Two weeks ago we discussed different types of reasoning. However, as hard as we may try there are times that our reasoning does not completely make sense. When the grounds of an argument do not connect to the claim this is called a fallacy. Fallacy is defined as any unsound mode of arguing, which appears to demand our conviction, and to be decisive of the question in hand, when in fairness it is not. This means that an argument made that has nothing to do with what is actually being argued is considered a fallacy. Sometimes we use fallacies to strengthen our persuasiveness by appealing to a subject that your audience holds to be more important, however, if we are debating or if the audience that we are trying to persuade is a group that thinks critically, this can actually work against and weaken our argument.
Fallacies of logic that are confined to one statement are usually easy to spot. For example, an ad hominem attack from when we were younger usually went something like this, "don't believe John Doe when he says we are getting a longer break, he is a doody head!" Now, weather or not John Doe was, in fact a "doody head" actually has nothing to do with whether or not the break for that day was extended. However, the child who uttered these words were hoping that the listener would agree with him about John Doe, thus lessening Doe's credibility and believability.
Here we can also run into the issue with fallacies of logic as well. Say that John Doe had been mistaken about break being extended and really break was the normal amount of allotted time. Even though a critical thinker would be less likely to believe the child who used the ad hominem attack for reasoning he had been right. Not about John Doe being a "doody head" but about the fact that break was not extended. A fallacy of logic does not necessarily mean that a speaker is wrong and so when we face people or organizations that use fallacies of logic to advocate for a particular issue then we must ask questions and try to break down what is actually the truth.
Fallacies of logic are harder to spot when it is not one particular statement but an entire argument that is a fallacy. A student earlier this week sent me a link to a Huffington Post article. Now, one thing must be admitted right of the bat. This was one of two articles analyzing President Obama's speech on Syria last Tuesday and so there might be more explanation in the first article. It should be noted that I am using this one article as an example because it fits my purpose and not because I think the author necessarily used fallacious thinking when writing. However, the article is a perfect example of a larger piece of work that, at first glance, uses no fallacy of logic in a single sentence but when taken in as a whole exhibits the characteristics of a piece that is fallacious. This has to do with the definition that the author is trying to put forward to defend President Obama. The author tried to define the term "systemic causation" by using a lot of words and yet not really clarifying what he means by the term. This is called verbalism or "the abundant use of words without conveying much meaning."
Again, just because the author uses a fallacy does not meant that he is wrong. It just means that when he was expressing himself, he did so in a way that would be easy to deconstruct in a debate. I would encourage everyone to make themselves aware of the different types of fallacies that are used so as to be able to identify them when someone is using them in an argument. Here is a website that does a good job at explaining fallacies and giving examples of what they are.
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/
As always, if you have any comments or questions, please feel free to post in the comment section below.
No comments:
Post a Comment