Skip to main content

Chapter 11

I thought this chapter was super interesting, especially because it mentioned tu quoque fallacies, otherwise known as changing the subject when accused of something and redirecting attention by pointing out something else. I think this happens a lot when unsavory accusations are made against public figures. Oftentimes, the response will be to point out something bad that the accuser did, even if it does not address the initial claim in the slightest. President Trump is a frequent subject of to quoque fallacies. The most prominent example I can think of is where he repeatedly brought up Hillary Clinton's emails while not addressing the public's demand for his tax records. President Trump still has not released all of his tax records and often takes to Twitter to redirect claims back at his accusers. However, many of his rebuttal claims are sensationalized, so people pay more attention to the claims that he makes rather than the initial accusatory claim. This also gets back to credibility- since he holds the office of President of the United States, people are inclined to believe he is credible in regards to all affairs of the state. Even though this is proven to not be true, because of his office, people believe what he says. This is a common phenomenon within all of politics- politicians speak on subjects that they are not qualified to talk about, and because of the office they hold, people believe them. The example I can think of is Senator Mitch McConnell disputing climate change, even though experts in the field and scientific data say otherwise. People believe him because of the office he holds, even though he is not knowledgable on the subject.

Comments

  1. UnknownNovember 26, 2018 at 2:33 PM

    I definitely agree with your analysis on the current President’s use of tu quoque fallacies in many of his arguments. Expanding on the use of fallacies in modern day politics, I would also like to draw attention to how the text discusses ways in which one can identify when a fallacy is being used. First and foremost, I believe that it is crucial for the general public to be able to notice when a politician is using a fallacy. When the voting population calls out illogical arguments, it prompts politicians to think twice before making irrational statements. Using tu quoque fallacies as an example, the book labels such a fallacy as breaching the rules of conversational cooperation (Rieke, Sillars, & Peterson, 183). More specifically, the rule that is being broken here is “irrelevant utterance” (Rieke, Sillars, & Peterson, 183). Irrelevant utterances harm the critical process by drawing attention away from useful information and focusing the audience’s attention on matters that is outside the realm of what is being discussed. Like the example given in this post, President Trump bringing Hillary Clinton’s emails into the argument does not adequately answer the questions being posed. The executive branch’s main responsibility is to be accountable to the people. If questions are dodged, and responses are not articulated, the people will not know how the administration plans on solving many of the nation’s problems. This sets up a dangerous precedent of politicians not having to come up with concrete solutions to issues. Hence, it is imperative for people to acknowledge fallacies when they arise, and to push for more answers from their elected officials.

    Source:
    Rieke, R.D., Sillars, M.O., & Peterson, T.R. (2013). Argumentation and critical decision making. 8th ed., New York: Pearson.

    ReplyDelete

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