All students are required to comment TWICE a week. A week goes from Monday to Sunday. A comment can be a response to my or others' posts --- or a new post. All posts must be relevant to class discussions and assignments. Each post should be 1-3 paragraphs.
Remember, it is OK to disagree with one another, but we must always be RESPECTFUL of one another.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Bad Argumentation
A lot of arguments, especially political, are deeply flawed, but covered up by powerful rhetoric. Give an exmaple of "bad argumentaion" that is disguised as truth. It can be an argument you've heard or made up.
Beware of the dreaded scarecrow tactic! Below is a bad hypothetical rebuttal to a hypothetical statement using the scarecrow tactic. Of which can in some cases be useful when accurate, but villainizes any opponents otherwise.
*Side 1: "I think we should adopt Strategy A, with the goal of causing Result B."
Side 2, with the bad argument: "I don't think Strategy A would cause Result B. In fact, I think it's so clear that Strategy A won't cause Result B, and that it will instead cause horrible Result C, that I'll accuse Side 1 of lying when they say they want Result B in the first place. Thus, if they're proposing Strategy A, it's really because of a sinister and maleficent plot to bring about Result C."*
Many a times politicians use this strategy to become more popular by making their opponents appear 'sinister and maleficent' thereby putting neutral people at the side of his or hers. This, in terms of a persuasive argument, does nothing to help the other side of the argument at least acknowledge that the other side of the argument is a logical one. The scarecrow tactic is one problematic example of bad argumentation.
*source: What Does It Mean to be Well Educated? -By Alfie Kohn
Here is an example of a logical fallicy. "You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature" - Church of the Flying Spagetti Monster (pastafarians). These two things are completely unrelated. It just so happens that their numbers run in an anti-parallel direction. Through less than scientific research one could possibly come to the conclusion that pirates (or the lack there of) is the direct cause of global warming.
Here is a logical fallicy that I made up. In the month of February, there was a increase in snow. There was also an increase in double murder. From this we can conclude that the snow causes murderers to be committed in pairs. This arguement is illoical because the two things have nothing to do with each other, one is based on nature, one is based on personal choices, the amounts just coincide with each other in the same time period.
A fallacy that has been used by many teenagers over the years is, "If you loved me then you would..." This has been used against parents so that they would be guilted into doing whatever that child wanted. The reality of the matter, though, is that the original denial of the request was because the adult thought the idea was dangerous or a bad situation and didn't want their child to get hurt. This is because of the amount of love that parent has, not a lack of love. This argument for getting what you want can work, but its logic is not reasonable.
A false argument could be "all teenagers have consumed alcohol or used drugs." This is an argument known as hast generalization. This targets a general group, and does not mean that all the people in that group have participated in the argument. This argument is false because nobody can accurately say this. Not all teenagers have used drugs or consumed alcohol. They might later in their life, but generalizing this specific group targets them in the wrong way. This type of argument is flawed because it focuses on one general group, and it inaccurately says that all teenagers have used drugs or consumed alcohol. This is a false statement, and hasty generalization is a bad form of argument.
One logical fallacy that I saw lately in an argument used unreliable statistics to make an argument seem true. A computer company was trying to prove that American computer usage was rising in order to gain monetary support from a bigger company. The computer company said that "according to this online survey" nine out of ten people use their computer for four or more hours a day. Then this survey that we "mailed around" in early 2000 suggests that only 1/10 people used their computer for four or more hours every day.
The main problem with this argument is the target audience in each of the surveys. By using an online survey, the company knew that the people answering online surveys were people that spent a lot of time on the computer. They also knew that people who spent time responding to surveys they received in the mail, probably don't do a lot of other things with their life. Although the results do show an increase in computer usage, they are no where close to being valid. It is like saying oil burns longer than water, and that one is allowed to compare the two because they are both liquids, which are "all pretty much the same in the long run".
A bad argument would be, "Everyone I know that likes basketball, likes baseball which means that everyone that likes basketball likes baseball too." This is a bad argument for many reasons. First of all, it is just one person's view on the subject. Just because this one person happens to know people like this, does not mean everyone is like this. Basketball and baseball are two very different sports and some people may love both of them, one of them or neither of them. There are all different types of people and not everyone is the same. Everyone has their own opinions on things, including sports.
I looked up fallacies that are in the media and came across this, "You'll never find any additives in our tobacco. What you see is what you get. Simply 100% whole-leaf natural tobacco. True authentic tobacco taste. It's only natural." This add might come across as true to the readers because it makes it seem like their cigarettes are all-natural, and we've all heard that things that are natural are always better for us. But what makes this argument untrue is that the cancer causing chemicals in cigarette tobbaco is actually natural. Therefore, just because no other chemicals are added to them doesn't mean they don't cause cancer. They are just as harmful.
I looked up some fallacies and found one of a straw man example:
Bill and Jill are arguing about cleaning out their closets: Jill: "We should clean out the closets. They are getting a bit messy." Bill: "Why, we just went through those closets last year. Do we have to clean them out everyday?" Jill: "I never said anything about cleaning them out every day. You just want too keep all your junk forever, which is just ridiculous."
This is a logical fallacy because it ignores the real argument, which is about cleaning the closet, and instead attacks the other person in an exaggerated way. I have seen these many times, and sometimes the reason they happen is because people have no better way to make the argument than to attack the other person.
Everyone I know prefers to wear red shoes. This in turn means that nobody likes to wear blue shoes.
This is an illogical argument because not only am I basing on a small amount of people that I know, but also because I never said that they were disinclined to blue. That came out of nowhere and has nothing to do the the previous sentence. Moreover, there are no facts to back up my argument. It is simple my senseless opinion. This argument would not even convince someone to consider my point of view because it makes absolutely no sense.
A bad argumentation can always lead to a bad impression on the person you are arguing with. Here is an argument or fallacy I made up: The girl was a bad test-taker, leading her to believe she was a bad person all-around. This is a bad argument because just because you might not be good at doing one little thing in the world does not by any means mean that you are not good at any other thing in the world. This fallacy or straw man argument is weak and would never be convincing if ever used.
Person B: ok so i guess you think cold hard killers are allowed to live after killing a lot of people. you basically a killer your self saying that.
This argument is a false dichotomy. By eliminating the other option, you are only forced with only one choice. Also, person B is basically insulting the other person witch in not a good argument tactic. He put you on the opposing side, makifn you out to be the bad guy when really that is not what you want at all.
A bad arguement I have heard of was that you had to be either pro life or pro choice. No one is strictly on either side of the argument. The people on the pro life side still believe in giving people choices. Likewise, people on the pro choice side still believe in life and do not believe in killing. Both of the arguments are at the extreme, which makes the person asking the question pressure the person answering into arguing. If someone asked someone who responded pro choice, the person who asked could easily call him a killer who does not believe in life which would make the person change their mind.
An example of a logical fallacy is: "Over the past couple of months it has been raining everyday. During that same month my teacher gave us a lot of home work. Thus, when it rains our teacher gives us a lot of Home Work. This argument is illogical because the weather obviously does not effect how much home work the teacher may give a student.
The above fallacy is an example of a Hasty Generalization. A hasty generalization is making assumptions about a whole group or events based on inadequate observations.
14 comments:
Beware of the dreaded scarecrow tactic! Below is a bad hypothetical rebuttal to a hypothetical statement using the scarecrow tactic. Of which can in some cases be useful when accurate, but villainizes any opponents otherwise.
*Side 1: "I think we should adopt Strategy A, with the goal of causing Result B."
Side 2, with the bad argument: "I don't think Strategy A would cause Result B. In fact, I think it's so clear that Strategy A won't cause Result B, and that it will instead cause horrible Result C, that I'll accuse Side 1 of lying when they say they want Result B in the first place. Thus, if they're proposing Strategy A, it's really because of a sinister and maleficent plot to bring about Result C."*
Many a times politicians use this strategy to become more popular by making their opponents appear 'sinister and maleficent' thereby putting neutral people at the side of his or hers. This, in terms of a persuasive argument, does nothing to help the other side of the argument at least acknowledge that the other side of the argument is a logical one. The scarecrow tactic is one problematic example of bad argumentation.
*source: What Does It Mean to be Well Educated? -By Alfie Kohn
Here is an example of a logical fallicy.
"You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature" - Church of the Flying Spagetti Monster (pastafarians). These two things are completely unrelated. It just so happens that their numbers run in an anti-parallel direction. Through less than scientific research one could possibly come to the conclusion that pirates (or the lack there of) is the direct cause of global warming.
Here is a logical fallicy that I made up. In the month of February, there was a increase in snow. There was also an increase in double murder. From this we can conclude that the snow causes murderers to be committed in pairs. This arguement is illoical because the two things have nothing to do with each other, one is based on nature, one is based on personal choices, the amounts just coincide with each other in the same time period.
A fallacy that has been used by many teenagers over the years is, "If you loved me then you would..." This has been used against parents so that they would be guilted into doing whatever that child wanted. The reality of the matter, though, is that the original denial of the request was because the adult thought the idea was dangerous or a bad situation and didn't want their child to get hurt. This is because of the amount of love that parent has, not a lack of love. This argument for getting what you want can work, but its logic is not reasonable.
A false argument could be "all teenagers have consumed alcohol or used drugs." This is an argument known as hast generalization. This targets a general group, and does not mean that all the people in that group have participated in the argument. This argument is false because nobody can accurately say this. Not all teenagers have used drugs or consumed alcohol. They might later in their life, but generalizing this specific group targets them in the wrong way.
This type of argument is flawed because it focuses on one general group, and it inaccurately says that all teenagers have used drugs or consumed alcohol. This is a false statement, and hasty generalization is a bad form of argument.
One logical fallacy that I saw lately in an argument used unreliable statistics to make an argument seem true. A computer company was trying to prove that American computer usage was rising in order to gain monetary support from a bigger company. The computer company said that "according to this online survey" nine out of ten people use their computer for four or more hours a day. Then this survey that we "mailed around" in early 2000 suggests that only 1/10 people used their computer for four or more hours every day.
The main problem with this argument is the target audience in each of the surveys. By using an online survey, the company knew that the people answering online surveys were people that spent a lot of time on the computer. They also knew that people who spent time responding to surveys they received in the mail, probably don't do a lot of other things with their life. Although the results do show an increase in computer usage, they are no where close to being valid. It is like saying oil burns longer than water, and that one is allowed to compare the two because they are both liquids, which are "all pretty much the same in the long run".
A bad argument would be, "Everyone I know that likes basketball, likes baseball which means that everyone that likes basketball likes baseball too." This is a bad argument for many reasons. First of all, it is just one person's view on the subject. Just because this one person happens to know people like this, does not mean everyone is like this. Basketball and baseball are two very different sports and some people may love both of them, one of them or neither of them. There are all different types of people and not everyone is the same. Everyone has their own opinions on things, including sports.
I looked up fallacies that are in the media and came across this, "You'll never find any additives in our tobacco. What you see is what you get. Simply 100% whole-leaf natural tobacco. True authentic tobacco taste. It's only natural." This add might come across as true to the readers because it makes it seem like their cigarettes are all-natural, and we've all heard that things that are natural are always better for us. But what makes this argument untrue is that the cancer causing chemicals in cigarette tobbaco is actually natural. Therefore, just because no other chemicals are added to them doesn't mean they don't cause cancer. They are just as harmful.
I looked up some fallacies and found one of a straw man example:
Bill and Jill are arguing about cleaning out their closets:
Jill: "We should clean out the closets. They are getting a bit messy."
Bill: "Why, we just went through those closets last year. Do we have to clean them out everyday?"
Jill: "I never said anything about cleaning them out every day. You just want too keep all your junk forever, which is just ridiculous."
This is a logical fallacy because it ignores the real argument, which is about cleaning the closet, and instead attacks the other person in an exaggerated way. I have seen these many times, and sometimes the reason they happen is because people have no better way to make the argument than to attack the other person.
Here is a fallacy i've made up:
Everyone I know prefers to wear red shoes. This in turn means that nobody likes to wear blue shoes.
This is an illogical argument because not only am I basing on a small amount of people that I know, but also because I never said that they were disinclined to blue. That came out of nowhere and has nothing to do the the previous sentence. Moreover, there are no facts to back up my argument. It is simple my senseless opinion. This argument would not even convince someone to consider my point of view because it makes absolutely no sense.
A bad argumentation can always lead to a bad impression on the person you are arguing with. Here is an argument or fallacy I made up: The girl was a bad test-taker, leading her to believe she was a bad person all-around. This is a bad argument because just because you might not be good at doing one little thing in the world does not by any means mean that you are not good at any other thing in the world. This fallacy or straw man argument is weak and would never be convincing if ever used.
Here is an example of a bad argument:
Person A: i disagree with the death penalty.
Person B: ok so i guess you think cold hard killers are allowed to live after killing a lot of people. you basically a killer your self saying that.
This argument is a false dichotomy. By eliminating the other option, you are only forced with only one choice. Also, person B is basically insulting the other person witch in not a good argument tactic. He put you on the opposing side, makifn you out to be the bad guy when really that is not what you want at all.
A bad arguement I have heard of was that you had to be either pro life or pro choice. No one is strictly on either side of the argument. The people on the pro life side still believe in giving people choices. Likewise, people on the pro choice side still believe in life and do not believe in killing. Both of the arguments are at the extreme, which makes the person asking the question pressure the person answering into arguing. If someone asked someone who responded pro choice, the person who asked could easily call him a killer who does not believe in life which would make the person change their mind.
An example of a logical fallacy is: "Over the past couple of months it has been raining everyday. During that same month my teacher gave us a lot of home work. Thus, when it rains our teacher gives us a lot of Home Work. This argument is illogical because the weather obviously does not effect how much home work the teacher may give a student.
The above fallacy is an example of a Hasty Generalization. A hasty generalization is making assumptions about a whole group or events based on inadequate observations.
Post a Comment