Skip to main content

Chapter 11

In chapter 11 we talked about Fallacy. Fallacy is defined as a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound argument and/or a failure in reasoning that renders an argument invalid and/or faulty reasoning; misleading or unsound argument.

Therefore, in an article written about the prisoners in a Delaware prison being beaten by correctional officers the supervisor thought the prisoners complaints were a fallacy. She did not believe that the information that the prisoners were giving about being physically and verbally abuse was real even though there was evidence from the prisoners psychiatrists and exams. She thought they were trying to get the correctional officers in trouble and that the information they were providing for this argument were fallacy when in fact it was real.

How would you not know that this information is true? Situations like this are tricky, would you believe the prisoners after who knows what they have done in and outside the prison in the past? Maybe they are tricking you? But wouldn't you feel like an idiot for not believing them when their health is at risk? What do you do?

I think it is hard to distinguish things as a fallacy or not. Some arguments are obviously easier but others I think can become a little bit trickier. But hopefully these ideas and concepts in the book make it a little bit easier to identify a fallacy.

http://www.wboc.com/story/39403332/delaware-lawsuit-claims-inmates-were-beaten-tortured-by-cos

Comments

  1. UnknownNovember 28, 2018 at 8:56 AM

    I really enjoyed the example you provided because there are many aspects of argumentation that could play into this unique situation. My first thought about the Delaware prison incident was that the prisoners were not believed because of their lack of credibility. An authority figure would likely not believe the convicts that they are supervising, let alone believe that their subordinate coworkers would do something so malicious like this. In reality, a supervisor would be significantly more likely to trust their coworkers over the prisoners that they are working with. Although the factor of credibility is present in who the supervisor would naturally trust, she should have investigated the personal testimonies of the prisoners. This lack of belief was foolish because if a prisoner makes a claim of violence towards them, there is likely proof of these unethical actions by correctional officers. In my opinion, it was a major mistake by the supervisor to immediately disregard this claim from prisoners and assume it to be a fallacy. The supervisor likely did not have grounds to assume this situation as a fallacy because of the lack of pin-pointing exact information or reasons to why this could be a fallacy. Overall, the lack of credibility from prisoners combined with the supervisor’s assumed trust for subordinate coworkers was detrimental to the argument and left prisoners in true danger.

    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