- Oct 14, 1999
- 4,375
- 0
- 0
I know that there are a lot of people here who enjoy getting into a good argument on occasion.
I have seen some really horrible arguments though, ones that simply defied all logic, or which made unreasonable claims which were impossible to refute, yet did not prove anything either. In the hopes that this will improve the quality of arguments and discussions around here, I would like to present this excerpt from "Writers INC" by Sebranek/Meyer/Kemper. It's a long read but worthwhile.
If you've made it this far, congratulations, your arguments will probably be a lot more sound from now on.
Please bump this so others will also have a chance to see it.
I have seen some really horrible arguments though, ones that simply defied all logic, or which made unreasonable claims which were impossible to refute, yet did not prove anything either. In the hopes that this will improve the quality of arguments and discussions around here, I would like to present this excerpt from "Writers INC" by Sebranek/Meyer/Kemper. It's a long read but worthwhile.
Some [arguments] distort the original question; some are used to sabotage the whole argument; others make use of improper evidence or language; and still others draw faulty conclusions from the evidence available.
Distorting the Question
1. The Bare Assertion ("That's just how it is.") The most basic way to distort a question is to deny that there is one. Refusing to back up a disputed claim with proper reasons is an irresponsible argument-stopper.
2. Begging the Question This fallacy consists of assuming in a definition or in the premises of your argument hte very point you are trying to prove. Note how circular this sort of reasoning is:
Phil: I hate Mr. Baldwin's class because I'm never happy in there.
(But what's wrong with the class?
3. Oversimplification Beware of phrases like, "It all boils down to..." or "It's a simple question of..." Almost no dispute among reasonably intelligent people is "a simple question of..." Anyone who feels, for example, that capital punishment "all boils down" to a matter of protecting society ought to question, in succession, a doctor, an inmate on death row, his wife, a sociologist, a minister, and a political philosopher.
4. Black and White Thinking ("Either ... or ...") This familiar fallacy consists of reducing all possible options to two extremes: "America: Love It or Leave It." "Put up or shut up." "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." Usually when a person eliminates all "greys" from consideration like this, that person leaves little doubt about which option he or she consideres white and which black. Thus, the black/white fallacy usually appears in the argument of someone who is not listening for a reply.
5. Complex Question Sometimes by phrasing a question a certain way, you may ignore or cover up an even larger, more urgent question. For example, Roger asks the high school principal, "Why can't I get academic credit for monitoring the bathroom?"; he ignores the larger question whether anyone should get credit for monitoring a bathroom.
Sabotaging the Argument
6. Red Herring Red herring refers to a stinky smoked fish dragged across a trail to throw a tracking dog off the scent. Certain issues are like that: so volatile and controversial that, once introduced into a discussion, they tend to sidetrack everyone involved. Let's say you are discussing the need for tobacco subsidies in the federal budget and somebody asserts, beside the point, that all restaurants should have no-smoking sections - off you go, chasing that tasty fish.
7. Misuse of Humor Jokes have a healthy way of lightening the mood, but when humor is used the way an octopus squirts ink - to blind and befuddle, and possibly to injure - it qualifies as a subversive activity (a kind of logical guerrilla warfare) and is a confession of weakness in the saboteur's position.
Appeal to Force ("Might Makes Right.") One simple way of sabotaging an argument is to break the opponent's leg. On a more subtle level, someoen may imply that your argument cannot be true because his own is in the majority. Needless to say, one needs a degree of courage to resist such "logic."
Misusing Evidence
9. Impressing With Large Numbers This fallacy can take at least two forms. One person can try to "snow" another by slinging impressive figures. ("I paid $6,958.39 for this bomb - isn't she a beaut?") Just as commonly, one person will try to make his claim sound reasonable by saying that "everybody" agrees. This uncritical use of numers can easily lead to absurdity: "Eat garbage - 7 billion flies can't be wrong!"
10. Irrelevant Appeals to Authority You can take Dr. Carl Sagan's word on the composition of Saturns rings, but the moment he, like the famous quarterback Joe Namath a few years ago, tries to [peddle pantyhoes on TV, watch out!
11. Appeals to Popular Sentiment Associating your cause with all the popular virtues - flag-waiving patriotism, basball, apple pie, plouride in drinking water - may seduce your listeners into smiling agreement, but it bases your argument on unfulfillable promises. If the other guy is unscrupulous, he may use the same tactic.
12. Appeal to Personal Factors By focusing on a person's lifestyle or other personal qualities, one may evade the true issue at hand. Ad hominem arguments can have either a positive or negative thrust. For example, while campaigning for Senator Buzof, you might say, "Senator Buzof is a family man and a former Eagle Scout." You might turn that same fact against him: "Would you trust this Buzof fellow in your Congress? He has a mind like a Boy Scout!"
13. Appeal to Pity [left out because it doesn't really apply to ATOT arguments]
14. Appeal to Ignorance One commits this fallacy by claiming that since no one has ever proved a claim it must therefore be false. ("Show me one study that proves marijuana leads to harder drugs.") Or, vice versa, one may claim that some belief must be true since no one can disprove it. ("Sure I believe in flying saucers - half of all sightings have never been explaiend.") This fallacy unfairly shifts the burden of proof onto someone else.
15. Hypothesis Contrary to Fact This false argument bases its claim on what one supposes would have happened if one thing or another had not happened instead. Such claims, being pure speculation, cannot be tested by logic.
16. False Analogy Sometimes you may argue that X is good because it is like Y (which is also good). Sugh an analogy may be helpful if it illuminatse the subject. But the analogy weakens an argument if it is improper, if the grounds for comparison are too vague, or if the analogy is stretched too far.
Misusing Language
17. Obfuscation Technical buzzwords, sometimes combined with twisted language, may obscure behind their brilliant facade the fact that the passage of speech or prose in which they occur means practically nothing.
18. Ambiguity Sometimes a word or sentence strucyture will allowfor two or more opposite interpretations, as in the following: "We were introduced to the head hunter; the next day he had us for lunch." When ambuguity appears in argument, it is sometimes an unintended result of careless thinking, a kind of joke that recoils on the teller. At other times, however, a speaker or writer may deliberately be ambiguous to avoid being pinned down.
19. Slanted Language. By choosing words with strongly positive or negative connotations, a person can add a persuasive emotional charge to an argument. Such words may be used to express genuine and appropriate feeling, or they may be the vehicle for mindless prejudice. The philosopher Bertrand Russell once illustrated the bias involved in slanted language when he compared three synonyms for the word "stubborn": "I am firm. You are obstinate. He is pigheaded."
Drawing Faulty Conclusions
20. Hasty Generalization A reasonable conclusion must be backed by sufficient evidence. Basing conclusions on inadequate evidence, on the other hand, is always a fallacy, even if the conclusion could be justified by a different set of proofs. ("I saw the principal drive away at noon. HNe must have another job somewhere on the side.")
21. Composition and Division The twin fallacies of composition are based, respectively, on the belieft that the whole of something will have the same quality as each of its parts and the converse belief that each part will have the quality of the whole. The fallacy of composition is clear when a choir director says after an audition, "All of the singers were excellent. What an excellent choir we shall have." The result? Forty-six excellent altos, one excellent baritone, and one less-than-excellent choir!
22. False Cause If A precedes B, it need not therefore be the cause of B, even though we may lazily assume that it is. A may have been the only sufficient cause of B; it may also have been one of several necessary causes; or finally, A and B may be entirely coincidental. Notice the fallacy of "false cause" at work in the following: "Since that new school was built, drug use among our young people has skyrocketed. Better that it would never have been built."
If you've made it this far, congratulations, your arguments will probably be a lot more sound from now on.
Please bump this so others will also have a chance to see it.
Facebook
Twitter