The thing I love most about communications classes, is studying how people argue, or the way people approach arguments. This sounds like I love to argue, but I think its something that everyone deals with in life, whether or not they go into a profession where they need too (Lawyer) or they just like the back and forth. I personally love the back and forth, and think its productive to expanding your own mind. And something I've always heard of but never really got into until the last chapter of reading we completed, was the concept of Logical Fallacies. Many times I've been in a very frustrating situation, and some of the frustration was due to either me or the other person using these fallacies. I see fallacies as just a way for people to try to save face during an argument, or even as a way for people to continue to try to propagate their own ideas without having enough information.
The first fallacy discussed is the slipper slope reasoning, which is that one event is necessary for a whole bunch of other to happen. If one dice gets knocked over, then a bunch of others will too. The biggest argument that I've seen used for that (and the most interesting) is that if a student goes to college, then he will get a degree, then he will get a high paying job, then he will be happy and on and on and on. Does this mean this will happen for everyone? No. Does it happen to some people? Yes. Its basically an assumption towards the future, and a vague one that plays on peoples fears or hopes/
The second one is Ad hominem attacks, which is choosing to target a persons character rather than an argument or the words being spoken. The best place to see this is facebook. Somebody will post a charged image or statement, and then you can sit back and watch the fireworks. But past the first couple lines, you'll notice that it becomes mostly people just calling the other one dumb until somebody finally gets bored and gets off. Or, they will choose to focus on what the person does for a living instead of the argument. The argument is somehow invalid if the opposing person has done something in their life that has nothing to do with the argument. If thats not a good example of it, then I don't know what is.
These two fallacies are the ones I found to be the most prevalent in my day to day life, and the ones that are the easiest to explain. I think because they are so prevalent, they are the most important ones. Every one should recognize and be able to understand fallacies, because if not, they will become just as trapped in the logic as the other person is. And if both people are trapped, then what purpose has the discussion achieved?
No comments:
Post a Comment