Skip to main content

Chapter 11


In this chapter on fallacy claims, I think the biggest foundation is honesty.  When you look at any of the other topics we have looked at (evidence, values, etc.), we learned that we need to be able to have proof and background to support our argument.  In this chapter, we learned that we need to give accurate information to the decision makers, otherwise we are providing misleading information.  The book argues that using fallacies is inappropriate, but I would argue it is more than inappropriate, and that it is completely wrong.  I think using fallacies can harm your reputation and that is so important when making arguments.  I also wonder why a person would want to provide bad information.  I think that it is always best to give the best, 100% accurate information so that the best decision can actually be made, even if the decision is not what you would have wanted. 

Comments

  1. AnonymousNovember 26, 2018 at 11:08 AM

    Hey!

    I agree with what your point is on honesty. I think during refutation people can tend to get stressed out and more aggressive in order to get their point across, this can lead to people to provide distorted facts or just straight up false facts, which is a very dangerous and bad thing. Some people might not even think twice about the claims you are making and will believe whatever you say, leading to them believing this false information and maybe even spreading it. Also, when arguing, we want it to be productive and to learn from it, by using untrue claims, it makes it difficult to actually get anywhere in an argument and can make the whole debate useless.

    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