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.
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...
Hey!
ReplyDeleteI 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.