So we've read chapters 10 and 11, Fallacies and Inductive Reasoning (Identifying Fallacies) respectively. Based on what you know, particularly with respect to inductive reasoning and identifying fallacies, how does it apply to Barry Bonds?
Read the handouts distributed in class, Olbermann, Bob Nightengale, and the Sporting News excerpt.
What kind of reasoning do these opinionists use? What is the argument of each man and how do they support it? Identify any fallacies that Olbermann or others use when arguing for or againist Barry Bonds? Finally, do you agree or disagree with Olbermann, et al? What are your reasons?
60 comments:
After reading the blogs and articles about Barry Bonds, most of the authors used analogical reasoning, reasoning from and about causes, discovering patterns, and reasoning “thru” statistics and probability. I’ll identify them in each argument below.
In the Sporting News excerpt, the author’s argument was Barry Bonds, a great African American athletic, is on his way to breaking the All Time Home-runs record but he has been wrongfully accused by the media and public of using performance enhancing drugs due to the association with Balco Here, the author supports their argument by using reasoning from and about causes. In the second paragraph, reference is made about John Kindkade (reporter) who pointed out the reason why Barry Bonds is targeted is because Barry wasn’t nice to them (media). However, in this author’s blog, I found a couple of fallacies. The first is when “Everyone jumped on the bandwagon which is called ‘WHBB’ (we hate Barry Bonds) – appeal to bandwagon. The second fallacy is “If Bonds is guilty so is Clemens” which is pointing to another wrong.
Mr. Oberman’s argument is the sport of Baseball is going through hard times and the players and fans are shaken up by all the illicit events from gambling on the games to players using performance enhancing drugs to improve their game. I found that Mr. Oberman used analogical reasoning and discovering patters when he wrote about how each of the players (Bonds, Maris, Aaron, Ripken and McGuire) was not well received by the public and media upon breaking or attempting to break a baseball record. I think I found a circular fallacy in the article in this statement – we do not know if he is more sinned against than sinning.
In Mr. Nightengale’s article, his argument is Barry Bonds image is tainted as a baseball player because of the steroids scandal but racism may be the real issue for all the negative exposure. In this article, I found reasoning through statistics and probability. The main section I reference is the chart “Giant Numbers” which presents Barry Bond’s statistics and the article provides the probability of Barry Bonds surpassing Hank Aaron. The fallacy pointing to another wrong is where Torii Hunters says Barry has never failed a drug test and everyone continues to discredit him and then he continues to point out that no one even talks about McGwire or Palmerio who have tested positive to steroids in 2005.
Of the three authors, I disagree with the Sport News because I found too many fallacies in that blog. As for Oberman and Nightengale, I agree with some points such as Barry Bonds deservers to be inducted into the Hall of Fame for his previous achievements based on the statistics posted of his career but I don’t’ know if I’d like to see him break Hank Aaron’s home runs record. I haven’t see evidence to prove him guilty but I haven’t see evidence proving he’s not.
Lyric, excellent post. Thanks for raising the bar.
"I haven’t see evidence to prove him guilty but I haven’t see evidence proving he’s not."
But in this country don't we live under the assumption of innocent until proven guilty? If this is the case, then why do you need to see evidence proving that Bonds is not guilty. Presume he is until it's proven otherwise. Bonds does not have to prove he is innocent.
Yes, you are correct that a person is innocent until proven guilty in our country. However, the media feeds the public (guilty by association or innocent) even before a court hearing is convened and changing the way people (society) view the above statement to “guilty until proven innocent” By providing evidence to prove Bond is innocent, it will tip the scale in his favor (innocent). In my case, I struggle because to find an answer. I don’t have a side (guilty or innocent); I’m neutral.
"the media feeds the public . . . even before a court hearing is convened and changing the way people . . . view the above statement to “guilty until proven innocent” By providing evidence to prove Bond is innocent, it will tip the scale in his favor"
But I worry that the point may be missed, Bonds does not have to prove he is innocent. The Courts (legal and public opinion ) must prove he is guilty. It's precisely because the media, et al., presume otherwise that the aforementioned fallacies exist.
As Olbermann Keith and others reiterates the continuous and long standing debate of how best to deal with the achievement of a well-acclaimed sportsman in the wake of scandals that have stirred up late in his career, there is no doubt about the fact that Barry Bonds has been greeted with mixed salutations since he was alleged of using steroids and performance enhancing substances. In Olbermann’s article “The Bonds Era: not best of times in baseball” he seems to rely on inductive reasoning to sway his readers and carry them along the path of acknowledgement of the troubles that have surrounded the Major League Baseball. He started with Barry Bonds and he chose to believe everyone is well accustomed to the details of the story, he never goes into any detailed specifics of any evidence that support the accusations levied against him nor does the one line assertion of the Dodger a major league team having more blacks in the year 1950 than they have in 2007 as a good evidence of the reduction of African American baseball players in the league is a fallacious statement, because the reduction of African Americans in one team does not simply mean an overall reduction in all teams…but further statistics might have helped him validate his point, one which he deems unnecessary in this case.
There is no doubt that the Major League Baseball is going through some turbulent times and the deep fragmentation that race has left on our society as a whole unfortunately seems to be subtly factoring in at a very crucial moment in the history of a sport that is fully considered American. As Barry Bonds continues in his pursuit of an all time home run record mixed feelings of the credibility of such an enormous accomplishment cannot but get challenged, especially after his alleged use of performance enhancing drugs. However, much speculations of an underlying factor seem to be an elephant in the room, I mean that of the color of his skin. Without opening Pandora’s box, I strongly believe irrespective of past allegations we must give credit to whom credit is due. However, without forgetting to address a critical point: condoning illegal substances in any sports is a practice I strongly oppose and I support the stiffest penalties.
As Olbermann Keith and others reiterates the continuous and long standing debate of how best to deal with the achievement of a well-acclaimed sportsman in the wake of scandals that have stirred up late in his career, there is no doubt about the fact that Barry Bonds has been greeted with mixed salutations since he was alleged of using steroids and performance enhancing substances. In Olbermann’s article “The Bonds Era: not best of times in baseball” he seems to rely on inductive reasoning to sway his readers and carry them along the path of acknowledgement of the troubles that have surrounded the Major League Baseball. He started with Barry Bonds and he chose to believe everyone is well accustomed to the details of the story, he never goes into any detailed specifics of any evidence that support the accusations levied against him nor does the one line assertion of the Dodger a major league team having more blacks in the year 1950 than they have in 2007 as a good evidence of the reduction of African American baseball players in the league is a fallacious statement, because the reduction of African Americans in one team does not simply mean an overall reduction in all teams…but further statistics might have helped him validate his point, one which he deems unnecessary in this case.
There is no doubt that the Major League Baseball is going through some turbulent times and the deep fragmentation that race has left on our society as a whole unfortunately seems to be subtly factoring in at a very crucial moment in the history of a sport that is fully considered American. As Barry Bonds continues in his pursuit of an all time home run record mixed feelings of the credibility of such an enormous accomplishment cannot but get challenged, especially after his alleged use of performance enhancing drugs. However, much speculations of an underlying factor seem to be an elephant in the room, I mean that of the color of his skin. Without opening Pandora’s box, I strongly believe irrespective of past allegations we must give credit to whom credit is due. However, without forgetting to address a critical point: condoning illegal substances in any sports is a practice I strongly oppose and I support the stiffest penalties.
the author's main argument was Barry bonds soon to be MLB all time home-run leader is being accussed by many babseball fans and also by the media of useing balco which is steriods. however barry bonds is also seen as a mean stuck up man to his fans and to rhe media and by him doing that it plays a big role on why people wont to see him get caught for balco.
I really didnt agree with the sports news because i read lots of false statements in the reading. but i did agree with the other others in the reading and i believe barry should go to the hall of fame because already put up grat numbers before he was accused of useing steriods. their just haters who dont want to see a black man be great
sayson i agree with you because i also have seen people jump on the bandwagon and cheer we hate barry.and i think they are haters like i saud before. give the man the respect he deserves no matter how he acts toward people.
When I read the Barry Bonds Handouts my first thought was Who cares if he's guilty!! Barry Bonds doesn't even know I exist. As you can tell from the tone of my post he isn't really one of my favorite people, however just because someone's an asshole doesn't mean they are guilty of something that can't be proven. His case is a bunch of he say she say back and forth between other athletes who have been accused of Steriod use. Some of the fallacies used by Olberman and nightengale in this "witch hunt" are Hasty Generalizations which is very closely realted to the Band wagon fallacy. Most people assumed Barry was guilty because that was the view of the general public and little or no time was actually taken to annalyze the facts surrounding his case. Most of the media is appealing to prejudices by attacking Bonds' terrible personality and poisoning the well by pursueding others of his wrong doings. Pointing to another wrong, and Red herring have been used frequently to disuede people from the facts. I really don't care one way or the other what happens to Bonds as long as the trial is based on just facts.
Hi Clarice,
I agree with your comments and thought so myself, and yet what I came away with was they way the hunt is being orchestrated. The reasoning, the unsubstantiated statistics, the destractions that I never would have noticed had I not read the chapters on fallacies and reasoning. I just took for granted many issues that now I find it is for me, more than what do I care but, more of look at what is being done and how it is being carried out, to whom and by whom. I think we are experiencing critical thinking - gathering data, observing, defining patterns and coming to conclusions.
The controversial issue over Barry Bonds having used steroids or not has a lot to do with inductive reasoning because that is exactly what many people did. They arrived at a conclusion through observation of what “the media said happened.” However, that itself is a fallacy because there is still no prove that this man is guilty. I will say though, that Barry has said and done some funny things to make people believe that he is guilty, but even then we can’t judge the man for being dumb…can you all tell I don’t really care too much for him?
Anyway, that is not the point. In these different readings there were many fallacies used such as “pointing to another wrong,” “appeal to bandwagon,” “prejudicial language,” and “red herring.”
For example, in the Sporting News excerpt, the “appeal to bandwagon” fallacy is used when the author said “Now everybody jumped on the bandwagon which is called “WHBB” (We Hate Barry Bonds).” The fallacy of “pointing to another wrong” was also used when the author said “If Bonds is guilty so is Clemens.” Basically, this author was carried away by the emotions that were strongly felt for Barry Bonds defense that he/she failed to recognize the use of these fallacies in their argument.
In Bob Nightengale’s excerpt, the “red herring” fallacy was used when he said “He (Bonds) caused a furor two years ago when he said he wanted to break all of Ruth’s records but wouldn’t mind falling short of Aaron, who started his career in the Negro Leagues. Yet when Bonds was criticized for his views, constructed by some as racist, he reminded everyone that his first wife was white.” Barry Bonds really didn’t respond to the allegations of him being racist, instead he diverted the attention to the fact that his ex-wife was white and expected that to answer the question for him.
Finally, in Keith Olbermann’s excerpt he uses “prejudicial language” by saying “He is accused of using illegal performance enhancing drugs, to such effect that, he, in the season he turned age 37, hit nearly three times as many home runs as he had hit, in the season he turned age 27.” Hmmm, does this sound like he is trying to persuade his readers through the use of loaded words, I think so.
I definitely do not agree with Olbermann because all he is doing is making many comparisons with other record breaking baseball players that have nothing to do with Barry Bonds. I say leave this man alone until he is actually proven guilty of using steroids.
Based on Bob Mightengale article, and the other article, I find a different reasoning. The first one is Contradictions and Inconsistencies, "Bonds began taking steroids after the 1998 season. Commissioner Bud Selig has been reviewing the matter and will launch an investigation of Bonds and other major leaguers." After few paragraphs in Mightengale article and said "Bonds, who insists he has never taken steroids, says he has been tested several times for steriods since 2003." In here, obviously to see the contradictions and Inconsistencies, because if once said Bonds took the steriods after the 1998 season, then how come Bonds can tested several times for steriods since 2003?
The other reasoning that I find is Premises and it's based on Olbermann article. Before Barry Bonds, it's had a baseball (senior) players, as Roger Maris, Hank Aaron and Mark McGwire. They all have the similar situation as Bonds do right now. So based on the premises of those players, before break the records Barry Bonds have this kind of situation should not really surprise in our society today.
In my opinion after I read the Nightengale article, Media could be a main factor because it said "Barry has never really cultivated the media and cultured the media the way Magic Johnson did and Michael Jordan did or the way Tiger Woods has done" which mean is if some popular players, such as Barry Bonds he doesn't have a good relationship between him and a media. Then the media might target him as a detester or even make up some story to make him reputation to be ruined, as the Steriods event.
Hello Kalid! I agree with the points you have raised in your blog. I also beleieve that credit should be given to those that earn it. Since, it is still not proven that Barry is actually guilty. Even if he did in fact use steroids, he should still be inducted into the hall of fame because of the other great accomplishments of his career. In addition, condoning illegal substances in a sport is unexceptable and should be given a harsh punishment.
Hello- richard gonzalez
I agree with you for Barry Bonds should go to the hall of fame because he already put up his humbers before he was accused of using steriods. Which mean is he already success before his mistake, and this mistake is even without a valid evidence. So he have nowhere to go except the hall of fame. By the way, what is your reasoning in those articles?
I am going to be honest and say that I was initially resistant to this assignment because I do not care for baseball or Barry Bonds in particular.
Any time I have heard Bonds interviewed in the public arena, he strikes me as arrogant and defensive. When the media began to question his credibility, I was ready to jump in. I have been suspicious about his innocence because he is not forthcoming in his approach regarding his interactions with the public in general. My observation mentioned above is with the use of "sensory observation." I sense that Bonds is withholding something, even if it is humility, and the issue of his steroid use. Also, I wonder why his friend and trainer, Greg Anderson made a vow of silence to the extent that he has been jailed?
Is there something to hide? My feeling is that if innocence can be upheld, then uphold it with a voice that can ring out across all those who suspect otherwise.Stand up for your rights and for those of others.
Having read all three articles, the first I will comment on is the "AllStarGame BarryBonds MLB." I found the author to be offensive in his tone when he refers to several sports journalists by saying, "You are all acting as a bunch of sissies." In my opinion, he is using the "personal attack" fallacy. Because these individuals have an opinion differing from his own, he feels it necessary to ridicule and offend them. I think that that approach is counter-productive to say the least. In addtion, he uses "inductive reasoning" by putting the other journalists into one group instead of looking at each particular person or their position.
Olbermann cites examples without providing the reader with information as to where he is getting his data. In this, he is using the "appeal to false authority" fallciously. I am not certain the statistics he mentions are accurate or appropriate. For instance, what does it mean when he says, "Barry Bonds represents a time in which the fans' confidence in what the game means has been shaken?" That statement also sounds ambiguous to me. What does the game of baseball mean, and how has it been shaken at this time?
The article,"Reasons for Bonds' bad image split between steriods and racism" was the most well rounded and informative. I think Nightengale uses "statistics and probability" as the backdrop for his article. He covers a lot of territory by citing experts from UC Berkeley, Harry Edwards to other athletes who have come under fire. Edwards' point is that Bonds has not had a good repore with the media and this could be part of his downfall. Nightengale quotes Leonard Moore, a professor at Lousiana State University. He says, "White America doesn't want him to (pass) Babe Ruth and is doing everything they can to stop him." Right there, I question as to whether Bonds is being targeted because of his race. In order for me to make a singular analysis, I would need to do much more research. At this point, I do not have enough to go on. However, my gut feeling is that it is more involved than the implications of race.
Additionally, I do not agree or disagree with any of the aforementioned opinionists. I am not entirely neutral either. There is not enough evidence to support whether Bonds is guilty or innocent regarding his use of steroids. I will make an effort to suspend further judgment until all of the data is in, and all of the valid information is documented and substantiated.
Until then, Barry Bonds is a baseball player with an unbelievable skill in the batters box. Is it purely his talent reflected in the numbers? I guess all of his fans will have to wait to be enlightened with the roaring sound of the truth.
Hi Kalid.
I enjoyed reading your blog and I agree with your statement "condoning illegal substances in any sports is a practice I strongly oppose and I support the stiffest penalties" but I'd like to extend it to include all illicit acts such as gambling, etc.
You made a good point on giving credit where credit is earn. In Bonds case, I think he should still be in the Hall of Fame because of what he achieved in his earlier years.
Thanks.
Lyric
Olberman and Nightengale in their articles took thesame position about Barry Bond's allegation of substance use.Both maintained that Bond has not been proved guilty and there's no evidence yet that could comfirm the alligation.
However,both Authors suported their arguments with analogical reasonings,discovering patterns,statistics and probabilities.For instance,Nightengale used statistical data information to illustrate how Bond surpassed Hank Aaron.Also,Olberman did thesame as he represents Barry Bond's Fans against his opposition in percetage.There was reasoning by pattern discovery too.This was used as the Authors compared how Bond's steriod scandal was treated in relation with other top players who had similar charges at one point in their careers.
On the other hand,both commited fallacies while arguing in favor of Barry Bond.Fallacies identified include:Red herring,which occured as Nightengale diverts attention to issue of racism which obviously, wasn't the main topic.Another one dicovered was fallacy of pointing to another wrong.This was witnessed when Nightengale stated that, "no one talk even about McGwire or Palmerio who tested positive on steriod test in 2005". Fallacy of reasoning from and about cause was also prominent when they argue that the cause of Barry Bond's problem is because his is Black.Also, fallacy of hesty conclusion and generalization was made when the sport analyst claimed that why Bond is the target is because he wasn't nice to them.
I agree with Olberman and Nightengale because there is no evidence yet that found Barry Bond guilty of the allegation. More so, their claims were backed with sound evidence which are conviencing.Unlike the sport news that couldn't provide evidence to its claims.
Obviously, there are three kinds of reasoning that use by these opinionists, such as discovering patterns, analogical reasoning and reasoning through statistics and probability. I also read the article in The Sporting News Excerpt, “With BBO--Bonds-AP Poll-Method”, the author use the polls to support his argument about Barry Bond’s issue relate to racism. He uses reasoning through statistics and probability. (www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=240358)
Moreover, in the article by Bob Nighthengale, when he compares the attitude of player to media, he uses analogical reasoning. As his quotation from Edwards that “Barry has never really cultivated the media and cultured the media the way Magic Johnson did and the way Tiger Woods has done.” He try to use this quote to making comparisons then draws conclusion that he argue about the media just don’t like Barry because his personally and race.
In Keith olbermann article, his inductive reason of discovering patterns, as he descript about the change of Barry body during Barry’s 27-37 years old. The fallacy he use is the poisoning the well fallacy. Actually, he just observes Barry body huge change, and jump up the conclusion that he believe Barry use steroid.
Also, he uses contamination rather than a frontal attack Barry. Actually, as he says that “Not the best of times in baseball”, he hidden his meaning that is not best time only for Barry.
For me, I disagree with Olbermann. I don’t know why he says “not the best times in baseball.” Does he mean that is Barry not right person to breakup the record? I think he fallacy to affect our point of view. On other hand, I do agree about some of points in those articles, that is the Barry Bone issue not only because he use steroid but also he is Africa American.
Hi alestri,
I have same feeling with you because I don’t care about baseball and Barry Bone totally. Be hones, I even don’t know him until yesterday. Then I asked many of my co-workers about him today. Most of them have negative opinion about him because of his manner or personality. I think some of them are affected by the fallacy from the media. Anyway, I do agree you say that it is more involved than the implications of race. But I think the most important part is relating to race.
Judy and Kalid, good job.I have thesame feelings as yours.The fact is that there are too many politics going on in Barry Bond's case.But the point is Barry Bond deserves the respect since there's no prove yet that he is guilty of steriod scandal.However, the country do live under the assumption of innocence until proven guilty.[Ms Wanzo]
There are several ways of reasoning that each author uses. Analogical, Reasoning Through Statistics and Probability, Patterns, Hasty Generalization, and Sensory Observation are used amongst the three articles.
Sporting News example is pointing out that the media should leave Bonds alone, he does not owe a thing to the fans or media, and there is no evidence that he took steroids. Oldermann argues that fans will question Bonds record breaking moment due to the steroids accusation lingering over him. Nightengale argues that Bonds is a target with the Balco bust allegations due to his race and age.
Nightengale argues that as the older Bonds got, the better his batting average and home runs per season increased. Reasoning through Statistics and Probability is used. The chart Nightengale used to argue this explained that in 1993 at the age of twenty eight, Bonds hit forty six home runs. Then fast forward to 2001 at the age of thirty six, Bonds hit seventy three home runs. Analogical Reasoning is used when Nightengale argues the race subject. Roger Clemens who is older than Barry just won his three hundred and fiftieth game recently, and no one questions this. Nightengale believes this is due to Roger being white and Barry being black.
Oldermann uses the Sensory Observation in his argument. When Bonds “hit nearly three times as many home runs as he had hit, in the season he turned age 27”. And “his head in that time span, grew one hat size, his feet three shoe sizes”. These are observations that Oldermann and many other fans have noticed since Barry was accused of taking steroids. Another Sensory Observation is when Oldermann points out that there were more blacks on the Dodgers in 1950 than there current roster today. Many baseball fans questioning Bonds if he broke the home run record honestly is an example of Patterns Observation.
Sporting News example uses several fallacies. Hasty Generalization is used when everyone is after Barry and accusing he used steroids, when there is no evidence or drug test showing this conclusion. The Slippery Slope is also used when breaking the home run record, reporters will be writing that Bonds cheated.
I can agree with Oldermann about Barry’s head size and weight gain increasing. By looking at his 1986 Pirates rookie card through today’s Giants look, there is definitely a change. Barry’s head is huge like a balloon and he has bulked up like some sort of super hero. I also agree with Nightengales statistics from when he was young. Players like Mickey Mantle and Reggie Jackson, declined in there batting and home run averages per game as they grew older. Barry for some reason kept getting better and better. How can Barry get better with age while others start to play worse with age? Regardless of clean test results and no evidence, this would still have to question steroid use.
Hi Richard Gonzales
Very nice written article about Bonds. I do agree with you about Barry Bonds being mean and stuck up. I met Barry back in 1993 at a card show in San Jose. When I approached him I extended my arm out to shake his hand. Bonds just gave me a dirty look and put his head down. This just gave me whole different look on the man. Barry had to be the worst player I ever met.
Hi hip bong lee,
I think you raise a good point in your post regarding Nightengale's ariticle and his use of "Condratictions and Inconsistencies."
Nightengale cites the book, "Game of Shadows" and its reporting of steroid use by Bonds in 1998. A paragraph before, we read that Bonds has tested negative for steroids since 2003.
There is a gap of five years there. Was Bonds tested during 1998-2003? If so, what was the outcome, and why are we not given that information?
In addition, your comment as to whether the media has a part in casting a negative light on Bonds? We have talked about this in class,and how we as a society are largely affected by what is presented in the media. Our beliefs are shaped by what we see on a daily basis through the eyes of the media. Bonds does not have a positive relationship with certain aspects of the media.
As I said in my post, I have not been impressed with Bonds and his interactions with the public.
I admit that my perception of Bonds has been colored by the way in which he has been portrayed in the media. This coupled with my gut feeling that something is amiss, right now I do not know who or what to believe. I just hope that the whole truth comes out, and these allegations can be put to rest.
Thanks for your insight,
Lisa
In response to the “Sporting News” rant, I found it personally entertaining and I agreed in theory with the author. He concludes that Barry Bonds is getting unnecessarily beat up and to prove his point he uses an excellent mix of fallacies and faulty arguments. The article is definitely his personal viewpoint which is biased because he is an admitted fan and totally supports his man.
There is the use of prejudicial language when it is said, “ You are all acting as a bunch of sissies” and by referring to the “Evil Empire”. This can also described as poisoning the well.
By using the bandwagon point, I think he made a good point but with a false authority, that the author made up.
An excellent example of loaded language, was when he asked, “What is there to give back?”, he obviously believes the answer is nothing and wants you to answer the same.
In conclusion, I believe the article finished strong with the fact that Barry hasn’t been proven guilty of anything and that is the Law, innocent until proven guilty.
Keith Olberman’s piece is riddled with questionable statistics, starting with the number of home runs hit by Bonds and there is no comparison or cite for the information. The false analogy that 37% of all baseball fans want to see Bonds break the record and 73% of African American Fan do also is a ruse. Is he talking about 73% of 37% or of the 73% of the 12% of African American fans and does that tabulate to 200 people or 2.
The claim is made that Bonds represents a time in which fans’ confidence in what the game means has been shaken, no Barry is a baseball player caught up in a scandal. This is shades of the O.J. situation. The media scandalizing and trying a brother with challenged interpersonal skills.
In this rant Olbermann is comparing Barry’s climb with other sports figures and in some ways it seems ok but overall it is apples and oranges and amounts to false analogies and false causes.
He uses the distraction of the other players and the baseball commissioner to make his case. The case is whether the brother used steroids and it has yet to be proven.
The Bob Nightengale piece was a biased because Barry Bonds was his childhood hero, and from that deduction, I have concluded that this author is overly sensitive and shapes his piece to fit his allegations.
Is it racism, performance enhancing drugs or bad behavior toward fans and media?
As far as the racism theory goes, he uses an authority that speaks his opinion and that uses hasty generalizations.
There are claims made that the book, “Game of Shadows” has dug up all of this information and it is about steroids and not racism and the author substantiates this theory by stating in the book Bonds took all sort of hormones yet in the same paragraph there is a massive contradictory statement that said Co-author Fainaru-Wada says “Game of Shadows” and the “Chronicle” investigation never were about Bonds.
This article was full of questionable statistics, a whole chart that has no citing, and using distraction techniques of other players to use the unfair comparisons.
The best line was the quote that was the epitome of poisoning the well and the bandwagon fallacies was, “Whenever I go home(to Pine Bluff, Ark.), I hear people say all of the time, ‘Baseball just doesn’t like black people. Here’s the greatest hitter in the game, and they’re scrutinizing him like crazy.’ It’s killing me because you know it’s about race” What a generalization and either or fallacy.
This author was not a fan of Barry Bonds and made every fallacy and deduction to support his case. If you are not aware of the fallacies and inductive and deductive reasoning arguments, you could easily be swept up on the bandwagon.
Hi Lisa,
I think if perhaps Barry Bonds is hiding something is an excellent sensory perception, yet any and all evidence presented thus far is to the contrary. He has not tested dirty to any tests he has taken and that would make him innocent until proven guilty. I do believe he should be given the benefit of the doubt, but when you are not a media darling as he is not, the odds of your success is always going to overshadowed in controversy. Thanks for you insight
Hi Shawn.
Thanks for pointing out the slippery slope fallacy - "breaking the home run record, reporters will be writing that Bonds cheated. "
I'll remember that example for our test tomorrow.
Hi Ms. Wanzo.
By all means, your point is well taken and I agree it's up to the courts to determine if Barry Bonds is guilty. But with all the fallacies generated by the media and if this when to trial, do you think it would be difficult to find unbiased peers?
Thanks!
Clarice,
That's what I'm talking about! Well stated.
Lyric,
Probably not. But still the very essence of our judicial system is the right to innoncence.
In high profile cases, the accused are usually tried in the media before they are ever tried in a court of law; hence the burden of proof shifts from proving the accused is guilty to the accused is now having to prove he or she is innocent.
Therein lies the problem. One cannont fight a fair fight if they are facing a group (jury of peers) who come in with preconceived ideas about him or her.
In this case, then, it is the responsibility of the court to make sure the jury is not tainted by information they may have heard through the media. Think a jury charge. It is also the responsibility of the attorney (s) for the defendant to make sure that they get a jury that has not been affected by the media and if so, that they may still rule in the accused's favor.
I'd argue that acheiving fairness has never been a fair process. Perhaps we need to re-evaluate the entire judicial system. For it has a long history of fallacious biased attrocities.
Hey Clarice, it seems that we share the same opinion on Barry, but you’re right. Not because he is a very unlikable person by many, should we already judge him and say that he is guilty. It seems that society has forgotten that in this country you are innocent until proven guilty, so let’s give Barry a break and see what happens.
Hi Shawn:
you stated that” I can agree with Oldermann about Barry’s head size and weight gain increasing. By looking at his 1986 Pirates rookie card through today’s Giants look, there is definitely a change. Barry’s head is huge like a balloon and he has bulked up like some sort of super hero" Shawn how would you compare the difference of ages as you stated 1986-2007. Of course, in 20 years you will observe different part of our body growth or increase particularly for sportsman is normal to gain weight as well as develop muscles. In my opinion, Oldermann are using hasty generalization because he kind of related with signal of steroid cause to our body.
I must agree with Lyric, I don't watch much baseball, and frankly I find the sport to be a bit dull. But like lyric said its up to the courts to decide if Barry Bonds is guilty of taking steroids. I have never seen Bonds play before nor do I really have an idea of who he is, but I know whenever I hear the name Barry Bonds, I think "steroids" and its said because this is a form of fallaciousness and I feel that the media portrays Barry as steroid using, hormone raging "meany".
I must agree with Lyric, I don't watch much baseball, and frankly I find the sport to be a bit dull. But like lyric said its up to the courts to decide if Barry Bonds is guilty of taking steroids. I have never seen Bonds play before nor do I really have an idea of who he is, but I know whenever I hear the name Barry Bonds, I think "steroids" and its sad because this is a form of fallaciousness and I feel that the media portrays Barry as steroid using, hormone raging "meany".
In these three articles/blogs that we read we found several different types of Inductive reasoning. Examples of analogical reasoning, reasoning through statistics and probability, reasoning from and about causes and analogical reasoning.
Bob Nightengale argues that the reasoning behind people accusing Barry Bonds of using steroids is that he is Black. He argues that there is no evidence to support this claim and the cause may also be because of Barry Bonds's lack of "warming up" to the media. We also find evidence of reasoning through statistics and probability through a chart that Nightengale provides displaying Bonds's statistics since joining the Giants in 1993.
Olbermann seems to take a stance that is somewhat vague to me. While he does point out that Bonds has never been convicted of using steroids he still seems to hint at the idea that he thinks he may have, "His head...grew one hat size; his feet, three shoe sizes." We see an example of analogical reasoning when he compares Bonds breaking the homerun record to Roger Maris almost breaking it, and Ripken breaking Gehrig's streak. We also see Olbermann's reasoning through pattern when he points out the pattern of baseball, and its near refusal to let old records die easily.
My favorite of these articles was that of the Sporting News. The author also uses analogical reasoning when arguing that Bonds gets more disdain from fans than Clemens, despite both being in similar boats, as far as steroids go. We also see reasoning from and about causes when the author mentions, like Nightengale, that perhaps the reason the media and fans don't support Bonds is due to his attitude in the past.
Personally I agree with the Sporting News. Bonds doesn't owe you s... Even if he is on steroids, as far as I'm concerned steroids saved baseball.
Judy, I agree with you that even if Bonds did use steroids he deserves to be in the hall of fame. He's been an All-Star and an all around great player since he played for the Pirates, i think it was. Beyond that, I know that several (which I'm sure is being modest) players in baseball have done, or do, steroids. None of them get the whole nation talking about them. Whether it be because they're not black or because they aren't breaking records, it doesn't matter.
Magnus, I agree with what you are saying because both authors do indeed use fallacies when talking about Bonds. Nightengale does bring up the issue of racism, which has nothing to do with the topic he was previously discussing. Like you said, that was a good example of a red herring. Also, Olbermann did use the fallacy: pointing to another wrong, when he starts naming other people who became successful but were using steroids. I agree with what you are saying Magnus because Barry Bonds has not been found guilty yet, so they shouldn't jump to conclusions and have people judge him based on what they have heard, rather than what is true.
After reading the article about Berry Bonds from a different writer I found there were a lot fallacies in the article, written by Keith Olberman, an unknown author and, Bob Nightenglae work. But I’m only going to mention a few of these fallacies and discrepancies.
Keith Olberman used a fallacy, namely the loaded question. The” loaded question, “ is a question using a biased perception to obtain a predetermined answer based on the bias Keith dose is at the ended of his article he stated” Even baseball’s commissioner is flummoxed. Bud Selig has still yet decided if the solemnities of the game demand his presence when Bonds hits his record-breaking 756th career home run or if they demand his absence.”(parg6)Keith used the commissioner in should at way, you would think that Bonds is alright guilty and convicted because the commissioner hasn’t attempted to defend him in the media ; which would lead you to think that he maybe guilt;
The Unknown author used Prejudicial languages, – which are attempts to persuade through the use of loaded work that conveys a bias”, you can clearly see that the unknown author is on Berry Bond side. The way the unknown author off the paper “Barry Bonds doesn’t owe anyone anything”(parg1) is completely justifiable. If the league want to investigate Bonds, then they should use investigate all the player.
Bob Nightingale uses Appeal to prejudice and bandwagon in his paper when started to use poll from Today/CNN.
Hi,L.Sayson
It was unbelievable read, very detail proving all your point about the articles on Berry Bonds. What can I say more? I like what I read very much. I agree with you no should be guilty by the eyes of the media.
First of all, I have been living here in the U.S. just for short time. Second, I am not a big fun of baseball. Therefore, I don’t know much about the stars in baseball. However, after I read the articles, I really feel unfair and uncomfortable with all the things and humors against a good sport player, Barry Bonds.
It is true whenever a person become famous, every single thing he/she does will become big topic for people in the society to discuss. Also, we always forget the good things about a famous person and never forget even a small bad thing about him/her. To make it worse, people will create bad rumors from no where just because they don’t like that person with or without reasons. Such as Barry Bonds, since now he is famous by all his achievements in playing baseball, he become a target for people to discuss.
Regardless how his attitude toward the media, without any evident, we can not say that he might be using any of the steroid or performance enhancing drugs.
In my opinion, normally, people in this society do not have to prove that he/she’s not guilty at something. A person is guilty for something unless we found some evident. However, this is quite different for a famous person such as Barry Bond. Well, first of all, we can’t find any evident showing Barry Bond using or not using steroid. Of course, he does not have to prove whether he’s guilty or not. However, some people lack of critical thinking will tend to believe that he is guilty since rumor says so and he haven’t given any prove of not guilty. Therefore, if I were Barry Bond, and if I do care my reputation, I will have to find a way to prove I am not guilty.
Overall, it does not matter whether Barry Bond is black or White, without any evident of showing him guilty, he is a wonderful baseball player and he should try his best to break any record.
Well, the articles have so many fallacies such as prejudicial language, bangwagon, and questionable statistics, etc. And fallacies that have been used a lot I think are false analogy and pointing to another wrong. The author keep comparing Barry Bond with Maris, Aaron, Ripken McGuire and Michael Jordan. In some degree, they have similarities, however, they are different. Therefore, it’s a false anology.
Barry Bonds, rather than being recognized for the great baseball player that he is/was, he is known for steroids and the whole controversy over if he took them or not. Many people have used inductive reasoning to fill in information about the whole situation, based on their knowledge as well as what they have heard/read about it. Although Barry Bonds is very cocky and arrogant, that's not a justifiable reason for assuming that someone is guilty. So, to sum that up, there are several fallacies used in the two handouts, including pointing to another wrong, poisoning the well, as well as a red herring.
An example of pointing to another wrong is evident in the reading from Sporting News where it states that, "Selig was partying and showing support back in '98 when McGuire and Slammin' Sammy were going yard all year long and he praised Clemens for getting his 350th career win, so why not honor Barry Bonds." Here, the Sporting News excerpt is talking about others who were found guilty of taking steroids, but they were able to still do well. Nightengale also stated that, "no one even talked about McGuire or Palmeiro who tested positive on steroids in 2005." Here Nightengale was trying to say that they were able to live their careers, so why try and destroy that of Bonds?
Poisoning the well is an example of a fallacy used because the media is constantly bad-mouthing Barry Bonds, so people have no choice but to believe what they hear and assume he is guilty. "Now everybody jumped on the bandwagon which is called We Hate Barry Bonds" was used in Sporting News and it shows how people believed what they heard and Bonds wasn't given the opportunity to even prove his case.
The final example of a fallacy that I have is a red herring used by Nightengale. Nightengale diverts attention to the issue of racism, rather than staying on the topic of the steroids. "Bonds is a major part of the investigation. We haven't had anyone characterize(the book) in any racial terms. The issue is about the steroid use, not racism.
I agree with both Nightengale and Olbermann because Barry Bonds has not been found guilty. There is no evidence of it yet, so why accuse him if the facts are unknown? Barry Bonds, being the cocky man he is, should be left alone like other baseball players. Until Bonds is proven guilty of taking steroids, people should just leave him alone.
Hi Judy and kalid:
I agree with guys. It is true that up to this point, people can’t find any evident showing Barry Bond is guilty or not. Therefore, regard all his great achievements, “he should still be inducted into the all of fame.” However, as Judy said, we should punish for those who really use illegal drugs for performance in sports. Therefore, let say if we found Barry Bond guilty in the future, we then can remove him from hall of fame.
The reasoning that the opinionists use are inferences. These writers are bringing in information from their own imaginations to fill in missing information from the situation. Depending on what type of person these writers can be, the kinds of conclusions that they come up with will be either positive or negative. Out of the 3 articles that we were given, one of them was negative towards Bonds. The only negative one was by Keith Olbermann, and this could be for any reason. Maybe he is a racist and is picking on Bonds because he's African American and about to break the record. Maybe he just doesn't like Bonds because he has experienced some of the "bad attitude" that was mentioned in all 3 of these articles. Either way, I wouldn't know because I am not really familiar with either of these gentleman. I know that Bonds can hit a lot of baseballs out of a field, and I know this Olbermann guy does not like Bonds. I also know that putting Bonds on a "hit list" for everybody to surveillance constantly is not a good thing because so far he has not been convicted of these crimes against baseball.
Clarice, I agree with what you said about not caring about this whole "Bonds situation". Maybe because I find baseball to be the most boring sport to watch (not play), but I don't really care about Barry Bonds either. I agree with what you said about him not knowing or caring who you are. Right now, he is concerned about his career, and public opinion should not affect the outcome of the situation. When it comes to big time sports celebrities like this, the magnifying glass will always stay close on them whether we like it or not.
Hi Jiale,
I agree with you totally that this is a perfect example of poisoning the well and using prejudicial language against Barry Bonds. I believe the distraction is that the story is about steroid use, when it is undercover racism. What do you think? s
This whole issue about Bonds and steroids appears to be way out of control. In respect to the blogger on sportingnews.com, although, his point could have been conveyed without the personal attacks “.C’mon what kind of men are you? You all are acting as a bunch of sissies.” I must agree; if it hasn’t been proven, let it go. The blogger also points out fallacies used by the opposing arguers, for instance, he states “.jumped on the bandwagon which is called “WHBB” (We Hate Barry Bonds).”
I believe that America is primarily a bandwagon type county. I think most of us live by the Duck creed. You know, if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, acts like a duck…. I’m guilty too, I was for sure that since Bonds first started out looking the size of an average baseball player, then later started looking like a football player; slam dunk he’s on steroids. And racism had absolutely nothing to do with my premature evaluation.
In regard to the Bob Nightengale article, I was confused on really what to think. I keep asking myself is the Racism issue a Red Herring to the Steroid issue or is the Steroid issue a Red Herring for Racism. And really what does either one have to do with Bonds being a butthead to the Media. I agree with Mike Cameron, this is an issue of Karma. Bonds’ attitude has paved the way for him to be “The Player We Love to Hate.” Further, Bonds fallaciously points to another wrong to justify his nasty attitude when he suggests that Jesus is perfectly nice but he was still crucified. So, basically people will treat him the way they will regardless of how he acts towards them.
Now, don’t get me wrong, I am sure without question that Racism has its nasty hands in a lot of aspects of Baseball as the case with everything else; but I don’t believe it’s the reason for his infamousness. Olberman actually makes that point in his article when he mentions issues involving Roger Maris, Cal Ripkin, and Mark McGwire. In reference to Hank Aaron’s experience, we must take into account that racism then was not only publicly accepted; but expected, unlike today.
Although, I don’t agree that this is a Racial issue I don’t believe that those who do are being oversensitive. In particularly coming from the POV of Harry Edwards; it has been proven far too many times that racism has played a detrimental role in the sports society. I am an Olympics fanatic and every time I watch clips from the 1968 track & field ceremony when the two athletes bowed their heads and held their black gloved fists high, I get chills.
A quote from a character in one of my favorite movies “The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he doesn’t exist.” Unusual Suspects, 1995. The further time passes from the height of the civil rights movement the more people want to believe that racism no longer exists. If we act as if, then racism will once rule our society again, without it being noticed.
Prior to reading the two articles I really had no knowledge of who Barry Bonds truly was. My only information on Bonds came from the media and how they portrayed him. I can also remember my brother sitting at the dinner table talking about how Bonds may be the biggest cheater in history of baseball. While reading the articles, I noticed that the opionists used Inductive Reasoning and reasoning through statistics and probability to come to a conclusion about Bonds' guilt or innocence. I also read an article called "The Truth" in which the author used red herring to accuse fans of being racist towards Bonds rather than attacking him for his alleged steroid use.
In the article written by Keith Olbermann he focuses on Bonds' statistical accomplishments pointing out the fact that Bonds' home run totals nearly tripled as he got older. Olbermann then eludes to the fact that 73 percent of African Americans and 37 percent of fans overall want him to break Hank Aaron's record. These numbers are unverified, and in my opinion should be cause for questioning. Olbermann uses reasoning through statistics to draw sympathy from readers and to influence readers into thinking that Bonds indeed did take performance enhancers or steroids.
In Olbermann's article he uses many fallacious remarks as grounds for evidence that Bonds did use steroids. He points to the fact the Bonds' shoe size and head grew as well as Bonds' personal appetite for home runs. In the middle of Olbermann's article he mentions the fact that only 37 percent of fans want him to break the home run record, this is an appeal to bandwagon. I mean come on 37 percent is a relatively low number considering the fact that its essential 2 out of 5 fans, or 4 out of 10.
In my opinion Olbermann did not show his own personal opinion but instead used gaudy numbers and general idealogy to persuade readers into thinking Barry Bonds took steroids. Someone who has little knowledge of the game(me) would easily be persuaded if I did not do my research. Personally after reading the articles we were given and reading the other article online, I am still unsure if Bonds truly did use steroids. Apparently nothing has pointed to him testing positive, although he has tested positive for "designer performance enhancers". Personally I think the game of baseball is watered down and every other day in the media there is a report of another baseball player allegedly using steroids. Whether or not Bonds really took steroids no one will truly know, but Bonds breaking the home run record is evident.
After reading theses articles, the reasoning’s that were brought up were Bond’s body built had changed tremendously and he continued to play well through out the years.
There was argument for each article that supported their reasoning’s. In the article with Olberman, his argument was that even though Bonds grew from his head, to his feet, he has lost confidence in what he’s accomplished because of what the media has said that he doesn’t deserve it because of steroids. Also it’s stated that McGuire’s supplements were seen but never recognized as an issue; moreover, the media didn’t think much of it. Another argument that was stated on Nightingale’s article was that there is know possible way that at Bond’s age he could have still been doing well with out any help along the way.
I agree with Olberman because there making it seem like just because Bonds grew in different areas, he used steroids or human growth hormones. However, there was evidence of supplements in Mark McGuire’s locker that was in sight where everyone could see but nothing was said or done about that issues. They don’t want Bonds to make his record, they’re hating on him number one because he’s an African American that’s doing well at the age that he is and number two because his body is getting bigger and they don’t see how that’s possible. It’s like they care nothing about the African Americans so they’re using everything they think of to put against him. But it doesn’t make any since because other baseball players use steroids or growth hormones with people finding out and its not a big issue to them on the other race; however, when a African American becomes the same size as other and as said before doing well for his age, they start to blame, and want to cause problems. I it’s called racism, something that a lot of people are dealing with.
This article shows a number of fallacies. Hasty generalization is used here because, they’re concluding that Bonds uses of steroids has made him bigger; therefore, they don’t want to give him his credit for what he’s done and achieved. Also they have sufficient evidence that been brought to the table. Also there is false analogy in the article being that they are trying to compare two people, Barry Bonds and Mark McGuire to one another. They’re comparing the two to the game that they play and that one, Bonds has done well on his games and has grown, while blaming him to have taken steroids to help him do so and McGuire has done the same but was caught with steroids in his locker and was never recognized for it as if really didn’t matter; however, on the same token, Bonds is being blamed and not getting all the credit for what he has done and accomplished. Also McGuire having steroids was notrecognized as a problem or that he was doing something wrong. Slippery slope is used because they’re claiming that being that Bonds used steroids his chain reaction was that he performed too well.
Prior to reading the two articles I really had no knowledge of who Barry Bonds truly was. My only information on Bonds came from the media and how they portrayed him. I can also remember my brother sitting at the dinner table talking about how Bonds may be the biggest cheater in history of baseball. While reading the articles, I noticed that the opionists used Inductive Reasoning and reasoning through statistics and probability to come to a conclusion about Bonds' guilt or innocence. I also read an article called "The Truth" (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/magazine/03/06/growth0313/) in which the author used red herring to accuse fans of being racist towards Bonds rather than attacking him for his alleged steroid use.
In the article written by Keith Olbermann he focuses on Bonds' statistical accomplishments pointing out the fact that Bonds' home run totals nearly tripled as he got older. Olbermann then eludes to the fact that 73 percent of African Americans and 37 percent of fans overall want him to break Hank Aaron's record. These numbers are unverified, and in my opinion should be cause for questioning. Olbermann uses reasoning through statistics to draw sympathy from readers and to influence readers into thinking that Bonds indeed did take performance enhancers or steroids.
In Olbermann's article he uses many fallacious remarks as grounds for evidence that Bonds did use steroids. He points to the fact the Bonds' shoe size and head grew as well as Bonds' personal appetite for home runs. In the middle of Olbermann's article he mentions the fact that only 37 percent of fans want him to break the home run record, this is an appeal to bandwagon. I mean come on 37 percent is a relatively low number considering the fact that its essential 2 out of 5 fans, or 4 out of 10.
In my opinion Olbermann did not show his own personal opinion but instead used gaudy numbers and general idealogy to persuade readers into thinking Barry Bonds took steroids. Someone who has little knowledge of the game(me) would easily be persuaded if I did not do my research. Personally after reading the articles we were given and reading the other article online, I am still unsure if Bonds truly did use steroids. Apparently nothing has pointed to him testing positive, although he has tested positive for "designer performance enhancers". Personally I think the game of baseball is watered down and every other day in the media there is a report of another baseball player allegedly using steroids. Whether or not Bonds really took steroids no one will truly know, but Bonds breaking the home run record is evident.
Inductive Reasoning and identifying fallacies applies to Barry Bonds in every new argument. The issue of him breaking Henry Aaron’s home run record and the use of steroids makes one assume his guilt, or innocence. The two seem to be synonymous. After reading each article and reading the two chapters on fallacies made me really try to find the authors’ point of view and to whom they were trying to appeal to.
Keith Olbermann uses analogical reasoning and reasoning through statistics and probability in his argument. Mr. Olbermann’s argument is that these are not the best times in baseball. He starts off by poisoning the well and using word ambiguity with “The Bonds era: Not the best of times in baseball.” What is the Bond’s era? Does he mean the Steroids era? He uses a false cause in the statement, “He is accused of using performance enhancing drugs, to such the effect that, he, in the season that he turned 37, hit nearly three times as many home runs as he had hit at the age of 27.” Also in the statement, “His head in the same span grew one hat size; his feet three shoe sizes.” Then he goes on using questionable statistics with “thirty- seven percent of all fans in a recent survey still say they want him to break Hank Aaron’s record; 73 percent of black fans.” All this leads one to believe that Barry Bond’s is guilty of using performance-enhancing drugs.
The author of the sporting news article uses reasoning from and about causes in his argument. He uses the appeal to a false authority in claiming that the only reason why so many sports journalist are bringing Barry Bond’s down is because he hasn’t been nice to them. He also uses bandwagon when he say’s, “Everybody was cheering him until the BALCO incident.” This is shown also when he say’s, “Bond’s hasn’t been found guilty of any charges, so to everybody banging up on him, stand up and applaud him when he breaks the All Time Home- Run record. He also uses I believe pointing to another wrong and using a false analogy by saying, “If Bond’s is guilty, so is Clemons.” This makes me wonder where is the author from.
In Bob Nightengale’s USA Today article he uses reasoning with hypotheses. I noticed a lot of fallacies being used in his argument. He uses word ambiguity in the intro in describing what I take is Barry Bond’s hate mail. This also appeals to one’s emotion of pity. He also uses loaded questions. One example is when Nightengale ask, “Is Bond’s seven home runs from surpassing Babe Ruth for second on baseball’s all- time home runs list, the latest African- American athlete to suffer the effects of racism, similar to the experience of all- time leader Hank Aaron. He also uses prejudicial language and poisoning the well in summarizing the BALCO case and the book Game of Shadows. This is to make one think that Barry Bond’s is guilty. Also another glaring fallacy that I noticed in this article was his appeal to false authorities. The book Game of Shadows and the LSU associate professor are not real authorities. What Department does Mr. Leonard Moore work in?
I don’t agree with any of the authors except for the author of the sporting news article. The other authors mentioned steroids and that the first implication to what they believe even though they are reporting the news. Barry Bond’s has not been found guilty of any crime. The only entity that has found Barry guilty of using steroids is the media. Like the author of the sporting news article said, “Barry Bond’s doesn’t owe anyone anything.”
Inductive reasoning and fallacies apply to Barry Bonds because the media is observing Bonds, and attempting to form a conclusion based on what they find. In the media, there have been reporters who use prejudicial language fallacies, and appeal to bandwagon fallacies. The opinionists use deductive reasoning in their articles. Kieth Olbermmann's argument is that the Bonds era is not the best times of baseball. He suuports his argument by stating that as Barry bonds displaces Hank Aaron, baseball fans try to decide whether or not to applaud Barry. That fans are not applauding because Barry is a black man. Bob Nightengale's argument is that race plays a big part in the Bonds case. That the only reason Bonds name still comes up even though he has tested negative for steroids is because he is black, and about to surpass a white man. He supports his claim by stating that Roger Clemens is 40 also, but they never bring up his name. is it because one is black, and the other white. The news exerpt's argument is that Bonds owes no one anything. He supported their argument by stating that Bonds will not be competing in the home run derby. Just accept it. He does not owe anyone a thing. I agree with Olberman because I think that white people do not want to give up the white past. Since Bonds is black, they do not want him to be number one. The black man on top is not a priority.
After reading these articles about Barry Bonds by Olbermann and Niightengale both of these opinionists had two different points of views. Olbermanns’ point of view of Barry Bonds was a negative because although his article he bad mouth Bonds and questioning his ethos as an athlete. On the other hand, Nightengales’ point of view of Barry Bonds was basically stating the facts and showing how other athletes have been using performance drugs.
The Fallacies that came to mind were band waging, pointing to another wrong, poisoning the well, as well as a red herring and slippery slope. As evidence the band waging fallacy was stated by Olbermann “Back in “01 everyone was rooting for Bonds ...04” no one openly spoke about performance enhancing drugs… Now everybody jumped on the band wagon which is called We Hate Barry Bonds.” This quote speaks the truth because many baseball fans across the world praised Barry Bonds until the Balco scandal reared its ugly head about performance enhancing drugs now I wonder what has happen to all of his fans they have left in the rain. An example of the Red Herring fallacy is stated by Nightengale when he got sidetracked from the issue at hand of the steroids to racism.
I agree with Nightengale because if Barry was a White athlete like Mark McGuire than this scandal would have been swept underneath the table. But overall I really don’t care about Barry but he deserves a fair investigation and not all this he say they mess to determine if is innocent or guilty.
Ifeynwa, I agree with you. Before this article, I did not know nuch about Bond's. Now I know that he is going through it. I feel for him because he is put on the spot light and given a negative image.
Judy,
i agree with you some of the things you mentioned. Bonds should have gotten crdit because he earned it, steroids or no steroids, the point is they havent found him to be guily yet so why hold that against him.He should have still gotten his hall of fame because he earned it, he's made a great accomplishment and can't even get credit for the hard work that hes done. Also those people that were caught with steriods nedd to be taken care of because to my understanding thats not excepted but they're still allowing it to happen.
Hey Clarice!!
I agree with you that Barry Bonds is a stuck up and I don't really care about the scandal but I think he should receive a fair investigation to determine of he is innocent or guilty. See you in class and thanks for speaking the truth.
I agree with Kalid when he say’s “Condoning illegal substances in any sports is a practice I strongly oppose and I support the stiffest penalties.” Being, what I believe to be a true sports fan, cheating is not fair. Athletes get paid enough money in a year, to be set for life. If an athlete cannot compete I believe that they should retire and let someone else have the opportunity to fulfill their dream.
On the record, the all- time leader in home runs is Josh Gibson. His Baseball Hall of Fame plaque says he hit "almost 800" homers in his 17-year career. He never played in the Major League. He played in the Negro League. Racial segregation excluded him from play in the Major League during his lifetime.
Clarice-
I had a hard time with this issue because I am so not a baseball fan. I couldn’t careless about Bonds, his attitude, Aaron’s record, or steroids. But I had to remove baseball as the issue. Your comment was so dead on how I felt, if he’s guilty fry him, if he’s not shut up.
Kalid- As per usual I enjoy the way your blog comments flow; I truly appreciate your insight, and I would love to hear your comments more in the classroom discussions. You think deeply, I like that!
Lyric & Ms. Wanzo;
I understand both of your points. As Americans we need to view someone as innocent until proven guilty. But, Bonds is not making it easier on himself by being a butthead.
Look at OJ, a jury of his peers found him “Not Guilty” of murder and another jury of his peers found him “Guilty” of wrongful death. It’s obvious that the media poisoned the well for the second jury. But none of that matters because he will always be referred to as a murderer by society. And that stupid book “If I Did It” didn’t made things any better.
All the author's are drawing a conclusion based on published data and known statics and facts. This leads me to believe they are all using inductive reasoning.
Olbermann, in my opinion, is arguing that everytime a record in Baseball is broken or about to be broken, there is always bad feelings. He supports this argument by giving examples of when other records were broken such as "In the best of times, to applaud Roger Maris is to be somehow seen as booing Babe Ruth".
I don't know about in baseball but I know that when I changed the football team that I wanted to support, my friends tease me about being a trader.
As for the Sporting News peice, Thank God someone finally put that message out there. I think that if there were any proof of Bonds' guilt, he would have been hung.
Nightengale uses fallicies such as discovering patterns when he writes "The same animosity and resentment that Hank Aaron suffered through when he broke Babe Ruth's record....because of the cloud of steriod suspicion." and analogical reasoning when he writes about people keep saying he's not supposed to keep doing phenomenal things at 40-plus years old but at the same time no one questions Roger Clemons who is 40-plus and white.
Richard,
I totally agree with you when you say Barry deserves respect no matter what kind of attitude he has because not many baseball player's have done or can do what he has in his career.
In the article written by Bob Nightengale, I found the reading to be very intriguing. The reason for that is because the author's way of thinking of the entire situation is along the same lines of the majority of individuals. Nightengale uses his reasoning to be that society uses the steroids as an excuse for not wanting Barry Bonds to surpass Hank Aaron's record. As well as, not inducting him into the hall of fame because of the steroid issue. However, Nightengale then goes onto explain his claim that in reality society does not want Bonds Bonds to do well beacuse of the color of his skin. The Fallacy of “pointing to another wrong” was used by the baseball agent Dave Stewart. Stewart says “people keep talking about how he’s (Bonds) not supposed to keep hitting homers and doing phenomenal things because he’s 40-plus… Well, Roger Clemens is a 40-plus, too, and nobody ever brings his name up. Why not? Is it because one’s black and the other is white?” A "red hearing" is used by Nightengale when he said, "He caused a furor two years ago when he wanted to break all of Ruth's records but wouln't mind falling short of Aaron, who started his career in the Negro Leagues. Yet when Bonds wa critized for his views, constructed by some racist, he reminded everyone that his first wife was white".
In the Sporting News excerpt, the author tries to Bonds deserves the credit for all that he has achieved. " Back in 01 everybody was rooting for Bonds, until the whole Balco talk started back in '03, '04 nobody openly talked about performance enhancing drugs, even though some already knew" was a hasty generalization fallacy. Analogical Reasoning was used when the author said, "And the fact that he won't be competing in the Home-Run Derby just accept it. Because Bonds doesn't owe anyone, anything".
At 40 years old, Bonds was doing things that some 22 and 28 year old men in their primes couldn't do. That makes you think, what is helping him put up great stats at a time when most people careers are winding down due to age. Yes, Bonds has been tested positive for amphatimines, he's never tested positive for steroids.
The Inductive Reasonings that came across were, analogical reasoning, easoning through statistics and probability. Analogical Reasoning is used when Nightengale argues the race subject. Reasoning through statistics is when Nightengale used statistical data information to show how Bonds will surpass Hank Aaron on the homerun record list.Olberman did the samething,he represents Bonds Fans against his opposition in percentage wise.
The fallacies I seen were, bandwagon, red herring, and hasty generalization. As evidence the band waging fallacy was stated by Olbermann, "Back in 01 everyone was rooting for Bonds, until the whole Balco talk started in '03, '04 no one openly spoke about performance enhancing drugs." Red herring, occured as Nightengale diverts attention to issue of racism, which wasn't the main topic.
I agree with both Nightengale and Olbermann because Barry Bonds has not been found guilty. Barry Bonds should be left alone like other baseball players. Until Bonds is proven guilty of taking steroids, sports media and baseball fans should respect and accept him.
Phillip, I agree with you because until Bonds is proven guilty, people should just leave him alone and let him do his thing.
Post a Comment