Chapter 11 defines its main idea of fallacy claims on page 174, which says that it “asserts that an argument must be rejected because it violates a significant rule of argumentation relevant to the appropriate decision makers.” This definition is understandable, however there are three main characteristics (p.175) to this concept that must also be considered when using this type of claim. These three characteristics play into each other very well as they all connect to different aspects of a fallacy claim.
First, a fallacy claim requires a person to pin-point the hidden issue that needs to be fixed. This concept involves undertaking the opposing point that may contain a fallacy, then proving this violation of argument to decision makers. This is not usually self-evident, which is why arguers need to seek out these false claims. A good example of this is when pointing out simple inconsistencies in an opposing argument, one needs to specifically point out why their opponent is inconsistent and pin-point the exact claims that do not line up with each other rather than just saying “your point is inconsistent”.
The next characteristic of fallacy claims are identifying when someone significantly derails the argument from the appropriate topic. This can also be seen as making less impactful criticisms (“nit-picking criticisms”) that do not actually advance a critical decision. The book explains this as a person taking a triumph in pointing out a slip of the tongue, a slight over exaggeration, or other minor errors that do not advance any critical decision or hinder someone else's point. It continues to say that instead of nit-picking, one should focus on a heavy exaggeration, for example changing a 5% statistic to a 95% statistic, which are clearly complete opposites. It continues to build on this idea by saying a slight exaggeration from 5% to 10% would not need to come under fire from a fallacy claim.
Finally, a fallacy claim must be significant enough for decision makers to reaffirm and specify the rules of accuracy. This focuses on the fabrication of information, which needs to be a reasonable manipulation of data or materials that do not accurately represent the given point. Through these larger fabrications, an arguer can point this out and gain support from the decision makers that the point is inaccurate and misrepresentative.
First, a fallacy claim requires a person to pin-point the hidden issue that needs to be fixed. This concept involves undertaking the opposing point that may contain a fallacy, then proving this violation of argument to decision makers. This is not usually self-evident, which is why arguers need to seek out these false claims. A good example of this is when pointing out simple inconsistencies in an opposing argument, one needs to specifically point out why their opponent is inconsistent and pin-point the exact claims that do not line up with each other rather than just saying “your point is inconsistent”.
The next characteristic of fallacy claims are identifying when someone significantly derails the argument from the appropriate topic. This can also be seen as making less impactful criticisms (“nit-picking criticisms”) that do not actually advance a critical decision. The book explains this as a person taking a triumph in pointing out a slip of the tongue, a slight over exaggeration, or other minor errors that do not advance any critical decision or hinder someone else's point. It continues to say that instead of nit-picking, one should focus on a heavy exaggeration, for example changing a 5% statistic to a 95% statistic, which are clearly complete opposites. It continues to build on this idea by saying a slight exaggeration from 5% to 10% would not need to come under fire from a fallacy claim.
Finally, a fallacy claim must be significant enough for decision makers to reaffirm and specify the rules of accuracy. This focuses on the fabrication of information, which needs to be a reasonable manipulation of data or materials that do not accurately represent the given point. Through these larger fabrications, an arguer can point this out and gain support from the decision makers that the point is inaccurate and misrepresentative.
Comments
Post a Comment