Fallacies are, at their core, illogical arguments, and most
people who are familiar with basic argumentation are familiar with the concept
of a logical fallacy. However, many people are unaware of what can be defined
as a fallacy, and this can lead to people making arguments that they believe to
be logically sound when in reality they are anything but. A common example of
this is the fallacy of begging the question. The book says that begging the
question occurs when an arguer assumes that the point they are trying to prove
is true when making their argument, and using that assumption as support for
another claim. This can be especially problematic when partisan media is
involved, as people can receive biased news and then use it as support for
another claim. An example of this would be someone arguing in favor of using
tear gas on immigrants because of the need to keep out people who will hurt our
country and citizens after hearing on Fox News that immigrants are dangerous.
The point at issue in most immigration debates is whether immigrants are
helpful or harmful to the United States, so by using the claim that they are
harmful as support for another argument is a fallacy of begging the question.
Using unproven information as support for further arguments is an error that
many people make in their everyday lives, and it often goes unnoticed because
to many this error doesn’t fit the classical definition of illogical.
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...
Comments
Post a Comment