


Fallacies are, at their core, illogical arguments, and most people who are familiar with basic argumentation are familiar with the concept of a logical fallacy. However, many people are unaware of what can be defined as a fallacy, and this can lead to people making arguments that they believe to be logically sound when in reality they are anything but. A common example of this is the fallacy of begging the question. The book says that begging the question occurs when an arguer assumes that the point they are trying to prove is true when making their argument, and using that assumption as support for another claim. This can be especially problematic when partisan media is involved, as people can receive biased news and then use it as support for another claim. An example of this would be someone arguing in favor of using tear gas on immigrants because of the need to keep out people who will hurt our country and citizens after hearing on Fox News that immigrants are dangerous. The point at issue in most immigration debates is whether immigrants are helpful or harmful to the United States, so by using the claim that they are harmful as support for another argument is a fallacy of begging the question. Using unproven information as support for further arguments is an error that many people make in their everyday lives, and it often goes unnoticed because to many this error doesn’t fit the classical definition of illogical.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Chapter 9

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
1 comment
Read more

Chapter 10

There were a couple of terms I found in this chapter that I wish were explained a little more. First, the concept of uncritical responses to refutation is only covered briefly. I think that this is one of the most fundamental barriers to effective public argumentation in the United States right now. I find this issue most concerning for the liberal party. Recalling the last election and the concept of 'incremental' argumentation, I feel that people demonstrated a massive failure of critical thinking by voting for third parties or not voting. People who were disappointed with Hillary Clinton's candidacy in place of Bernie Sanders decided to either continue voting for Bernie or not vote altogether. Neither of these strategies amounted to effective support of their cause, and they constitute the uncritical "knee-jerk" reaction described in this chapter. In this case, uncritical response to opposition worked directly against the interests of the decision-makers. A
1 comment
Read more

Blog Post 3- Chapter 4

In chapter 4 we take a look at the importance of understanding argument structures. We are able to look at the Toulmin model. It is a tool that is used to analyze an argument to see the components of one. The model is made up of several different filters to which we can look at an argument. According to the model an argument must have a claim, grounds, warrant, backing, qualifier, and rebuttal/reservation. This tool allows us to analyze an argument and ask the question “Is this a good argument?”. I think this is important because without any criteria as talked about before in chapter 2, an argument won’t have standards to which it has to meet. Also in chapter 4 we take a look at the reasoning processes and what the commonplaces of the reasoning’s are. There are several commonplaces which “Constitute the basis of most arguments” as according to the textbook. (Pg. 57). The processes are, logic or deduction, generalization, cause, sign, analogy and authority. I will look dee
Post a Comment
Read more