In Chapter 11, the authors of the text discuss refutation by fallacy claims. The authors describe fallacies as individual errors in reasoning subject to refutation; however, in argumentation, they stress using the term “fallacy claim”. The authors state, “A fallacy claim asserts that an argument must be rejected because it violates a significant rule of argumentation relevant to the appropriate decision makers” (Rieke, Sillars, & Peterson, 174).
When describing the characteristics of fallacy claims, the authors discussed something particularly interesting. The authors remarked, “A fallacy claim charges significant deviance from appropriate argumentation practices” (Rieke, Sillars, & Peterson, 175). Criticizing small and insignificant errors in your opponent’s arguments is not especially effective and criticizing errors requires more critical judgment to appropriately refute an argument in a collaborative manner like the authors have stressed in earlier chapters.
To illustrate this, I believe we can find this characteristic of fallacy claims to be useful in examining Edward Blum’s errors in describing the acceptance rate of Asian Americans at Harvard University to fuel his argument to dismantle affirmative action. In multiple interviews, Blum reported various percentages of Asian Americans in Harvard’s incoming freshman class in 1992 despite increasing numbers in Asian American applicants. He reported different percentages between 15 percent and 19 percent. In the Netflix Series, Patriot Act with Hasan Minhaj, Minhaj attempts to disassemble Blum’s claims by claiming Blum is too inconsistent in the percentages he reports about the 1992 Harvard incoming freshman class. While I am not claiming Minhaj does not make a good case, pointing out Blum’s inconsistencies may not have been the best way to critique Blum’s argument. Minhaj makes no effort to report the actual numbers in 1992 and instead redirects his argument to an increasing trend in Asian American acceptance rates at Harvard since 2004. This makes me feel like I wasted my time watching that portion of the show because Minhaj pointed out a trivial difference in Blum’s claims and made no effort to prove that this was significant by providing further evidence. Minhaj only attempts to destroy Blum's argument, and he forgets to use more critical judgment in the process.
Reference:
Rieke, R.D., Sillars, M.O., & Peterson, T.R. (2013). Argumentation and critical decision making (8th ed.). New York: Pearson.
When describing the characteristics of fallacy claims, the authors discussed something particularly interesting. The authors remarked, “A fallacy claim charges significant deviance from appropriate argumentation practices” (Rieke, Sillars, & Peterson, 175). Criticizing small and insignificant errors in your opponent’s arguments is not especially effective and criticizing errors requires more critical judgment to appropriately refute an argument in a collaborative manner like the authors have stressed in earlier chapters.
To illustrate this, I believe we can find this characteristic of fallacy claims to be useful in examining Edward Blum’s errors in describing the acceptance rate of Asian Americans at Harvard University to fuel his argument to dismantle affirmative action. In multiple interviews, Blum reported various percentages of Asian Americans in Harvard’s incoming freshman class in 1992 despite increasing numbers in Asian American applicants. He reported different percentages between 15 percent and 19 percent. In the Netflix Series, Patriot Act with Hasan Minhaj, Minhaj attempts to disassemble Blum’s claims by claiming Blum is too inconsistent in the percentages he reports about the 1992 Harvard incoming freshman class. While I am not claiming Minhaj does not make a good case, pointing out Blum’s inconsistencies may not have been the best way to critique Blum’s argument. Minhaj makes no effort to report the actual numbers in 1992 and instead redirects his argument to an increasing trend in Asian American acceptance rates at Harvard since 2004. This makes me feel like I wasted my time watching that portion of the show because Minhaj pointed out a trivial difference in Blum’s claims and made no effort to prove that this was significant by providing further evidence. Minhaj only attempts to destroy Blum's argument, and he forgets to use more critical judgment in the process.
Reference:
Rieke, R.D., Sillars, M.O., & Peterson, T.R. (2013). Argumentation and critical decision making (8th ed.). New York: Pearson.
I really liked your post I think that the textbook definition really relates to your example of Blum’s argument. But I feel that the actual fallacy in the Blum’s argument is hard to categorize within the categories described in the textbook. Even though according to the definition it falls in the category of fallacy but in reality, it is more of lie than a fallacy. I think often time when we think of fallacies we often miss them, because they mostly are true arguments but often misused or misinterpreted in an argument to persuade and advance your claim. And I think that is why your example is hard for me to fit in the different categories of fallacy. But I think it is important to realize that a fallacy is defined as a claim, “A fallacy claim asserts that an argument must be rejected because it violates a significant rule of argumentation relevant to the appropriate decision makers.” And Blum’s argument falls under that category because it violates the rule of argumentation by providing different statistical facts for the same argument on different occasions.
ReplyDeleteThis post really sparked my interest. I agree with what you said about the textbook and fallacy claims but what truly sparked my interest was when you talked about the Netflix show, 'Patriot Act'. This was intriguing to me because you discuss the argument between two characters. I agree with what you said about Minhaj pointing out fallcies in Blum's argument by talking about inconsistencies. I think reputation is extremely important when discussing credibility and it truly can tear down a person's argument. I also agree with what you said about the importance of proving further evidence. I've never seen the show or that episode but anyone who makes an opposing claim about another person should provide extra evidence to back themselves up. Overall, your post was very fun to read! Great job!
ReplyDeleteI think that your post was very fascinating and I think that your analysis of fallacy claims is great. You define what a fallacy claim is very well by citing the textbook and its author’s definition and explanation of the use and process of making a fallacy claim. When you discuss the author’s points on the effectiveness of only making a fallacy claim is when, I believe, your post gets really interesting. You make a lot of good points in your subsequent analysis of Edward Blum and his arguments about affirmative action. I agree that simply pointing out the small errors in an opponent's arguments doesn’t completely refute the argument the opponent is making. The point is important. When making an argument the arguer needs to actually give substantive points to rebuke the points that their opponent is making in order to refute the argument. Your post was an apt analysis of fallacy claims and how they cannot simply stand alone in response to an argument.
ReplyDeleteBased on the situation described in the last example I think Minhaj could have benefitted more from a description of the principles that underlie affirmative action instead of pointing out statistical inconsistency. The statistics used by Blum could have been used intentionally to subvert the argument, but it is also possible that it was unintentional; this is not the strongest point to make, nor is it relevant to the grander argument. Instead, the best way to argue for affirmative action tends to be a description of its history. When people know why these measures exist in the first place it gives them a more comprehensive view of the situation. Thus, the best critique of Blum's argument would probably begin with an overview of the history - indicating why it is still necessary in the process. Pointing out statistical inconsistency is still important, but not the most effective route to take.
ReplyDelete