Skip to main content

Chapter 11

I thought this chapter was super interesting, especially because it mentioned tu quoque fallacies, otherwise known as changing the subject when accused of something and redirecting attention by pointing out something else. I think this happens a lot when unsavory accusations are made against public figures. Oftentimes, the response will be to point out something bad that the accuser did, even if it does not address the initial claim in the slightest. President Trump is a frequent subject of to quoque fallacies. The most prominent example I can think of is where he repeatedly brought up Hillary Clinton's emails while not addressing the public's demand for his tax records. President Trump still has not released all of his tax records and often takes to Twitter to redirect claims back at his accusers. However, many of his rebuttal claims are sensationalized, so people pay more attention to the claims that he makes rather than the initial accusatory claim. This also gets back to credibility- since he holds the office of President of the United States, people are inclined to believe he is credible in regards to all affairs of the state. Even though this is proven to not be true, because of his office, people believe what he says. This is a common phenomenon within all of politics- politicians speak on subjects that they are not qualified to talk about, and because of the office they hold, people believe them. The example I can think of is Senator Mitch McConnell disputing climate change, even though experts in the field and scientific data say otherwise. People believe him because of the office he holds, even though he is not knowledgable on the subject.

Comments

  1. AnonymousNovember 26, 2018 at 2:33 PM

    I definitely agree with your analysis on the current President’s use of tu quoque fallacies in many of his arguments. Expanding on the use of fallacies in modern day politics, I would also like to draw attention to how the text discusses ways in which one can identify when a fallacy is being used. First and foremost, I believe that it is crucial for the general public to be able to notice when a politician is using a fallacy. When the voting population calls out illogical arguments, it prompts politicians to think twice before making irrational statements. Using tu quoque fallacies as an example, the book labels such a fallacy as breaching the rules of conversational cooperation (Rieke, Sillars, & Peterson, 183). More specifically, the rule that is being broken here is “irrelevant utterance” (Rieke, Sillars, & Peterson, 183). Irrelevant utterances harm the critical process by drawing attention away from useful information and focusing the audience’s attention on matters that is outside the realm of what is being discussed. Like the example given in this post, President Trump bringing Hillary Clinton’s emails into the argument does not adequately answer the questions being posed. The executive branch’s main responsibility is to be accountable to the people. If questions are dodged, and responses are not articulated, the people will not know how the administration plans on solving many of the nation’s problems. This sets up a dangerous precedent of politicians not having to come up with concrete solutions to issues. Hence, it is imperative for people to acknowledge fallacies when they arise, and to push for more answers from their elected officials.

    Source:
    Rieke, R.D., Sillars, M.O., & Peterson, T.R. (2013). Argumentation and critical decision making. 8th ed., New York: Pearson.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Chap 5

Chapter five focuses primarily on identifying and developing propositions for problems that people think are relevant. It goes over 6 steps for choosing a valid proposition based on a perceived “feeling of doubt.” While all six steps may not be necessary, the collectively ensure a well thought out and firm proposition. The six steps include identifying the question, surveying implicated objectives (or understanding what is the goal accomplishment in regard to the question), searching for new information, considering alternative options, considering costs and risks of each potential proposition, and then finally choosing one of the propositions. The authors then go on to talk about analyzing and strengthening the proposition chosen. This includes identification and ranking of the issues that the proposition addresses as well as understanding how the decision makers will react to these issues and propositions. In general, with all these methods of critically analyzing the proposition, ...
Post a 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

Chapter 4 - The Nature of Arguments

Chapter 4 of Argumentation and Critical Decision Making by Rieke, Sillars and Peterson teaches us that even though each argument is different than another and may appear in a different situation, most arguments can be diagrammed by what is called the Toulmin model. Developed by Stephen Toulmin, this model provides a visual breakdown of an argument’s structure and parts. It begins with the “claim” that is seeking adherence by the presenter. This is what the entire argument model revolves around. Next,  the claim requires what is called “grounds” that basically means the reasoning of why the claim should gain adherence. In between the two the two, we are introduced to a “warrant”. This is information that provides more clarity to why the grounds support the claim. Both the grounds and warrant can be reinforced in the model by what is called “backing”. This is a fancy way of saying hard evidence such as quotes, specific data, etc. Last but not least, we have qualifiers and reservation...
1 comment
Read more