A fallacy is an error in reasoning. The word fallacy actually comes from the word logic. We use the term fallacy for argumentation because it is not automatic and must be argued like any other claim. (pg.174) There are many types of fallacy claims. Fallacy claims of sophistry, appeal to authority, appeal to popularity, fallacies in language, etc. Appeal to authority I believe is the most important. Appeal to authority is something that I mention in my other blog posts when talking about credibility and its importance. In the book it talks about how appeal to authority is when someone believes a claim is true just because someone with authority says so. The issue with that is that just because someone has authority or is credible doesn't necessarily mean they are credible in the topic that is being discussed. The book says it this way, "When the so-called authority is not an authority on the question at issue or is biased." (pg.178) This is important because before just assuming someone is credible based on their background, one must first take into consideration what the topic being discussed is about. A perfect example of a fallacy claim would be Zach Parise (famous hockey player) talking about healthy greek yogurt. If them being famous is all that is used, that is a fallacy claim. He is not truly credible in the subject itself to make an argument about greek yogurt. They are just using him being famous to try and sell a product, this happens often!!
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
I really like the point you brought up about people's credibility being used for topics they may not be credible in. This happens so much, especially with celebrity and athlete endorsements, that I think our generation is becoming somewhat desensitized. I think we have also come to trust certain figures that may align with our biases. We as a society need to be more careful about doing this and remember that someone's expertise in one area definitely does not transfer to other areas, even if they seem simple! Another example I can think of is Aaron Rodgers endorsing Chevrolet trucks. Aaron Rodgers is amazing at football, but what qualifies him to tell consumers which kind of truck to buy? However, because he is famous and very loved in the state of Wisconsin, his endorsement if effective for some people. This is just one example of many that we see every day, especially with the rise and use of social media.
ReplyDeleteHey!
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed your blog post this week; I think that you really covered some key points in regards to this week's topic of fallacy. I thought that it was really interesting how you went into depth about the appeal to authority and credibility.
As I read your post, I tried to tie it back to my own post this week. In my post, I dove into the three key characteristics of fallacy: pinpointing an issue that needs to be resolved and proving it to the decision makers, charging a significant deviance from appropriate argumentation practices, and reaffirmation of rules of the sphere.
I tried to find which of these characteristics I felt best tied to the concept that you focused on, and I believe it is the first one. In my blog post, I provided an example of the first characteristic using Donald Trump and his inconsistent stance on immigration (backed by evidence, of course). Because this fallacy claim seemed to attack the speaker, Donald Trump is inconsistent, I felt that it tied to your key idea of an appeal to authority.
Additionally, I really enjoyed your example of Zach Parise and his yogurt commercials. Just because he is a famous athlete and he is healthy, it doesn't mean that he has all of the information he needs to make definite claims about yogurt. I think that his credibility would need to be further investigated before his commercials can be taken as credible/ fact. (Also, you're very right, famous figures are often used to promote product just because they're known, not because they are credible.)