This week's chapter is about refutation by fallacy claims. Fallacy claims stem from the concept of argumentation or refutation through logic. However, logic is often viewed as having ties to mathematics, and it isn't usually applied to decision making. So, fallacy claims come into play as a sort of conceptual logic; it points out violations of important rules of argumentation that are applicable to the decision makers. Fallacies are not automatic, they are argued like other claims.
The book states that there are three central characteristics of fallacy. The first is is that one must be able to pinpoint an issue that needs resolution and prove it to the decision makers. For example, some people argue that they dislike Trump because he is inconsistent. If they were to make this claim to a group of decision makers, however, they would need to support that, otherwise, Trump could just say, "no I'm not," and move forward. In this case, one would want to bring up, say, his stance of immigration. Within a short span of time he went from 'we'll deal with it later,' to 'figure it out now: keep some, deport others,' to 'maybe let some stay,' to 'deport everybody,' to 'maybe don't deport everybody,' and so on. This would support the claim of him being inconsistent and require more that a quick denial of the claim.
Next, the book states that a fallacy claim must charge a significant deviance from appropriate argumentation practices. To provide an example for this, I'm going to tie this back to my accounting class. So, if a balance sheet is improperly constructed, the CEO and CFO can go to prison for fraud. However, they likely wouldn't get in that much trouble if certain, less significant, numbers were off by a 0.01 or even a 0.1, but if they are off by 100, 50, or even a 5 in some cases, they can be in big trouble. In this case, it is important to know how much they can actually be off in their numbers, according to specific data, for it to be okay or be a serious problem; knowing the appropriate deviance is important to make a claim against the numbers provided here.
Finally, while a fallacy claim rests on an important rule of the sphere, the appropriate decision makers must reaffirm the rule for the claim to be successful. For example, there's a rule in the college that you must properly cite your sources in assignments. However, here and there you use a dictionary for a definition or Wikipedia for a more in depth understanding, but you my not cite them; overtime, this adds up. A fallacy claim must be big enough that professors would have to 'reaffirm and specify the rule' surrounding copyright and proper/allowed citation of sources.
The book states that there are three central characteristics of fallacy. The first is is that one must be able to pinpoint an issue that needs resolution and prove it to the decision makers. For example, some people argue that they dislike Trump because he is inconsistent. If they were to make this claim to a group of decision makers, however, they would need to support that, otherwise, Trump could just say, "no I'm not," and move forward. In this case, one would want to bring up, say, his stance of immigration. Within a short span of time he went from 'we'll deal with it later,' to 'figure it out now: keep some, deport others,' to 'maybe let some stay,' to 'deport everybody,' to 'maybe don't deport everybody,' and so on. This would support the claim of him being inconsistent and require more that a quick denial of the claim.
Next, the book states that a fallacy claim must charge a significant deviance from appropriate argumentation practices. To provide an example for this, I'm going to tie this back to my accounting class. So, if a balance sheet is improperly constructed, the CEO and CFO can go to prison for fraud. However, they likely wouldn't get in that much trouble if certain, less significant, numbers were off by a 0.01 or even a 0.1, but if they are off by 100, 50, or even a 5 in some cases, they can be in big trouble. In this case, it is important to know how much they can actually be off in their numbers, according to specific data, for it to be okay or be a serious problem; knowing the appropriate deviance is important to make a claim against the numbers provided here.
Finally, while a fallacy claim rests on an important rule of the sphere, the appropriate decision makers must reaffirm the rule for the claim to be successful. For example, there's a rule in the college that you must properly cite your sources in assignments. However, here and there you use a dictionary for a definition or Wikipedia for a more in depth understanding, but you my not cite them; overtime, this adds up. A fallacy claim must be big enough that professors would have to 'reaffirm and specify the rule' surrounding copyright and proper/allowed citation of sources.
Overall your blog post is very well-written and you present good information! I like how you said that logic can often be connected to mathematics and is overlooked in the world of decision making because I once took a mathematics course in logic and usually connect logic to mathematics, but I think that it is very useful and much needed to employ the skills of logic into decision making. Also, I like how you broke down the concept of the first central characteristic of a fallacy. I think that in daily life, whether it be law makers, policy makers, or anyone who wants to make a change, it is essential to be able to present your issue to decision makers in order to go forth with creating change.
ReplyDelete