In this chapter we take a look at fallacy claims as a way to use them in refutation. I think this is important because we have the ability to hold people accountable to their claims and arguments. This is strictly important when arguing things that can possibly contradict what you are wanting to say in the message. Following the rules of argumentation is important in the systematic approach of making sure an argument is solid. For example, if logic is used in an argument and the result of the claims are illogical, then that could be a fallacy claim. An example from the textbook would be "Japanese eat raw fish. Sharks eat raw fish. Therefore, Japanese are sharks" (Pg.176). The logical fallacy has to do with the middle term in the statement as it does not link Japanese to sharks. Therefore, the third claim would be false and illogical. It is important to take into consideration the logical fallacies because it can claims not true even though the statements might be. This is important in argumentation because without the ability to understand how a fallacy can make an argument weaker it will become hard to make a strong argument. An example of a weak argument based on logical fallacy would be the federal government loans out hundreds of thousands of dollars to individuals to attend college, therefore they want every student to be in debt. The logical fallacy in this would be that the government wanting students to be in debt. This claim would be almost one made by someone who could be ignorant. Decision makers would not agree with this claim if the arguer was wanting to change the mind of someone. It is important to understand what makes a claim illogical and how it can be strengthen by critical analysis of what is being argued.
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...
Nate, you do such a great job of bringing your own perspectives into each post. Your thought processes and unique perspectives help me understand the content better, so good work! I think the examples you used in this post (Japanese+Shark, and Gov't+Student Debt) did a wonderful job of explaining the utility of fallacies in our course. They certainly helped me understand things better. The way you displayed the information makes me think you would be successful in a teaching career! Keep up the good work.
ReplyDelete