Dear forum visitor,
It looks as though you have not registered for a forum account, or are not signed in. In order to participate in current discussions or create new threads, you will need to register for a forum account by clicking on the link below.
ajqtrz
Chef - loquacious Old Dog
Long Post. May take more than a minute or two to actually read, and longer, perhaps, to digest. Don't read if you don't have the time. Thanks.
Everybody has a point of view and the right to express that point of view, at least in the US. It's my opinion that, in expressing that point of view, the one expressing wants to be believed. Most people don't, in most situations, purposely put out things they know to be untrue, but instead, usually put out things they think are true and also think others should think are true as well. But of course, in the normal flow of things it's often true that nobody gets persuaded of anything. In my opinion, again, it may be because people rely upon fallacies rather than clear, concise, and at least willing to be documented, evidence. A fallacy is a statement or set of statement which appeal to something generally or specifically irrelevant to the question at hand. What they tend to do is derail the discussion and thus kill any chance to actually answer the question being discussed.
So here are some fallacies too often used as if they should be persuasive.
1) The Motivation Fallacy. A person says you are motivated by X to say Y. "Y" being a statement about some reality you wish the other person to believe to be true. The question is: is you motivation the determiner of the truth of "Y?" It may be, but almost never is this the case. Whatever the speakers motivation to speak, it seldom determines the truth of their position. Thus, to use your opponents motivations in an effort to weaken his/her argument, is fallacious.
2) Related to the Motivation Fallacy is the Single Motivation Fallacy. In this we reduce the motives of our opponents to a single, usually negative, motivation. "You people only believe that because...." reduces the oppositions reason for believing X to a single motive, Y. As noted above, while Y may influence the oppositions committment to their view, it seldom determines the validity of their position. Or the invalidity, for that matter.
3) The formal title is "ad populum" and it simply means an appeal to the masses. The "masses" are the fuzzy group of nameless people who, according to the usual claim, believe or disbelieve X. But of course, the masses can be wrong, and, more importantly, it's usually difficult to impossible to say what the masses really believe. Not that it matters. The masses seldom determine the validity of a truth statement and thus, almost always it's a fallacy to appeal to them...whether its their opinion or actions. As in: "everybody does it" -- so it must be right and true?
4) The Assumption Fallacy is related to the ad populum but more subtle. Everybody starts their argument assuming things. If nothing else, that the language they are using will be understood. But often we assume things the opposition doesn't. It is fallacious because it assumes the truth of some underlying idea or opinion and acts as if "everybody believes it." But if we don't spell those assumptions out and give the opposition to disagree with them, we will have little success in persuading anybody who doesn't already believe our position. Like some politicians who use the phrase, "come on" in their speeches, The phrase means, in essence, "come on you know...." as if what they knows is so obvious it must be true.
5) Psychological measures. This is one of the hardest to avoid exactly because everybody must do it just to survive. The Psychological measure fallacy is often evident in the sense we have of things. We feel something is true and thus, without a clear measuring of it, we run with it. Usually we say things like, "most people," "everybody," and so on. Or even, "usually," "often," or some other unclear measure. Our use is generally based upon a belief that the opposition has the same evaluation or psychological measure of the thing, and will, thus agree. It's a fallacy exactly because it's a way to appeal not to reason and evidence, but the experience of those around us....the limited and unscientifically measured experiences of our audience. It is, in fact, presenting an emotional measure as an objective one. But it's nearly impossible to not do it as we don't carry a huge database of exact measures around with us and often must rely on subjective judgement. Doing so may be necessary, but it's not a valid argument about the actual state of things you have not measured because it implies that you have.
6) Ad Hominem This may be the "granddaddy" of fallacies. It's simply saying, in one way or the other, you opponent is not to be trusted because he/she has a bad character. Name calling is the clearest form of this fallacy. Suppose I call you an idiot. That is a conclusion about your intellectual abilities. There are two problems, from an argument point of view, with this as a way of arguing. First, what evidence can be produced to demonstrate your lack of intellectual abilities. If I can present such evidence why should my audience accept my judgment in the matter? More to the point, even if you are an idiot, does that mean the question should be answered in one way or another? Does your mental state actually determine the answer to the question? If you claim water boils at 212 degrees, does your intelligence determine that? And if you were smarter would water boil at a different temperature? And that's just the name calling. Other methods of ad hominem fallacies include questioning a person's motivation, education, expertise (sometimes relevant and not fallacious if the person is formally trained and his/her testimony is about the truth of a statement within their field of expertise). All together all you have to ask in discovering ad hominem fallacies is "what is this statement addressing?" If it's addressing the character of motivation of the opposition rather than the question at hand, it's an ad hominem attack.
7) The Passion fallacy. If you feel strongly enough about something it may be that you feel others should feel the way you do and thus be persuaded of your opinion. This is a fallacy because the state of your emotions is not necessarily accurate. For instance, suppose you feel wearing red shoes on Saturday is something everybody should do. It should be required. Great! You have a strong feeling! Hurray! But what if I don't have that feeling? Does that make me automatically wrong? The thing is, you didn't come to your passion without some set of experiences, reasons, evidence, etc. Using passion as a persuader is shorting the discussion unless you include the reasons and evidence upon which your passion is based. The logic is that if we are alike the same reasoning, evidence and experiences will result in the same passion. But if I have not the same reasoning, evidence and experiences, should I therefore be required to feel the same way? This fallacy is usually present where there is a forceful presentation of a persons feelings without being accompanied by the reasons, evidence and experiences that brought the speaker to feel as he/she does.
In conclusion -- these types of things are fatal because they derail the discussion and make something other than the question at hand (or it's underlying questions -those things needing to be answered before you can answer the question itself), the subject of the discussion. The way to tell is generally ask, "if the answer to this "new" question relevant? Does it actually answer or contribute to the answering of the question?
Hope this helps somebody to spot these things and/or avoid them where possible.
AJ
Everybody has a point of view and the right to express that point of view, at least in the US. It's my opinion that, in expressing that point of view, the one expressing wants to be believed. Most people don't, in most situations, purposely put out things they know to be untrue, but instead, usually put out things they think are true and also think others should think are true as well. But of course, in the normal flow of things it's often true that nobody gets persuaded of anything. In my opinion, again, it may be because people rely upon fallacies rather than clear, concise, and at least willing to be documented, evidence. A fallacy is a statement or set of statement which appeal to something generally or specifically irrelevant to the question at hand. What they tend to do is derail the discussion and thus kill any chance to actually answer the question being discussed.
So here are some fallacies too often used as if they should be persuasive.
1) The Motivation Fallacy. A person says you are motivated by X to say Y. "Y" being a statement about some reality you wish the other person to believe to be true. The question is: is you motivation the determiner of the truth of "Y?" It may be, but almost never is this the case. Whatever the speakers motivation to speak, it seldom determines the truth of their position. Thus, to use your opponents motivations in an effort to weaken his/her argument, is fallacious.
2) Related to the Motivation Fallacy is the Single Motivation Fallacy. In this we reduce the motives of our opponents to a single, usually negative, motivation. "You people only believe that because...." reduces the oppositions reason for believing X to a single motive, Y. As noted above, while Y may influence the oppositions committment to their view, it seldom determines the validity of their position. Or the invalidity, for that matter.
3) The formal title is "ad populum" and it simply means an appeal to the masses. The "masses" are the fuzzy group of nameless people who, according to the usual claim, believe or disbelieve X. But of course, the masses can be wrong, and, more importantly, it's usually difficult to impossible to say what the masses really believe. Not that it matters. The masses seldom determine the validity of a truth statement and thus, almost always it's a fallacy to appeal to them...whether its their opinion or actions. As in: "everybody does it" -- so it must be right and true?
4) The Assumption Fallacy is related to the ad populum but more subtle. Everybody starts their argument assuming things. If nothing else, that the language they are using will be understood. But often we assume things the opposition doesn't. It is fallacious because it assumes the truth of some underlying idea or opinion and acts as if "everybody believes it." But if we don't spell those assumptions out and give the opposition to disagree with them, we will have little success in persuading anybody who doesn't already believe our position. Like some politicians who use the phrase, "come on" in their speeches, The phrase means, in essence, "come on you know...." as if what they knows is so obvious it must be true.
5) Psychological measures. This is one of the hardest to avoid exactly because everybody must do it just to survive. The Psychological measure fallacy is often evident in the sense we have of things. We feel something is true and thus, without a clear measuring of it, we run with it. Usually we say things like, "most people," "everybody," and so on. Or even, "usually," "often," or some other unclear measure. Our use is generally based upon a belief that the opposition has the same evaluation or psychological measure of the thing, and will, thus agree. It's a fallacy exactly because it's a way to appeal not to reason and evidence, but the experience of those around us....the limited and unscientifically measured experiences of our audience. It is, in fact, presenting an emotional measure as an objective one. But it's nearly impossible to not do it as we don't carry a huge database of exact measures around with us and often must rely on subjective judgement. Doing so may be necessary, but it's not a valid argument about the actual state of things you have not measured because it implies that you have.
6) Ad Hominem This may be the "granddaddy" of fallacies. It's simply saying, in one way or the other, you opponent is not to be trusted because he/she has a bad character. Name calling is the clearest form of this fallacy. Suppose I call you an idiot. That is a conclusion about your intellectual abilities. There are two problems, from an argument point of view, with this as a way of arguing. First, what evidence can be produced to demonstrate your lack of intellectual abilities. If I can present such evidence why should my audience accept my judgment in the matter? More to the point, even if you are an idiot, does that mean the question should be answered in one way or another? Does your mental state actually determine the answer to the question? If you claim water boils at 212 degrees, does your intelligence determine that? And if you were smarter would water boil at a different temperature? And that's just the name calling. Other methods of ad hominem fallacies include questioning a person's motivation, education, expertise (sometimes relevant and not fallacious if the person is formally trained and his/her testimony is about the truth of a statement within their field of expertise). All together all you have to ask in discovering ad hominem fallacies is "what is this statement addressing?" If it's addressing the character of motivation of the opposition rather than the question at hand, it's an ad hominem attack.
7) The Passion fallacy. If you feel strongly enough about something it may be that you feel others should feel the way you do and thus be persuaded of your opinion. This is a fallacy because the state of your emotions is not necessarily accurate. For instance, suppose you feel wearing red shoes on Saturday is something everybody should do. It should be required. Great! You have a strong feeling! Hurray! But what if I don't have that feeling? Does that make me automatically wrong? The thing is, you didn't come to your passion without some set of experiences, reasons, evidence, etc. Using passion as a persuader is shorting the discussion unless you include the reasons and evidence upon which your passion is based. The logic is that if we are alike the same reasoning, evidence and experiences will result in the same passion. But if I have not the same reasoning, evidence and experiences, should I therefore be required to feel the same way? This fallacy is usually present where there is a forceful presentation of a persons feelings without being accompanied by the reasons, evidence and experiences that brought the speaker to feel as he/she does.
In conclusion -- these types of things are fatal because they derail the discussion and make something other than the question at hand (or it's underlying questions -those things needing to be answered before you can answer the question itself), the subject of the discussion. The way to tell is generally ask, "if the answer to this "new" question relevant? Does it actually answer or contribute to the answering of the question?
Hope this helps somebody to spot these things and/or avoid them where possible.
AJ
