Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
In this lesson, we're going to think about reasoning. There are entire courses on argumentation
and reasoning, so there's simply not enough time to cover everything you could learn about
argumentation and reasoning, so what we'll go over are just two of the basic ideas—rhetorical
proofs and logical fallacies, which are essentially ways that we tend to make poorly reasoned
arguments. So, let's get started with rhetorical proofs.
In this class your arguments can also be called rhetorical proofs. Rhetorical proofs, unlike
pure argumentation and/or logic, don't ensure that you are 100% correct, they only offer
support that your conclusions are correct. Think of it in terms of our criminal justice
system. When you are sitting on a jury, what is the standard of proof that a lawyer must
meet in order to convict someone? Do they have to prove with 100% certainty that the
person accused committed the crime? No, they don't. Instead, they have to prove BEYOND
A REASONABLE DOUBT that the accused committed a crime. Think of that as your burden as well.
You need to provide enough support for your claims that your audience members are likely
to walk away thinking that you're at least PROBABLY right. With good evidence and solid
arguments, you make this burden of proof much easier to reach.
Your book gives you more details about the basics of argumentation, so what I want also
to talk about today are logical fallacies. Your book chapter covers these, too, but I
want to go over the ones that I've most commonly seen students mistakenly use in their speeches
over the years. Recognize, too, that for some reason the argumentation and debate community
some times has two or three different names for the same fallacy, so you may hear me talk
about a fallacy here that's called something else in your textbook or in a philosophy or
English book.
The first logical fallacy to consider is what we call hasty generalization. When we use
this fallacy we draw conclusions about an entire group of people, places, or things
based on too few or atypical examples. These are really the building blocks of many stereotypes,
too. Imagine that you're walking on campus and you meet someone who is in a fraternity
or sorority and they're rude to you. If from that experience, or even two or three more,
you conclude that ALL people in the Greek system are rude, you've committed the fallacy
of hasty generalization. You can't claim something is true of the whole with only evidence of
a few instances or by using atypical experiences to conclude that ALL this, that, or the other
act or function similarly.
The post hoc fallacy is named after the Latin phrase for "after this". This is when we mistake
temporal sequence, or the fact that one event occurs after another, for cause and effect.
After the horrible events of 9/11 we saw this argument made by folks critical of the Bush
administration. Some people argued that because Bush was in charge of the country during the
attacks his administration was to blame for them. That's a post hoc fallacy. Bush's administration
does bear some responsibility, but so do Presidential administrations as far back as Reagan's or
even further back. The events of 9/11 were a culmination of responses to decades of U.S.
policy in the Middle East and so blaming the Bush Administration alone because it happened
after he was made president is mistaking temporal sequence for cause and effect—and thus was
a clear post hoc fallacy.
The single cause fallacy happens when we attribute a problem to only one cause. Think about the
issue of teen pregnancy. If someone were to make the argument that if we just gave condoms
out for free in middle and high school, we could eliminate teen pregnancy that would
be a single cause fallacy. Obviously the problem is much more complex than one single element
like *** distribution. Most problems are very complex and you may often be in the position
where you want to address a very complex problem and only have tome to focus on one element
o the problem. That's OK. Just communicate to your audience that you understand that
the issue you're discussing is complex, but that you only have time to cover one element
of a possible solution and that by dealing with one part of the problem, you understand
that we minimize the problem to some extent. That's the way to deal with speeches about
complex issues where you don't have enough time to discuss the issue in all of its complexity.
The slippery slope fallacy is exactly what it sounds like. It's when an argument assumes,
without evidence, that one event is the first in a series of events that will inevitably
lead to some conclusion. A good example of a slippery slope argument is the argument
that marijuana is a gateway drug. The argument claims that people who smoke marijuana are
far more likely to try and then become addicted to more serious drugs, ultimately making the
claim that smoking marijuana will ultimately turn you into a heroine addict. There's no
evidence to support that the first step of smoking marijuana will inevitably lead to
the final step of overdosing on heroine, but the argument still gets made with some regularity
in our society in spite of the fact that it's a big ol' slippery slope and thus an illogical
claim.
The next logical fallacy to consider is the false analogy. Remember when we talked about
using analogies as a type of supporting material? When someone uses a false analogy they've
constructed an analogy for their argument but the analogy isn't a legitimate one, usually
because the person has compared two things that aren't really similar enough to be compared
via analogy.
For example, I'm not sure if it's still there but for a while one of the basic ENGL 15 anthologies
had an essay comparing TV addiction to crack *** addiction. I'm sure that you can see
the attractiveness in communicating that analogy. We take all of the negative things we know
about crack *** addiction and we transfer those things onto a television addiction.
But because a TV addiction doesn't do to someone's body and life the same things a crack ***
addiction does, all we're REALLY transferring over are the negative emotions associated
with crack *** onto television. Again, it's easy to see why that's an attractive
argument because you can get people to feel negatively about TV and move toward your position
pretty quickly. But it's a logical fallacy because those things just aren't similar enough
to be compared. So, be careful when you decide to create analogies and remember that they
have to have enough things in common to be compared legitimately.
You're probably very familiar with the next type of logical fallacy—the ad hominem fallacy,
which is simply Latin for "to the person"—more simply put, it's name calling. This happens
when instead of attacking the substance of someone's argument, the other person just
calls the first person a name. It's used by folks who don't have the evidence to back
up a counter argument or by folks who know that they can't beat the argument of the other
person so they do it hoping that by calling someone a name, audience members will not
fairly consider the other person's argument or will shut it out completely. So, if in
a political debate someone makes an argument and instead of countering that policy idea
with another idea or challenging that policy idea on its merits, the person calls the other
politician a "Nazi", chances are pretty good that you're looking at an ad hominem attack.
Remember, though, that just because someone uses an unflattering name for someone's policies,
like "fascist", that doesn't necessarily mean an ad hominem has taken place. If the ONLY
argument in response to the policy is "you're a fascist", then it's probably an ad hominem.
But, if the person addresses the argument specifically and talks about how that policy
is similar to ones seen in fascist states, that may NOT be an ad hominem attack, that
might be a legitimate critique.
Ad Populum arguments are arguments "from the people". This happens when instead of appealing
to the substance of an argument, someone just points to popular opinion to support his or
her claim. The idea is sort of a "majority rules" perspective and, in some cases, majorities
do in fact rule. But when we're talking about issues that are grounded in our constitution,
like freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or the right to bear arms, it's not good enough
to just say, "Well, the majority thinks we should do this, so we should." Consider that
argument in other spheres. So, if the majority of people think we should bring back slavery,
we should do it? If the majority thinks that we should imprison all blonde people, should
we do it? Of course not! So be very careful when using statistics that point to the majority
opinion on an issue. Depending on the issue, it may be the case that rule of law trumps
majority opinion or it may even be the case that evidence to the contrary of majority
opinion makes an ad populum appeal illogical. I'm not saying that you can't point to opinion
polls, but you DO have to be careful about how you use those polls and how you frame
that information for your audience.
Appeals to tradition are exactly what they sound like they are—appeals to the fact
that "we've always done it this way" in place of an actual argument in favor of something.
Go back to the slavery issue I just talked about. Should we have maintained slavery in
this country because "we always have had it"? Of course not! There are certainly times when
you can talk about tradition as important to a community, but to rely solely on the
notion that we should maintain policy because it's ALWAYS been that way is fallacious.
Emotive language manipulates the connotative meaning of words to establish a claim without
proof. In politics unfortunately we frequently hear folks calling each other communists,
Nazis, fascists, zealots, dictators, and the like. The use of these terms manipulates the
fact that we tend to have negative predispositions towards these words. Rather than addressing
the argument at hand, someone will use one of those terms or even use "Hitler" in place
of Nazi to try and personify an opponent using language that's sole purpose in the person's
use of it is to transfer negative feelings we have about someone like Hitler to another
person, even if they have nothing in common with Hitler.
Begging the question or circular reasoning happens when in addressing an argument someone
uses the very claim that is up for debate as his or her answer to the opposing argument.
So, for example, if an all-women's college is considering opening it's doors up to men
and opponents claim, "we shouldn't let men in because this is a women's college", that's
begging the question because the very argument they just made—that this is a women's college—is
the very argument up for debate. So, the person's argument is deemed circular because it doesn't
lead anywhere except to the very claim that's already up for debate.
People who make strawperson arguments put forth an argument that they claim an opponent
made that the opponent didn't make, and that argument is usually a weak or unreasonable
argument that is easy to dismiss. So, for instance, if someone says that they want to
reconsider how we fund schools in our country and in response the other person claims that
the first person "clearly wants to privatize our school system", unless privatization is
what the person suggested, that's a strawperson argument because the person never said that.
The other person in the debate is hoping that audiences won't realize that the first person
never actually made that claim and will, instead, side with the person who has just made the
straw argument.
Red herrings are arguments that divert listeners away from what's being discussed and onto
an irrelevant matter. So suppose someone has made an argument and another person responds
by saying, "That's not true, but the whole ballot has just gotten too long and unmanageable
to even consider using it for the elections" what the person did was ignore the substance
of the argument the other person made and instead jumped to another topic entirely so
as not to have to answer the argument made by the other person.
The final fallacy I want to talk about is the false choice or false dichotomy fallacy.
This happens when two positions are submitted as the only two possibilities in a debate.
The example on the slide is a relatively famous one from a post 9/11 speech of President Bush's.
In beginning to make a case for a preemptive attack on Iraq, he claimed that people and
countries either had to agree with our plans to combat terrorism OR ELSE they were with
the terrorists. Putting politics aside, I'm sure you can see where that sort of argument
is terribly legitimate, as there are clearly many, many other alternatives to dealing with
terrorism than the two presented by President Bush.
Do your best to avoid these common fallacies in your speeches. My experience has been that
these often pop up in students speeches not because students create them themselves, but
because students take arguments from other sources that are loaded with fallacies and
don't think through those arguments before presenting them. Remember that you're responsible
for any information you bring into a speech, whether it's information you've create yourself
or information you're crediting to another person, so you need to make sure that any
arguments you make are free from logical fallacies. I watch a good deal of television news and
logical fallacies fill the air every day and night in talk and political shows, so please
be careful when deciding to use an argument made by someone else because you'll be held
accountable for their logical fallacy if you use it in your speech.
Your daily assignment for this unit of the class is going to ask you to read some arguments
and then match the illogical argument with its logical fallacy. So make sure that you
understand these arguments before attempting that assignment.