Skip to main content

Chapter 11

Chapter 11 of the textbook discusses refutation by fallacy claims. Fallacies are individual errors in reasoning that are subject to refutation. The textbook says that “a fallacy claim asserts that an argument must be rejected because it violates a significant rule of argumentation relevant to the appropriate decision makers. The textbook also gives three characteristics central to the concept of fallacy. First when charging that an argument makes a fallacy you must prove it to the decision makers in a satisfactory way. In order to prove a fallacy you cannot merely point it out to the decision makers, you must instead pinpoint the issue and prove that it is, in fact, a fallacy. Second a fallacy claim is significant and cannot just be nit-picking an argument. A fallacy cannot just be a small slip of the tongue for example it must be a significant deviation from the appropriate practices of argumentation. Finally a fallacy claim is dependent on a significant rule of argumentation and for the fallacy claim to be appropriate the decision makers must be adherent to that rule of argumentation.
I think that fallacies are very interesting because in part of how often we see them in real world arguments and how often they go unnoticed or unrefuted. People employ fallacies all the time in political argument and elsewhere and they are accepted and not challenged most of the time. I think this is detrimental to argumentation. But it is true, people use fallacies all the time.

Comments

  1. Hello
    I agree with your point that people use fallacies all the time. It is frustrating when people are using fallacies against your position, or it is frustrated to hear people using fallacies to argue against another point. It is a waste of time. In my perspective, fallacies are also useful in some way, it gets people to speak up whether to argue against fallacies or making fallacies. It is better than not talking. I am a shy person, and I usually shout up when other people are making arguments, not only because I am a shy person, but also because I am afraid to involve in a refutation. I feel like if I speak up, I would have made a good point, and I can take time to master my debates skill rather than sitting there saying nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Why is it, do you think, that so many people let presenters get away with using fallacies? Is it simply a matter of not noticing or is it because the three criteria aren't well known or followed? I agree that politics is a place where we can easily find fallacies being used constantly, yet they are seldom called out. Furthermore, when they are called out, the accuser is often labeled as making a partisan attack. It seems dangerous to me that politics, the place where we see loads of unchecked fallacies, is also the field where these fallacies can have dramatic effects for large numbers of people. If fallacies slip by decision makers in politics, there can be huge amounts of mislegislation that has consequences for everyone. If this is the case, why then are we not more scrutinizing of politicians and their fallacies? Are there dangers of mislabeling fallacies? If so, could this be a reason for letting many of them slide?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Fallacies will be present more often than not, especially when it comes to argumentation. One wants to do whatever it takes in order to prove that your statements are correct. Often time the reason why people accept fallacies during speeches is because they agree with the majority of their statements so they are not aware of the fallacies that they make. The effect of a stated fallacy, or fallacies, depends on in what setting it is being used. A politician presenting fallacies in their speeches will have a more significant effect than say a student giving a class speech. However, if one want to point out possible fallacies within a persons statement it should be done in a organized manner and it is important to make sure to have confirmed facts regarding the topic.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think it is important to try and recognize these fallacies that more than often appear in the arguments that we get in to. Being able to recognize them and pinpoint them is crucial because it can make someone else's argument crumble because of an oversight in their logic. We can't stop these fallacies from coming up in our arguments, but we can be ready for them and learn to counter the opposition's claims if they happen to fall into one of these tropes. I also think that a reason people tend to use fallacies, intentionally or not, is because it seems like they contain a major statement with little to no effort as compared to a long winded, but credible, explanation that needs outside sources that are credible and other important details that many people find boring.

    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

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

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