Are informal fallacies important for us to understand today? Francis Bacon was one of the first people to speak no fallacies. Although he made no direct contributions towards today’s information on fallacies, he pointed to the idea that language may be a source of our mistaken ideas. Francis Bacon (1620) stated that, “words plainly force and overrule the understanding, and throw all into confusion, and lead men away into numberless empty controversies and ideal fallacies” (p. 43). We must understand fallacies in order to avoid Bacon’s “empty controversies” and “idle fallacies”. Fallacies will also help us understand the thought process behind logical reasoning and then how to recognize the flaws.
A fallacy is an error in reasoning within an argument (Purdue Online Writing Lab, 1995-2017, para 1). Informal fallacies are those found every day in real-world issues. They occur when an argument’s logic fails to support the proposed conclusion. Irving Copi was a great American philosopher who was best known for his works in logic (Hansen, 2015, para 2.9). He authored two well-known and widely used textbooks that are still used today. Copi (1961) stated in his book, Introduction to Logic, that informal fallacies are,
…show more content…
“errors in reasoning in which we may fall because of carelessness and inattention to our subject matter” (p. 53). There are many types of informal fallacies that are each guilty of flaws in reasoning, but in different ways.
In order to try and make sense of these fallacies, they are placed into three categories: pathos, logos, and ethos (Ramage, Bean, & Johnson, 2015, p.399). A pathos fallacy contains flaws in the way an argument calls to an audience emotionally (Ramage, Bean, & Johnson, 2015, p.399). Logos fallacies have flaws in the way statements in an argument relate to eachother (Ramage, Bean, & Johnson, 2015, p.399). Lastly, ethos fallacies are flawed arguments in the way they appear to the opponent’s character (Ramage, Bean, & Johnson, 2015, p. 399). These categories are there to try and help organize and make sense of these unsystematic, informal
fallacies. Logos is the logic behind an argument. When here is a logical fallacy in an argument, then there is an issue with the way the statements relate to eachother. One informal fallacy that falls under the logos category is the black-or-white fallacy, also known as false dilemma or the either/or fallacy. These fallacies occur when an argument is oversimplified by presenting only two alternatives when there are clearly more possibilities (logicalfallicies.com). In a discussion with my brother, I stated, “You can either get your heater fixed or you are going to freeze to death this winter.” This is a perfect example of a black-or-white fallacy. There are plenty of possibilities I left out between the two choices I presented to him. I completely ignored the possibilities of using space heaters, heated blankets, or lighting a fire in the fireplace; I clearly committed a logical fallacy. Learning about informal fallacies is important especially since these are found in everyday language. I will now be able to improve the quality of my arguments to ensure that they are logically sound. This will benefit me academically and professionally. Along the same lines, I will also be able to better evaluate arguments of others. There are arguments all around us that we should be evaluating in order to make decisions: laundry detergent A or laundry detergent B, presidential candidate Trump or presidential candidate Clinton, and HP computers or Mac computers. In all of these examples, we should be able to evaluate the arguments and decide if we have a valid reason to accept it. This knowledge on informal fallacies is important and meant to be used. Have you ever heard an argument and thought that it didn’t sound right, but you are not sure why? That may have been an informal fallacy. When we can identify these flawed arguments it will be easier to free ourselves from making choices that are not logical. This is an essential part in good reasoning.
In order to have a complete argument, one needs to first be a credible source, be able to show equality on both sides and also be fair to the other side’s argument. This rhetoric appeal is known as ethos, a method of persuasion, a way to convince the audience and make their argument relevant.
For most writers, we must know the different types of argumentation styles along with logical fallacies. There are three main types of argumentation styles including: Aristotelian, Rogerian, and Toulmin. All three styles have their own argumentation spin on arguments. Aristotelian refutes the opposing claim while at the same time promoting its own argument by using supporting evidence. Some of that evidence includes using rhetorical appeals such as ethos, logos, and pathos. A Rogerian arguments are the arguments that find the common ground in order for an effective argument. Last but not least there is the Toulmin argument, the Toulmin argument is similar to the Aristotelian argument yet instead of appealing to the audience Toulmin focuses
An example of Moss’s outstanding usage of ethos, pathos, and logos is Jeffrey Dunn’s story. Dunn held an executive position at Coca-Cola in 2001, when the main company goal was to drive Coca-Cola into poorer areas. On a business trip to Brazil, Dunn realized that “these people need a lot of things, but they don’t need a Coke” and decided to push the company in a healthier direction. This choice led to Dunn’s eventual firing (491-494). This story not only appeals to pathos by getting to readers’ emotions, but also to ethos and logos because Dunn is a credible source and gives an authentic experience that adds to the credible feel of the article. (very good info./analysis, keep but
There are many examples of strong argumentative writing in the second half of the book Everyday Arguments. Topics of writing examples include today’s college student, the internet, sports, earning your living, diet, and reading popular culture. Of the writings, two stood out as notable works to be critiqued; Who is a Teacher, and Thoughts on Facebook.
In this paper we will be discussing the rhetorical devices, logos, ethos, pathos, kairos, and
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
Aristotle’s rhetorical triangle links three elements of arguing together: the speaker, the story, and the audience. The relationship between the elements determines the speaker’s argument and whether it will be successful in oratory or literature. Ethos, Logos and Pathos are each different aspects of the argument that must be balanced in order to succeed in persuading or convincing an audience. Ethos, or character, relates to the speaker’s credibility that the audience appeals to: it is useful when persuading a group of people to trust what you are saying or doing. Logos, or logic, is a way of convincing and appealing by reason, truth, and facts. Pathos relates to the audience’s emotions and their response to what the speaker is saying.
Authors have many strategies when it comes to winning over their readers and on some occasions may even target their opponents, to make them look bad, in an attempt to make themselves look better. In the articles by Steve Greenberg and Michael Weinreb we will look at the way authors constrict articles to get readers to side with opinion by appealing to a person through logos, pathos, ethos, and the use of rhetorical devices. Greenberg use of a logical fallacy, using a rhetorical device against his friend, and his own use of rhetorical devices in order to convince reader through by ethos of how awful his friend and cardinal fans are, while Weinreb focuses on logos, a logical fallacy, and rhetorical devices to strengthen
Everyone has experienced some type of stress in their life. Whether it has been from work, school, or troubles at home, stress is stress. If anyone had played sports in high school, you know the challenge of balancing school and sports. Imagine that stress, then multiply it exponentially. Everyone knows that college is a much more rigorous version of high school. The only reason some athletes made it to college is due to scholarships for their performance on the field. If they don’t perform well on the field, that scholarship might get cut. This makes practicing the athletes main priority. However, college athletes have to concentrate on their grades so they don’t drop out of college. These athletes know they may not make it to the pro’s, so they know they have to have a back up plan. This back up plan is called a college degree. So college athletes have to concentrate both on sports and classes. Sounds kind of challenging. This is why I believe student athletes should be allowed to miss classes occasionally due to their sport. Athletes are under much more stress, are required to attend practices and classes, and complete their homework. This is simply impossible to do, at least for a human. I believe that this is an important topic because it affects all college athletes.
In my opinion an effective argument will consist of ethos, pathos, logos and kairos, because it makes a connection with readers. For example pathos appeal to readers emotions. In the article “Family Privilege” written by John R. Seita mentioned a social worker who suffered the experience of not having a family and she stated “We had little personal experience with family permanence, parental role models, or unconditional love.” Not only does this make readers think about how lucky they are to have a loving and caring family, but it also brings up an emotion of sorrow that she did not have the opportunity to grow up with a that privilege.
Numerous individuals in the world of writing see text differently. While some agree with a point 100%, there are others that disagree with the solution or point an author is trying to get across. With disagreement comes debate. With debate comes counterpoints, and facts to back up an individual’s stands on a topic. To an audience, credibility is a main source of understanding; if an author isn’t confident and is creditable in their argument, then it is invalid. Usually an author uses the rhetorical system when countering a reason or stands. Logos are Rational or Logical appeals. The logical appeal uses reason to make a case. Theoretical dissertation is mostly logos driven because educational spectators respect scholarship and evidence. Advocates using logos rely on evidence and proof, whether the proof is hard data or careful reasoning. Pathos is an Emotional Appeal. In a pathetic appeal, speakers focus on a reader’s sympathy and kind-heartedness, anger and displeasure, desire for love, or sorrow to get their point across. Effective rhetoricians can trigger these feelings in an audience even if the feeling wasn’t there beforehand. Ethos use the writer’s own credibility. Rhetoricians use themselves and their position as a “professional” or as a “morally right” to give their argument existence and standing. Using the rhetorical triangle as a tool to appeal or persuade the reader can be very effective if used all together. In the article “Assisted Suicide, Should doctors be allowed to help terminally ill patients die?” Reed Karaim uses Ethos and Logos to prove his point.
... the most certainty, and that we are in general bad judges of the success of our own epistemic endeavors, is enough to show that we ought to be very cautious indeed. Just as a judge may not rule on a case in which he has an interest, because people in that situation are prone to bias, so we ought to behave as if we could be wrong in any particular case, because we are wrong in so many cases. We think it the best procedure in general if the particular judge is not permitted to preside in that case, even if he is in fact immune to bias. In the same way, we should think it right to treat every one of our beliefs as potentially in error, even if in fact we cannot be wrong. The question fallibilism answers is the question of what rules are best for knowledge-seeking as an endeavor. So fallibilism is best understood, not as a thesis about our abilities, but as a rule to guide our epistemic endeavors.
2. Getting caught up in the “intentional fallacy” means that the critic becomes fixated on
... has used informal fallacies such Ad Hominem and Appeal To Unauthorized Authority in an attempt to debunk the fallacies of others; he became guilty of fallacies himself. Likewise, one could say that it is inevitable to not partake in fallacies when there is a debate at hand. The key to debate is that oftentimes people can agree to disagree.
In their essay, ‘The Intentional Fallacy’ (1946), William K. Wimsatt Jr. and Monroe C. Beardsley, two of the most eminent figures of the New Criticism school of thought of Literary Criticism, argue that the ‘intention’ of the author is not a necessary factor in the reading of a text.