Skip to main content

Chapter 11


In this chapter on fallacy claims, I think the biggest foundation is honesty.  When you look at any of the other topics we have looked at (evidence, values, etc.), we learned that we need to be able to have proof and background to support our argument.  In this chapter, we learned that we need to give accurate information to the decision makers, otherwise we are providing misleading information.  The book argues that using fallacies is inappropriate, but I would argue it is more than inappropriate, and that it is completely wrong.  I think using fallacies can harm your reputation and that is so important when making arguments.  I also wonder why a person would want to provide bad information.  I think that it is always best to give the best, 100% accurate information so that the best decision can actually be made, even if the decision is not what you would have wanted. 

Comments

  1. AnonymousNovember 26, 2018 at 11:08 AM

    Hey!

    I agree with what your point is on honesty. I think during refutation people can tend to get stressed out and more aggressive in order to get their point across, this can lead to people to provide distorted facts or just straight up false facts, which is a very dangerous and bad thing. Some people might not even think twice about the claims you are making and will believe whatever you say, leading to them believing this false information and maybe even spreading it. Also, when arguing, we want it to be productive and to learn from it, by using untrue claims, it makes it difficult to actually get anywhere in an argument and can make the whole debate useless.

    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