|
Fallacy Summary and Application |
|
|
|
|
Written by Craig Verburgh
|
|
Tuesday, 20 March 2007 |
|
Arguments go on everyday about every possible subject you could imagine. Often times people will get so emotionally caught up in their argument that they start using illogical and irrelevant points. Some of the irrelevant points that people make in their arguments are making personal attacks, attacking the motive of their opponent, and stating facts that distract from the argument in an effort to win.
Fallacious Arguments Personal Attack This is probably one of the most common types of fallacies that occur. The “Personal Attack” fallacy (Bassham, et al., 2003) occurs when one attacks somebody’s character rather then attacking the argument they’re making, then using that attack to reject the other persons argument or claim (Bassham, et al., 2003). While attempting to discredit ones opponent using a personal attack is an easy way to make one feel better, it in no way supports the argument that you are trying to make. During an argument, debate or discussion, one most argue their point using facts that are relevant to the topic on hand. Using a personal attack as an point in an argument shows that one is either incapable of dissecting the argument to relevant points, or is specifically trying to hurt the other persons character for no other reason then trying to make them look bad. While going through the decision making process, one needs to be sure not to use a personal attack as an argument. Think about each point you make, and how it is relevant to the argument that you’re trying to make. If you can’t make a concise and relevant connection, the point is a fallacy and should not be used.
Attacking the Motive When one attacks their opponents motive in an argument, they are “…criticizing a person’s motivation for offering a particular argument or claim” (Bassham, et al., 2002). Dismissing ones arguments simply because they may be biased is fallacious. Although one may have a strong vested interest in the subject that they’re arguing about is not a reason to dismiss their argument. One must carefully consider the arguments that the other person is making, as they could very well be correct and valid. Often times being biased can result in somebody exaggerating facts in order to make their point
Red Herring
The red herring fallacy is when one attempts to divert the attention of the person they are arguing with by using a point in the argument that is close, but not relevant to the topic, then claim that the argument is closed because of the irrelevant claim that they made. (Bassham, et al., 2003).
This type of thinking is commonly used when the argument that somebody is trying to make is weak and they need to use any facts they can, relevant or not, to attempt to win the argument.
An example of somebody using this type of fallacy in an argument is when Jose Canseco was trying to defend Sammy Sosa’s use of a cork filled bat in a major league game. He told reporter Bob Ley “The media is … over looking the good that Sammy Sosa has done for the game of baseball, overlooking a player who came from nothing and has put his country on the map, a player that has given so many things to the Dominican Republic…” He is arguing that Sosa should not be punished for breaking the rules of the game simply because he has helped out the sport of baseball. The fact that he has helped the sport has nothing to do with the fact that he broke a rule of the game and should be punished just like if anybody else broke that rule.
|
Essays 
