Chapter 17 was basically about fallacies in arguments. The chapter defines fallacies as arguments that are flawed by their “very nature or structure.” Fallacies are interesting because they raise questions of the ethics of the argument. The book gives an example of the fallacy ad hominem argument. The ad hominem is a type of strategy of criticizing a person or character that one is unfavorable of. This fallacy involves just insulting a person. The book divides the types of fallacies into three categories. They are emotional, ethical, and logical. Fallacies that arise in emotional argument are flawed pieces of argument based on emotion. Examples of this type include scare tactics and “Either-Or Choices.” These tactics can mislead the audience into being afraid of something not needed to be afraid of or tricking the audience into only having two choices. Fallacies of ethic arguments include dogmatism. Dogmatism is when the writer assumes a particular position or belief is the only one acceptable in a community. Fallacies of logical argument are flawed arguments based on logic. Some examples of these are hasty generalizations and faulty casualty. A hasty generalization is defined as an inference drawn from insufficient evidence. An example included in the chapter is the assumption that all Honda brand cars junk based off one of their model car that breaks down. A faulty causality is a fallacious assumption that because one event preceded another, it is the cause of the after event.
One particular part of interest in the text was the section on Hasty Generalizations. I found this part sort of funny because it the example given in the book seemed like racism in car brands. The example states “Because my Honda broke down, then all Hondas must be junk.” This is just like stereotyping because it’s like saying if you meet one particular person of a certain brand that you do not like then you assume all people of that brand are the same and you do not like.
An example of Hasty generalization I found in my own life are in video games. For instance, in League of Legends, many people do play a certain character based on first impressions of it. If they play the character and do horribly in the game with it, then they never play that character again and say it is “up” or underpowered. On the other hand, they might do the opposite.
I liked your post about fallacies in argument. I really liked how you incorporated examples for each different one. You touched on all three of the categories for fallacies. For ethos you put scare tactics and either-or arguments. Scare tactics are used way too much now in politics when it comes to the upcoming elections. The candidates always say if you do not vote for them then something terrible will happen. In all reality, it will most likely happen if that person is elected also. The either-or arguments choose the most irrational options and force you to choose between them. In most cases there is a safe middle ground. For ethos, you talked about dogmatism. This is where someone assumes there is only one right thing for an entire community. For logical arguments, hasty generalizations happen all the time. For example, if something bad happens, people try and trace it back to a single problem. Or "A" happened, "B" then happened after that. Thus, "A" caused "B". This is not always true, "A" may have helped cause something to happen, but it should not be the only reason. Overall, good blog post. You covered the chapter well.
ReplyDeleteI believe you did a solid job at talking about this chapter. Your post is a good summary of what the chapter was basically about. I see that you mentioned the three different types fallacies: emotional, logical and ethos. It was a good idea to include an example of a fallacy for each type. This helps the audience better understand the three different types. Using only one fallacy as an example for each of three different types helped get the idea across without having to include all of the different fallacies under each category. I used one example for each category as well, although I didn't include a definition the way you did. Looking back, I probably should have. I also found the section on hasty generalizations interesting. The example was also interesting and a tad bit funny, although that sort of statement is sadly not uncommon to hear someone say. It's outrageous to think that because your car-a honda-broke down, all hondas are junk. It kind of makes you wonder how people can fall victim to accepting arguments with such fallacies. Some of these fallacies sound like they should originate from young children; not adults who are trying to embolden their argument. As the poster above me said, these fallacies are so common in the politics of today...not to say they didn't exist decades before. I'm pretty sure I hear several of these different fallacies every day when keeping up with "campaign trail." Hopefully, there will be less of these fallacies and more truth and accuracy in the future.
ReplyDelete