Skip to main content

Chapter 11

In chapter 11 we talked about Fallacy. Fallacy is defined as a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound argument and/or a failure in reasoning that renders an argument invalid and/or faulty reasoning; misleading or unsound argument.

Therefore, in an article written about the prisoners in a Delaware prison being beaten by correctional officers the supervisor thought the prisoners complaints were a fallacy. She did not believe that the information that the prisoners were giving about being physically and verbally abuse was real even though there was evidence from the prisoners psychiatrists and exams. She thought they were trying to get the correctional officers in trouble and that the information they were providing for this argument were fallacy when in fact it was real.

How would you not know that this information is true? Situations like this are tricky, would you believe the prisoners after who knows what they have done in and outside the prison in the past? Maybe they are tricking you? But wouldn't you feel like an idiot for not believing them when their health is at risk? What do you do?

I think it is hard to distinguish things as a fallacy or not. Some arguments are obviously easier but others I think can become a little bit trickier. But hopefully these ideas and concepts in the book make it a little bit easier to identify a fallacy.

http://www.wboc.com/story/39403332/delaware-lawsuit-claims-inmates-were-beaten-tortured-by-cos

Comments

  1. AnonymousNovember 28, 2018 at 8:56 AM

    I really enjoyed the example you provided because there are many aspects of argumentation that could play into this unique situation. My first thought about the Delaware prison incident was that the prisoners were not believed because of their lack of credibility. An authority figure would likely not believe the convicts that they are supervising, let alone believe that their subordinate coworkers would do something so malicious like this. In reality, a supervisor would be significantly more likely to trust their coworkers over the prisoners that they are working with. Although the factor of credibility is present in who the supervisor would naturally trust, she should have investigated the personal testimonies of the prisoners. This lack of belief was foolish because if a prisoner makes a claim of violence towards them, there is likely proof of these unethical actions by correctional officers. In my opinion, it was a major mistake by the supervisor to immediately disregard this claim from prisoners and assume it to be a fallacy. The supervisor likely did not have grounds to assume this situation as a fallacy because of the lack of pin-pointing exact information or reasons to why this could be a fallacy. Overall, the lack of credibility from prisoners combined with the supervisor’s assumed trust for subordinate coworkers was detrimental to the argument and left prisoners in true danger.

    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

Chaper 8

Chapter 8 of Argumentation and Critical Decision Making continues down the route of talking about support for argumentation. This chapter specifically focuses on values as support for arguments, how to recognize them and the best ways to attack them. Values are defined as “ concepts of what is desirable that arguers use and decision makers understand” (121).  There are several types of values mentioned such as stated, implied, positive, negative, terminal, instrumental, abstract and concrete values.  Stated values are state directly what concepts they hold. For example, words such as “freedom” or “health” are stated values because they mean exactly what they're trying to portray. Not all values are as explicit. Some are more vague and called implied values. One of the examples that the book uses to show the contrast between the two is in the case of work equality. When talking about the subject saying, “ Equal pay for equal work” would be a stated value and “ Women deserve th...
Post a Comment
Read more