Thursday, January 29, 2009
Argumentation and Fallacies (PP1)
In philosophical argumentation, it is important to recognize logic fallacies and avoid using them. Think of those fallacies in your textbook and/or discussed in class and find current examples (3 minimum) of their use on the web or in popular print publications. Be sure to identify each fallacy and explain why it is a fallacy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
15 comments:
Test on position paper blog comments........
“Sheriff’s Office to transport inmates via light rail”
(Source: Azcentral.com)
Upon reading the two articles, one on January 27, 2009 and the final article on January 29, 2009 in reference to the light rail being used to transport prisoners to avoid parking fees.
The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Department assesses parking fees to park at The Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport.
The Valley Metro Light rail will alleviate parking fees for the Sheriff’s Department at Sky Harbor Airport.
The Valley Metro Light rail parks at The Sky Harbor Airport for free.
This is an invalid fallacy. Upon checking the Valley Metro handbook I found that there is not a stop for the light rail at the Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport. Therefore utilization of the light rail does not eliminate parking fees.
Sheriff Joe Arpaio was quoted as saying that the Valley Metro Light Rail is a “safe and viable alternative” for transporting prisoners.
Sheriff Joe Arpaio “said use of a rail system to transport inmates is not uncommon nationally and the plan will not present any danger to the public.
This fallacy: induction by deduction. The sheriff’s department had used this method of transportation one time and had made the determination during this trip that it will not present danger to the public and was safe. This is a tentative conclusion.
The conclusion of the Sheriff discontinuing the use of the Valley Metro Light rail was the fact that he had received four free parking passes to park at the Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport. The January 29th article quotes Sheriff Joe Arpaio as saying, “I appreciate the cooperation we have received by the city of Phoenix to alleviate this light rail controversy.”
The sheriff used public transportation to force the city to give him what he wanted which were three more parking passes.
The sheriff was using this as a cost cutting plan for transportation, however the end did not justify the means by getting the parking passes there will still be a cost for maintaining the vehicles being used for transportation to and from the Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport.
This fallacy: appeal to force.
Position Paper #1, Example 1
In this article, the authors, Mr. Huse and Mr. Pear, outline the story that Senator Tom Daschle was sorry for his negligence in regards to paying taxes on his use of a luxury car. Mr. Daschle said that his failure to pay $128,000 in taxes was “completely inadvertent”. The article stated that the oversight was understandable since Mr. Daschle did not receive a 1099 for the car services.
A close friend of Mr. Daschle, Kent Conrad, stated: “He felt sure Mr. Daschle had ‘convinced any fair-minded person’ that he was blameless. Mr. Conrad continued; “I don’t know anyone more honorable, more decent, more honest and more qualified for this position.” Mr. Daschle is being considered for the position of Health and Human Services Secretary. The Finance committee investigating Mr. Daschle reported that he also neglected to pay Medicare taxes owed.
President Obama voiced public support for the nomination of Mr. Daschle for the position of Secretary of Health and Human Services in spite of the committee’s findings. The article concluded that Aides to the President remain confident that Mr. Daschle would be confirmed.
It is apparent that Mr. Daschle believes that his negligence in assuring that his taxes were properly paid was an oversight that any “fair minded person” should agree with. This is an example of a fallacy noted in our Philosophy book as “mere assertion”. It is a person believing a fact, which they believe that others should accept.
While some may believe Mr. Daschle’s claims, Senator Grassley has already voiced concern regarding his appointment. Many healthcare companies have paid Mr. Daschle large sums of money for consultation and speaking fees, which could be a possible conflict of interest. It is this concern and Mr. Daschle’s fallacy that could impede his appointment to the Cabinet position.
Source: New York Times, 2/2/09 by Carl Huse and Robert Pear
Daschle Gives Apology Over Taxes as Allies Offer Support
I don’t know if I quite have the hang of this yet but this is what I found:
Source: CNNPolitics.com
Palin hits Obama for 'terrorist' connection
Sarah Palin used continued throughout her campaign to imply President Obama was terrorist. Palin was quoted saying, "We see America as the greatest force for good in this world," Palin said at a fund-raising event in Colorado, adding, "Our opponent though, is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country." She got this information from a newspaper article that ended with the following statement, "the two men do not appear to have been close. Nor has Mr. Obama ever expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers, whom he has called 'somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8.' "
Fallacy- Ad Hominem- Sarah Palin continued to state the untrue fact that Barack Obama pals around with terrorists to degrade the Democratic party while promoting the Republicans to the American people
Source: AZCentral.com National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov
Cash-strapped states mull seat belt law changes
The federal government is offering cash-strapped states millions of dollars if they implement a new seatbelt law which encourages officers to pull over and cite citizens for not wearing their seatbelts as their primary offence. The article focuses on how the federal government and the individual states can raise funds for public safety and decrease their deficits. Towards the end of the article the content sways to information about potential violations of the Fourth Amendment protections against illegal search and seizure that will arise as well as the safety statistics proposed to save lives and money in insurance costs.
The fallacy: Distraction- The article began with how the new found authority of the local police will bring in both federal money by the millions as well as money from the new citations issued by the police. Towards the end the writer shifted to try to justify the increase of police authority by adding in statistics regarding the amount of lives saved. Is it about the money or safety?
Another fallacy: Mere Assertion- In Arkansas, civil rights advocates feel that the change would lead to more racial profiling. Also, to quote House Minority Leader Bill Batchelder, “Some lawmakers are hesitant to hand police more authority to stop motorists, believing that would lead to violations of Fourth Amendment protections against illegal search and seizure.” In these cases they are both probably correct; However, there are no supporting arguments for either of these concerns in the article. One could say that these concerns are a “given” in situations where the government gains more authority over the people, to quote the textbook, “even the most obvious facts of common sense must be argued when challenged.”
Reading through current news stories on line, it wasn’t hard to find examples of the Ad hominem or “attack against the man” fallacy. The following excerpt is from a comment by Gene Baur, the founder and president of Farm Sanctuary. He makes some good arguments against the meat industry, but he does resort to the Ad hominem fallacy several times. The last paragraph is a good example.
…The lawsuit filed by meat industry groups to overturn this sensible and long-overdue reform directly threatens Californian's health and safety, and seeks to legitimize animal cruelty. What the meat industry is essentially saying is that California's elected leaders do not have the authority to protect their constituents or farm animals from grievous harm, and that only meat producers themselves are qualified to determine which animals are "well" enough to be sold for food.
There's one very obvious problem with this self-serving proposition, and it centers on the profit motive. History clearly shows that the meat industry cannot be trusted to regulate itself. It routinely ignores food safety and animal welfare concerns as it cuts corners and seeks to increase revenue. Factory farms have no qualms about breaking the law if they think that no one is watching -- like last year when a slaughterhouse in Chino, CA was caught illegally selling the meat of downed animals to the National School Lunch Program.
The scheme to negate A.B. 2098 is not just an attack on a new law: it is an assault on the public interest itself that distinctly reveals the meat industry's arrogant and greedy nature.
As you can see Mr. Baur has resorted to name-calling and while he does give one example of the meat industry behaving badly he does not give examples to show that they, “routinely ignore food safety”. He also does not give the reason the meat industry says it thinks the law is unfair. If he did that, he could then argue their logic is faulty and prove them wrong.
Mr. Baur has also used words that create strong emotional appeals like, “threatens Californian's health and safety, and seeks to legitimize animal cruelty”. The idea that some children might have gotten bad meat because of the meat industry is also an emotionally charged issue that makes it very difficult to see that there may be another side to this story.
Mr. Baur uses one other fallacy that is not so obvious at first. Before his comment where it gives the name of the article and Mr. Baur’s name, it gives his credentials. If you click on his name and credentials, it takes you to his web page. Mr. Baur is very qualified to talk about this subject and has been an expert witness many times. Even though Mr. Baur is clearly an authority on this subject I believe he used dubious authority when writing this comment. In the first paragraph Mr. Baur tries to tell us what the meat industry is saying. I don’t believe he has the authority to decide what the meat industry is saying, especially without using some quotes from some one in the meat industry. How do we know that the meat industry did not have a valid reason for challenging this law, without hearing their side of the story? In my opinion, without the meat industry’s side of the story this argument is invalid.
I had a footnote, but for some reason it did not show on my first blog.
Source: Baur, Gene. “Meat Industry puts Self-interest Before Public interest.” http://news.google.com/news?btcid=e2aa3418dab6c101. 30 Jan 2009. Web. 31, Jan 2009.
Position Paper #1 Example 2
Associated Press in Baghdad published an article about an elderly woman who was arrested for recruiting dozens of female suicide bombers. Samira Ahmed Jassim, also known as “The Mother of Believers”, claimed; ‘“She was part of a plot in which young women were raped and then sent to her for matronly advice”. She said she would try to persuade the victims to become suicide bombers as their only escape from shame and to reclaim their honor.”
Through this woman’s use of a fallacy she was able to emotionally convince more than eighty young women to carry out attacks and was personally behind twenty-eight different bombings.
Samira Ahmed Jassim used emotional appeal to convince the rape victims to redeem themselves through what was portrayed as a heroic act. This is a profound example of appeal to pity and it’s ability to challenge logical thinking.
Source: International News; Associated Press
“Mother of Iraq Women Bomber Network Arrested”
By: Qassim Abdul-Zahra and Brian Murphy
2/3/09
In reading a few articles and listening to some arguments, I found some which I thought to demonstrate ad hominem, ad verecundium and irrelevancies.
The ad hominem argument is when the attacks are against the person not against the speaker’s argument. An example can be demonstrated by Rush Limbaugh’s (a talk radio host) comments on Ali Velshi’s (CNN’ business chief) stand on tax cuts which can be heard on the website listed below. Velshi stated his objectives with Limbaugh’s stand on the tax cut. Limbaugh responded by saying that Velshi was “incompetent” and “disservice” to his business.” As we can easily see this had nothing to do with tax cuts, it was attack against Velschi and not against his take on tax cuts. Although he made some quick jabs at Velshi, he did nothing to defend his position.
The next argument is known as the ad verecundium argument, when a person has an appeal of authority, normally by people who have fame or prestige. For instance, Tom Cruise made the comment that women suffering from postpartum syndrome are misinformed that depression could be cured with exercise and that medicine was not necessary. As we all know Tom Cruise is a famous male actor, he is not a doctor or has he ever suffered from postpartum depression. Tom Cruise used his fame to say that all the women suffering from this depression just needed to exercise and are “misinformed.” Tom Cruise is not an expert on the topic so this knowledge is limited, yet he speaks as though he truly does know what he is talking about.
Irrelevancies are used to argue about other things other than the topic being discussed for example on they are talking about Sheriff Joe Arpaio stereotyping Hispanics to target illegal immigrants. Yet the first things mentioned is how he has the inmates wear pink clothing and the poor quality food in the prisons. They are just throwing out facts that do not pertain to him stereotyping.
Theses are a few examples as to how not to defend an argument. By using any type of fallacy in your argument, your opponent is bound to see and point it out. The important idea is defend your opinion and not to attack your opponent and not the make yourself seem to be an expert when your truly are not.
Website for Limbaugh: http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2009/01/30/cttb.campbell.brown.limbaugh.cnn?iref=videosearch
Website of Cruise: (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/95387/tom_cruises_views_on_postpartum_depression.html?cat=52)
Website for Arpaio: http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2008/07/joe-arpaio-amer.html
Position Paper #1 Example 3
While President Dimitri Medvedev said that Russia wanted to cooperate with the United States in stabilizing Afghanistan, he shifted the burden of change to the US and policy changes required from the new administration.
President Medvedev’s words spoke of support for NATO’s work to stabilize Afghanistan, but his actions undermined the efforts by giving Kyrgyzstan a $2.15 billion aid package. Within hours of the announcement of the aid package the Kyrgyzstan government submitted a draft bill to shut down the Manas Air Base, which is strategic for NATO operations in Afghanistan. Russian officials denounced any responsibility for this decision.
US assistance to Kyrgzstan is approximately $150 million per year, which included economic, health, police and human rights programs. The $2.15 billion aid package by Russia shifts the dependence of these programs to be met by Russia and with it, compliance with President Medvedev’s expectations.
This is an example of the fallacy of “changing meanings”. The use of the word cooperation is invalidated through President Medvedev’s actions and explanation that his inference in cooperation is political, not necessarily military. He continues to support this fallacy by stating; “It is necessary to form a full-fledged political system. Keep in mind, cultural and historic tradition. Democracy cannot be forced upon (a country). It must grow from within. It’s not the number of bases that matters. It would be good if that would help reduce the number of terrorists, but the fight against terrorism is not limited to building up military forces.”
Sources: Moscow Associated Press
“Russia Says it Wants to Help US in Afghanistan
By: Vladimir Isachenkov, contributing writer, Pauline Jelinek
Position paper #1, Example 1
The article I chose to find fallacies in is called "Hillary Clinton, Terrorism and the FALN." The article was located on a website called AgainstHillary.com.
The first one that I easily spotted is known as an Ad Hominem or more specifically Tu Quoque, where the second arguer attacks the first arguer by proving they are a hypocrite so the argument is no good. This particular article begins by stating Hillary Clinton's feelings towards Obama's involvement with William Ayers. Being that Hillary condemned their relationship during one of her and Obama's debates, the author chose to point out how Hillary and her husband President Clinton pardoned members of the FALN terrorist group in 1999. Regardless of the Clinton's actions, it would not condone another person’s involvement with terrorist, if the reports were true.
Mainly, the author reports on how President Clinton was the person whom granted the pardons of the known terrorists. Therefore, whether Hillary had any knowledge of the clemency, she was not able to give the final say so. Much of the readings provide the Red Herring fallacy through guilt by association. Since her husband was responsible for the pardons, she is just as guilty.
Lastly, I believe the story commits the Missing the point fallacy by not focusing on anything about the Obama/Ayers situation, or the debate between Obama and Hillary. There is a lot of information though about the FALN members that was granted clemency and their crimes. As the reader, it felt as if the terrorist’s actions twenty plus years ago all were a cause of Hillary’s doing somehow.
Source: Againsthillary.com
"Cheney Predicts 'Probability' of Attacks"
February 4, 2009
(Source: NYTimes.com)
After reading this article I think I was able to identify three fallacies as mentioned in the textbook.
The first fallacy was used throughout the first two paragraphs and it was the fallacy of emotional appeals, in this case the emotion of fear. Former Vice President Dick Cheney said that there was a "high probability" of a nuclear or biological attack occurring within the next few years. He also stated that President Obama's decision to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and ban coercive interrogation methods could make the country more vulnerable. In making these statements, Mr. Cheney is using an appeal to peoples natural sense of fear. People might question where the detainees from Guantanamo will be released to. Or, if they might even be released into the United States. If people have concerns that "terrorists" are being released into their communities, they might infer that the United States would be more succeptible to attack.
The second fallacy I noticed in the article was the fallacy of dubious authority. Cheney attempts to justify wide reaching survellience programs and the enactment of the PATRIOT Act by stating that "Those policies we put in place, in my opinion, were absolutely crucial to getting us through the last seven-plus years without a major-casualty attack on the U.S.". Many people disagree with the actions of the Bush Administration, especially the PATRIOT Act and the far reaching survellience programs used. While Cheney appeals to the authority weilded while serving with Bush, they may not have been the most authoritative on the subject.
The third and final fallacy was the fallacy of unclear or shifting conclusions. The former VP on the one hand uses the quote from above to describe how the actions of he and his former colleagues prevented any major attacks on the U.S. since 9/11. Cheney essentially says that we are, in fact, safer because of their actions on our behalf. Then he goes on to play off the former administrations failure to defend the country from the current financial crisis by saying "We did worry about it, to some extent. I don't think anybody actually foresaw something of this size and dimension occurring." I would argue that Mr. Cheney and the rest of the administration would be just as responsible for the protection of the country from terrorists as financial crises. Former VP Cheney would not be able to as flippedly dismiss it if the United States had been attacked again since 9/11 by saying 'we just didn't see it coming' as he did in regard to the financial situation we are now in.
Michael Carmello
Zoe Strimple had a good collumn about Damien Hirst's paintings that were on display at a everything- must- go sale at Sotheby's next week in London this past september.I enjoyed his comment about galleries that claim up to 60% commision as being vultures. This visual discription was what sold me on choosing it as as one of my current fallacies.This piece was cleverely titled, Reading the Market's Mood in Formaldehyde & Spots.
The Booker Short List, Minus Sir Salman is another one of Zoe Strimple's fine work. Here he introduces Sir Salman Rushdie as ,"the darling literary establishment and the crown prince of the Booker Prize. This writing was a bit sarchastic which I really enjoyed. I thought that made was a good enough reason to choose as my second fallacy for this homework assignment.
I think that this Zoe Strimple is a London Arts review writer of some sort. He has named Lucian Frued as an artist that has risen above the recession. This is another good one called, Lucian Freud Lays Out the Bacon. I like how the writer puts his work together in a classy yet silly way. I say that this writer's material is full of fallacies.
This was a good way to get to know some new writing styles from around the world. I found all of my information for this assignment on the google politics/contemporary art pages. This is your captain Michael wishing you God's speed. Ten-four over and out.
Fallacy #1 Ad Hominen,
On the website wbaltv.com/sports/ it states that Olympic gold medalist Michael Phelps was caught smoking a pipe. Instead of all the great accomplishments he has made, media is just focusing on the bad things. There is stress involved in what he does and what he does in his personal life is just not our business. We should just admire him for his accomplishments. Michael has accepted his mistakes, so why not just let him be?
Fallacy #2 Ad Verecundian
On Cnn.com they talk about how the financial institutions received a bailout. Not many citizens are happy about this because it turns out that the financial institutions are using the money to pay their executives. It’s not fair for us that we have to be suffering in these times while the executives are enjoying of their big incentive.
Fallacy #3 Inductive Argument
CNN.com has an article that states that Army soldiers from the ages of 18-24 that are deployed are committing suicide. There were a total of 24 soldiers in the month of January. These soldiers were in treatment before deployment. They were faced with the terror of traveling overseas for the war. So, my question is, is every soldier that is between the age of 18 and 24 commit suicide?
From Beijing to bongs...by Kathleen Parker of the Denver Post.
Ms Parker responds to the recent brouhaha about Michael Phelps use of marijuana at a party. Her position is that it is past time to look at "antiquated" drug laws, as she calls them. She cites a study that says 42% of the American population has at one time or another used marijuana. She further states that this is the highest percentage of 17 nations.
She has ignored the other 58% of the law abiding population, who do not think the marijuana laws are 'antiquated.
Furthermore, she offers our new president, as well as other high profile citizens, as proof that it is the norm to use the drug, thereby making it okay. The fact that there are high profile citizens who use marijuana should not be considered when reviewing the marijuana laws currently on the books.
She also points the some campaign adds as misleading the youth they are aimed at, by pointing out that using marijuana will not cause you to go insane. She implies that therefore it should be legalized. However, she makes no mention at all of the consquences of marijuana use.
This fallacy:
Position Paper #1
“Fur Flies over Oscar Style”
Source: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/film/article2205475.ece
In this article, the PETA, this is a group that is trying to convince Oscar nominees not to use Armani’s clothing. They are doing this because Armani had talked to PETA and convinced them that he was not going to use fur anymore. His latest collections are fur- hemmed skirts, floral-printed fur coats and even rabbit-fur-trimmed snowsuits for toddlers. The rabbits that are used are kept in comfortable places before they are brutally slaughtered. A spokesman said that he has met with Armani and his staff and they are more moved by what celebrities believe than the animals suffering or protests.
Then the article talks about Brittany Spears and how she has been praised by PETA. She was going to do her next performance with animals that had been beaten to death and they would have to do uncomfortable tricks, but Brittany decided not do the Show with animals. The PETA began to like her, but they had been criticizing before. Just because she had used an elephant in her video, they thought she was going to keep with using animals in her performances. Brittany proved them wrong that she was not going to harm any animals.
This article has many fallacies, but the one that is being applied to the most is pity. The author describes how these poor animals are being used and wants the readers to be on the PETA’s side. They use what Armani or his staffs have said in a negative way, so we could feel emotional for the animals rather than the designer.
Post a Comment