Welcome to the arena of communication where people watch victory-seeking participants battle with their words for the boost of self-esteem, prestige, and satisfaction that comes from winning. Watch out though. It can be a rough environment full of poorly developed, illogical, or misleading arguments better known as fallacies. The Writing Center at UNC Chapel Hill defines a fallacy most simply as a “defect” that weakens an argument. Hasty generalizations, slippery slopes, red herrings, and ad hominem are just a few types of fallacious offenses, intentional or unintentional, that can occur in communication. But rather than explore the extensive list of fallacy varieties, this paper examines the wide ranging effects of fallacies on communication …show more content…
After all, two, three, four or more heads are better than one. But, fallacies have a “negative role” and “treacherous nature,” (van Eemeren 146). Fallacies can be used to exaggerate credibility and give weak arguments strength as with ad verecundiam and ad poplum. They can also be used to undermine a source’s credibility and dilute an argument, such as with ad hominem (Hart and Oswald). Committing a fallacy can detrimentally affect an individual’s perceived credibility and trustworthiness within a group. If a group member presents a flawed argument, the group member may lose credibility. Other group members may begin to disregard anything that the logical fallacy-committing member of the group says. It is likely that the disregarded member of the group will feel upset and excluded, thereby causing tension within the group that could inhibit group harmony or the group task. If a group member commits an intentional fallacy in attempts to persuade others to join his or her side, the range of possible reactions is greater (Mercier and Sperber 61). Fallacies and manipulation have a “somehow natural” affiliation (Maillat and Oswald 137). Because of interdependence, committing a fallacy as a member of a group can be particularly …show more content…
Many times, people do not realize when they commit fallacies. Both intentional and unintentional fallacies can occur when people struggle to develop well supported arguments. Mercier and Sperber explore some reasons why developing arguments with sufficient evidence is a struggle. To begin with people often do not have immediate access to research data to support their claim(s) and instead rely instead on explanations that “make sense” in the moment. Also, unless people are preparing to debate, they frequently settle with shallow arguments. In the preliminary stages of argument development, people look solely for arguments to support their claims; they rarely consider counterarguments or possible rebuttals until later in the argument development process (Mercier & Sperber, 62). Assuming there is sufficient time, it would be valuable for members of a group to find research regarding their topic of interest and to consider not only arguments to support their claims, but also counterargument. When determining if a source is credible, a person may ask the following “critical questions”: Is the source credible as an expert? Is the source an expert in the field being investigated? What is the source’s argument about the topic? Is the source personally reliable? Does the source’s claim line up with what other experts claim? Is there evidence to the
Argumentation has followed humans from the dawn of time as a way for us to express our ideas and for our ideas to be heard. People naturally obtain the knowledge to persuade others, either backing their opinions by fact or touching others emotionally, from growing up and through their own experiences in life. We can be persuaded by a numerous amounts of different factors pertaining to the argument. There are four different types of strategies in which an argument can be presented and make the argument effective. Martin Luther King is a key example of the utilization of the strategies as he wrote, “Letter from Birmingham Jail” and Nicholas Carr also portrays the strategies with his essay, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” Both authors perfectly
A straw man fallacy, in its most lucid form, is executed when a person not only disregards an opponent’s counterarguments, but also distorts them into exaggerated versions of themselves in the interest of making them easier to refute. In many cases, the adversary’s arguments are skewed to such a severe point that they wind up being completely different than what the adversaries were actually fighting for; however, this is all for the convenience of the proponent. An innumerable amount of politicians and authors are infamous for using this problematic method of disproving opposing arguments, even notable celebrities like George W. Bush. The straw man method of persuasion is a proficient way to make a personal stance sound factual, but it
Though rhetoric is an art, and though effective rhetoric demands attention to style, timing, and knowledge, there are other elements that require attention. There are numerous ethical and emotional dimensions that function within rhetoric. These dimensions are immeasurably important, particularly given the epistemological and relativistic nature of rhetoric.
Arguments can be made out of just about anything. An argument has two sides, and conveying an opinion is one of those two sides. Arguments sort out the views of others and the support of those arguments represented by those people from past events. These events let others show their argument about what will happen in the future, and of how the future carries on today. Newspaper articles can be arguments, and laws being passed in Congress have a form of argument associated with them. There are many types of arguments that are presented in many ways. In Everything’s an Argument by Andrea A. Lunsford and John J. Ruszkiewicz, information is given about three specific types of argument: forensic, deliberative, and ceremonial. Forensic arguments deal with the past, deliberative talks about the future, and ceremonial is all about the present. I have identified each of these arguments in the form of newspaper articles.
O’Keefe (183) wraps it up very well stating, “A communicator who knows what is correct (has expertise) but who nevertheless misleads the audience (is untrustworthy, has a reporting bias) produces messages that are unreliable guides to belief and action, just as does the sincere (trustworthy) but uninformed (low-expertise, knowledge-biased)
Before the start of this school year, I was not clueless as to how to craft an argument, but, to say the least, I was unexperienced. I thought that “argumentative” was simply a fancy name for “persuasive”—needless to say, I was mistaken. Blinded by this fallacy, I avoided acknowledging any opposing views in my essays (such as in my TV argumentative impromptu), which only made it seem as if I did not have sufficient information to defend my arguments. I thought I had to induce my audience to agree with me and that if I mentioned any alternatives, I would lose them.
...ools and skills for skeptical thinking that are essential to survive in society today, many of which rely on critical thinking and common sense. In order for someone to be able to discern between true and false, right and wrong, they must be able to discuss the hypothesis, ignore any position of power, cast aside personal attachment to the subject or hypothesis, create a sound argument, have an understanding of Occam’s Razor, and have the ability to test the subject or hypothesis for falsities. These skills all prove necessary and important when comparing and contrasting anything, whether it’s from a scientific perspective or something that affects one’s daily life.
Fallacies Fallacies are common errors in reasoning that will undermine the reasoning of your argument. Fallacies have different types like Begging the Claim, Ad hominem, Straw Man and more. and are often identified because they lack evidence that supports their claim. A writer or speaker should avoid these common fallacies in their arguments and watch for them in the arguments of others. Learning to identify and avoid fallacies is crucial for professionals in all fields of life, literature, science, politics, etc.
An example is “For instance, swine and humans are similar enough that they can share many diseases” (Dicke and Van Huis 345). The authors create a Hasty Generalization fallacy by concluding that because humans and swine are similar, they share diseases. Furthermore, this makes the audience feel lost because the authors do not provide evidence of how “swine and humans are similar” (Dicke and Van Huis 345). Similarly, the author says that “Because insects are so different from us, such risks are accordingly lowered” (Dicke and Van Huis 345). Again, the author fails to provide a connection between how the risk of getting an infection is lowered because humans and insects are different. The authors also create a Hasty Generalization fallacy because they conclude that the risk of humans getting infected is lowered just because insects and humans are different. In summary, the use of fallacies without providing evidence and makes the readers feel
Is the information consistent with the information found in print sources, other Web sites, newsgroups, or mailing lists? Is the evidence contained within the source sufficient, reliable, and relevant to your topic? I have seen some of the same info from this site on other sites. It does match.
Groupthink is the psychological phenomenon in which groups working on a task think along the same lines which could have drastic results. It is the result of group polarization where discussions are enhance or exaggerate the initial leanings of the group. Therefore, if a group leans towards risky situation at the beginning of the discussion on average they will move toward an even riskier position. (Marks, 2015). The idea when everyone think the same no one is really thinking. The drastic outcomes result from people trying to avoid conflict with one another, being highly cohesive, and results is questionable decision making (Oliver, 2013). Houghton Mifflin publication of Victims of Groupthink: A Psychological Study of Foreign-Policy Decisions
There are eight symptoms of groupthink. The first symptom is when all or most of the group view themselves as invincible which causes them to make decisions that may be risky. The group has an enormous amount of confidence and authority in their decisions as well as in themselves. They see themselves collectively better in all ways than any other group and they believe the event will go well not because of what it is, but because they are involved. The second symptom is the belief of the group that they are moral and upstanding, which leads the group to ignore the ethical or moral consequences of the decisions. The group engages in a total overestimation of its morality. There is never any question that the group is not doing the right thing, they just act. The disregarding of information or warnings that may lead to changes in past policy is the third symptom. Even if there is considerable evidence against their standpoint, they see no problems with their plan. Stereotyping of enemy leaders or others as weak or stupid is the fourth symptom. This symptom leads to close-mindedness to other individuals and their opinions. The fifth symptom is the self-censorship of an individual causing him to overlook his doubts. A group member basically keeps his mouth shut so the group can continue in harmony. Symptom number six refers to the illusion of unanimity; going along with the majority, and the assumption that silence signifies consent. Sometimes a group member who questions the rightness of the goals is pressured by others into concurring or agreeing, this is symptom number seven. The last symptom is the members that set themselves up as a buffer to protect the group from adverse information that may destroy their shared contentment regarding the group’s ...
The effective use of rhetoric can spur people into action for worthy causes, bring about positive health changes, and even persuade one to finish a college education. In contrast, like most things in life, what can be used for good can also be used in a negative way to elicit emotions such as outrage, fear, and panic. This type of rhetoric often uses fallacious statements in an appeal to emotion which complicates the matter even more as the emotions are misdirected. Unfortunately, the daily newspapers are filled with numerous examples of fallacious statements. Within the past week, the following five examples appeared in the New York Times and USA Today. The examples included statements that demonstrated scapegoating, slippery slope, ad hominem, straw man, line-drawing, arguments from outrage, and arguments from envy.
First, we should understand what Ad Hominem is. An Ad Hominem fallacy has many different meanings depend on the situation and the people in that case. The online dictionary states that this fallacy means "appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason, "or "attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.". According to Glen Whitman at Northridge University, "Ad Hominem is argument directed at the person. This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater." But in philosophy study at Lander University, Ad Hominem is defined as "the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument." Based on what I see in my personal life, this fallacy means that people judge each other's action by their emotions, experiences and what they are told about others rather than their actions, ideas or their abilities.
2. Getting caught up in the “intentional fallacy” means that the critic becomes fixated on