Fallacy claims in argumentation are points of weakness or flawed logic in a persons argument that another person can use against you, or vice versa, to weaken the other persons argument or discredit them. When you are able to pinpoint a fallacy, it is important not to just state that they are being illogical but to address the statement directly from which they said to make it as clear as possible to the decision makers which helps guide them through why the statement or stance the opposition is taking is being inconsistent. In addition, a fallacy can occur when a fact that an arguer is giving is either over or understated. This happens because someone may want to emphasize how important or insignificant something is to the decision makers and at face value, may look very valid, but looking into the actual stats of the statistic, it is no more than an inflated/deflated number used to gain favor quickly and can corrected. Fallacy claims and there recognition may also depend on the sphere in which you are arguing. Depending on the sphere, the decision makers may or may not deem a fallacy as a fallacy because of the amount of information gathered that is actually unnecessary. Fallacies can be found everywhere in argumentation, from the authorities, to the research that was conducted, and it is important to try and be direct as you can with them in order to discredit that information or claim. It is important that when you are arguing you use these fallacies to your advantage to appear consistent by asking yourself, who is saying it and are they an expert in that field, where and which organization did the information come from, and is this appearing consistent with my argument.
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...
Hi Scott. I believe you've done a commendable job of explaining how pointing out fallacies in arguments can ultimately deconstruct them. I especially enjoyed when you spoke about how fallacies occur when overstated and understated facts given by an arguer. I feel we see this commonly in casual arguments. I have a family member who is a die-hard supporter of President Trump, and I often see them overstate and understate facts when they craft an argument to defend him. For example, when we were discussing the events surrounding the migrant caravan moving through Mexico over Thanksgiving, they told me, "20,000 people are coming to steal our jobs and live off of our government. Just gigantic numbers. The biggest we've ever seen". Unfortunately, this is a rather inflated number, and I had to point out that the United Nations is only reporting 7,200 people. I normally don't like to nitpick, but the numbers my family member was reporting were simply false and fell nowhere near the numbers being reported by several reputable news sources and organizations.
ReplyDelete