Fallacies

What are fallacies?
Fallacies are defects that weaken arguments. By learning to look for them in your own and others' writing, you can strengthen your ability to evaluate the arguments you make, read, and hear. It is important to realize two things about fallacies: First, fallacious arguments are very, very common and can be quite persuasive, at least to the causal reader or listener. You can find dozens of examples of fallacious reasoning in newspapers, advertisements, and other sources. Second, it is sometimes hard to evaluate whether an argument is fallacious. An argument might be very weak, somewhat weak, somewhat strong, or very strong. An argument that has several stages or parts might have some strong sections and some weak ones. The goal of this handout, then, is not to teach you how to label arguments as fallacious or fallacy-free, but to help you look critically at your own arguments and move them away from the "weak" and toward the "strong" end of the continuum. (http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.html#3)

Fallacies are generally classified into:

(1) RHETORICAL FALLACIES (errors of understanding / erroros of interpretation)

a.) Incorrect Obversion (changing of the original proposition from affirmative to negative or vice versa withour changing the meaning of the original proposition.

b.) Incorrect Conversion (transposition of the subject and the predicate of the proposition without changing the meaning of the original proposition.)

c.)The Fallacy of accent(creates unnecessary ambiguity due to a shift of emphasis)

d.)The Fallacy of Amphibology(is result to faulty grammatical structure)

(2) LOGICAL FALLACIES (an error of reasoning / mistake in reasoning)

A logical fallacy is, roughly speaking, an error of reasoning. When someone adopts a position, or tries to persuade someone else to adopt a position, based on a bad piece of reasoning, they commit a fallacy. I say “roughly speaking” because this definition has a few problems, the most important of which are outlined below. Some logical fallacies are more common than others, and so have been named and defined. When people speak of logical fallacies they often mean to refer to this collection of well-known errors of reasoning, rather than to fallacies in the broader, more technical sense given above. (http://www.logicalfallacies.info/)

Fallacies of Presumption

(1) Begging the question: making use of the conclusion of an argument as one of the premises offered in its own support.

(2) Ignoratio elenchi (also known as irrelevant conclusion or irrelevant thesis) is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question. "Ignoratio elenchi" can be roughly translated by ignorance of refutation, that is, ignorance of what a refutation is; "elenchi" is from the Greek έλεγχος, meaning an argument of disproof or refutation. (Some sources give by ignorance of the issues or even by ignoring the issues as a translation of ignoratio elenchi.) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi )

Ad hominem argument is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or attacking the person who proposed the argument (personal attack) in an attempt to discredit the argument. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Ad_hominem_as_informal_fallacy)


Argumentum ad Populum (popular appeal or appeal to the majority): The fallacy of attempting to win popular assent to a conclusion by arousing the feeling and enthusiasms of the multitude. There are several variations of this fallacy, but we will emphasize two forms.
(http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/popular.html)

Argumentum ad Ignorantiam: (appeal to ignorance) the fallacy that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false or that it is false simply because it has not been proved true. This error in reasoning is often expressed with influential rhetoric.

(http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/ignorance.htm) Argumentum ad Verecundiam: (authority) the fallacy of appealing to the testimony of an authority outside his special field. Anyone can give opinions or advice; the fallacy only occurs when the reason for assenting to the conclusion is based on following the improper authority. (http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/authority.html) Argumentum ad Baculum (fear of force): the fallacy committed when one appeals to force or the threat of force to bring about the acceptance of a conclusion. (http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/force.html

Whether or not the Philippines should change its charter.

Whether or not the Philippines should change its charter.


Charter change is a very alarming issue that confronted the Filipinos nowadays. Is there really a need to change our constitution? I don’t think so. This issue solicited reactions from different sectors in society: from the Church, political arena, the rich, the middle class, the marginalized, academe and many others. This certainly affects us all Filipinos.

Is this the ultimate solution for our economic and political turmoil today? I don’t think so. Greed, hunger for power and money, selfishness from a lot of our politicians are root causes of the political breakdown in our country today. Many Filipinos don’t have confidence in the people running the government. A lot of politicians are driven by their self-interests or motives. What happened to our sense of Patriotism? What happened to the dreams of the many Filipino heroes who fought and died for the independence of this country?

Graft and corruption has been a cancer suffered in our society today. This is still untreated. It would take generations for this country to achieve a clean and dignified politics. But, we still have in us the hope and dreams for this country. We don’t need to change the charter as of this time. We need politicians running the government to change their hearts. I hope these politicians will be better stewards of authority.

There is no need to change the Philippine charter. I am not in favor of such a move. What is to be changed is the attitude of Filipinos toward politics. Granting, the Philippine charter will be changed but the political practice that we have right now remains unchanged, graft and corruption in government will never be eradicated. Even if we will change our form of government, if the people running the government still subscribe to the usual practice, nothing significant will happen to the future of our political world.

I believe that pursuing charter change at this time is not beneficial to the country, considering that majority of the politicians now in government wanted the change for furtherance of their political ambitions and interests. A change in our charter at this time is not conducive to our political and economic situation existing today. There are still a lot of pressing issues that our country is facing at the moment. Why would the Arroyo administration revive again the issue on Charter Change? Why now? Is it because her term is almost ending and she still wants to hold on to power? A lot of politicians are fighting for each other and it is as if they own this country. What a shame! This administration should just respect the will of the people.
From a viewpoint of a very ordinary citizen, I just hope that one day this country will eventually attain real peace and tranquility. I dream that one day, a lot of politicians will be true to their calling as public servants. We just need leaders who can be real mirrors of honesty, integrity, competence and real dedication for this country. Filipinos need to be vigilant. There is still HOPE for us Filipinos and for our country.

COMMENT: 3rd US Presidential Debate ( John McCain Vs. Barack Obama )

COMMENT: 3rd US Presidential Debate ( John McCain Vs. Barack Obama )
(Hoftra University, October 15, 2008)


The 3rd US Presidential debate between Sen. John McCain and Sen. Barack Obama was one of the most interesting debates I have seen through the net. It was very well handled by the moderator, Bob Schieffer (CBS News). I believe, the said debate met the academic standards for argumentation. The discussion tackled different Domestic Policy Issues, dealt with controversial points and both Obama and McCain prepared convincing backings or justifications to their claims and arguments.

I believe the questions raised by the moderator were very timely for it reflected the issues concerning the American people at large. As I viewed and listened to the debate, the following were discussed and commented by Obama and McCain: Economic Plan, How to cut spending, Balancing on budget in four years, Discussion about their running mates, Reducing dependence on Foreign Oil, Health Care, Opinion regarding Supreme Court nomination and Performance of schools in the US.

I think both of them came very much prepared. Both of them wanted to convince the American public on how great were their plans. Obama and McCain maintained calmness during the debate and both were very dignified.

In my opinion it was Barack Obama who was able to present a convincing argument to the American people. He answered the questions backed with a more realistic, more serious, much feasible solution to the issues presented. One of the issues discussed during the debate was the Economic Plans of both Obama and McCain should one of them be elected as the 44th President of the United States.

What is argumentation?

ARGUMENTATION:

1 : the act or process of forming reasons and of drawing conclusions and applying them to a case in discussion (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)

2 : Argumentation is concerned primarily with reaching conclusions through logical reasoning, that is, claims based on premises. Although including debate and negotiation which are concerned with reaching mutually acceptable conclusions, argumentation theory also encompasses eristic dialog, the branch of social debate in which victory over an opponent is the primary goal. This art and science is often the means by which people protect their beliefs or self-interests in rational dialogue, in common parlance, and during the process of arguing. Argumentation is used in law, for example in trials, in preparing an argument to be presented to a court, and in testing the validity of certain kinds of evidence. Also, argumentation scholars study the post hoc rationalizations by which organizational actors try to justify decisions they have made irrationally.

3 : the process of developing or presenting an argume nt; reasoning.

discussion; debate; disputation: The lengthy argumentation tired many listeners.

a discussion dealing with a controversial point.

the setting forth of reasons together with the conclusion drawn from them.

the premises and conclusion so set forth.

(dictionary.reference.com)

COMPONENTS OF ARGUMENT:

In The Uses of Argument (1958), Toulmin proposed a layout containing six interrelated components for analyzing arguments:
1. Claim
Conclusions whose merit must be established. For example, if a person tries to convince a listener that he is a British citizen, the claim would be “I am a British citizen.” (1)
2. Data
The facts we appeal to as a foundation for the claim. For example, the person introduced in 1 can support his claim with the supporting data “I was born in Bermuda.” (2)
3. Warrant
The statement authorizing our movement from the data to the claim. In order to move from the data established in 2, “I was born in Bermuda,” to the claim in 1, “I am a British citizen,” the person must supply a warrant to bridge the gap between 1 & 2 with the statement “A man born in Bermuda will legally be a British Citizen.” (3)
4. Backing
Credentials designed to certify the statement expressed in the warrant; backing must be introduced when the warrant itself is not convincing enough to the readers or the listeners. For example, if the listener does not deem the warrant in 3 as credible, the speaker will supply the legal provisions as backing statement to show that it is true that “A man born in Bermuda will legally be a British Citizen.”
5. Rebuttal
Statements recognizing the restrictions to which the claim may legitimately be applied. The rebuttal is exemplified as follows, “A man born in Bermuda will legally be a British citizen, unless he has betrayed Britain and has become a spy of another country.”
6. Qualifier
Words or phrases expressing the speaker’s degree of force or certainty concerning the claim. Such words or phrases include “possible,” “probably,” “impossible,” “certainly,” “presumably,” “as far as the evidence goes,” or “necessarily.” The claim “I am definitely a British citizen” has a greater degree of force than the claim “I am a British citizen, presumably.”
The first three elements “claim,” “data,” and “warrant” are considered as the essential components of practical arguments, while the second triad “qualifier,” “backing,” and “rebuttal” may not be needed in some arguments. (wikipedia.com)

KINDS OF ARGUMENTATION:

Conversational argumentation

Main articles: Conversation Analysis and Discourse Analysis
The study of naturally-occurring conversation arose from the field of sociolinguistics. It is usually called conversational analysis. Inspired by ethnomethodology, it was developed in the late 1960s and early 1970s principally by the sociologist Harvey Sacks and, among others, his close associates Emanuel Schegloff and Gail Jefferson. Sacks died early in his career, but his work was championed by others in his field, and CA has now become an established force in sociology, anthropology, linguistics, speech-communication and psychology.[13]It is particularly influential in interactional sociolinguistics, discourse analysis and discursive psychology, as well as being a coherent discipline in its own right. Recently CA techniques of sequential analysis have been employed by phoneticians to explore the fine phonetic details of speech.
Empirical studies and theoretical formulations by Sally Jackson and Scott Jacobs, and several generations of their students, have described argumentation as a form of managing conversational disagreement within communication contexts and systems that naturally prefer agreement.
Mathematical argumentation

Main article: Philosophy of mathematics
The basis of mathematical truth has been the subject of long debate. Frege in particular sought to demonstrate (see Gottlob Frege, The Foundations of Arithemetic, 1884, and Logicism in Philosophy of mathematics) that arithmetical truths can be derived from purely logical axioms and therefore are, in the end, logical truths. The project was developed by Russell and Whitehead in their Principia Mathematica. If an argument can be cast in the form of sentences in Symbolic Logic, then it can be tested by the application of accepted proof procedures. This has been carried out for Arithmetic using Peano axioms. Be that as it may, an argument in Mathematics, as in any other discipline, can be considered valid just in case it can be shown to be of a form such that it cannot have true premises and a false conclusion.

Scientific argumentation

Main article: Philosophy of Science

Perhaps the most radical statement of the social grounds of scientific knowledge appears in Alan G.Gross "The Rhetoric of Science." Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990. Gross holds that science is rhetorical "without remainder," meaning that scientific knowledge itself cannot be seen as an idealized ground of knowledge. Scientific knowledge is produced rhetorically, meaning that it has special epistemic authority only insofar as its communal methods of verification are trustworthy. This thinking represents an almost complete rejection of the foundationalism on which argumentation was first based.

Legal argumentation
Main articles: Oral argument and Closing argument
Legal arguments (or oral arguments) are spoken presentations to a judge or appellate court by a lawyer (or parties when representing themselves) of the legal reasons why they should prevail. Oral argument at the appellate level accompanies written briefs, which also advance the argument of each party in the legal dispute. A closing argument (or summation) is the concluding statement of each party's counsel (often called an attorney in the United States) reiterating the important arguments for the trier of fact, often the jury, in a court case. A closing argument occurs after the presentation of evidence.

Political argumentation
Main article: Political argument
Political arguments are used by academics, media pundits, candidates for political office and government officials. Political arguments are also used by citizens in ordinary interactions to comment about and understand political events. [14]. The rationality of the public is a major question in this line of research. A robust political science research tradition seems to prove that the American public is largely irrational and ignorant of even the most basic knowledge of national or world affairs. Political scientist S. Popkin coined the expression "low information voters" to describe most voters who know very little about politics or the world in general.
Some theorists have inferred from this that only comprehensively trained elites can debate public issues. They point as additional proof to the practice of academic debate in the United States, an activity almost exclusively involving children of the upper middle classes, future lawyers and graduate students, and not ordinary citizens.

(wikipedia.org)

Hello

My first ever post!!! This blog is in compliance with our professor's wishes. He doesn't want his students to be left behind by technological developments.

You may find his blog here:
usjrlawmentor.blogspot.com