In Chapter 10 of "Thinking for Yourself," is dedicated to identfying and locating fallacies. Mayfield provides a breakdown of many common fallacies. In this blog you will select 2 fallacies, that Mayfield discusses in the text, define each and find examples on line of each type of fallacy. Then you will post your definition (in your own words, not the text) and the examples in the blog environment.
For example, "a bandwagon fallacy is defined as one who follows others without question, in argument it's a reasoning error, because he did I'm going to do it too. I found this in listening to Olbermann describe the Bush-Chenney effect. Click the link above and watch Keith's special comment.
What other fallacies can you find?
48 comments:
“red herring fallacy,” is when the debater strays away from the topic at hand without first proving their claim, and attacks another issue.
Example:
“…when the Sate sanctions homosexual relationships and gives them its blessings, the younger generation becomes confused about sexual identity and quickly loses its understanding of lifelong commitments, emotional bonding, sexual purity, the role of children in a family, and from a spiritual perspective, the “sanctity” of marriage.”
I found this example in an online article “Focus on the Family Acton,” which took posted an excerpt from Dr. James Dobson book, “Marriage Under Fire: Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage.”
“Fear Fallacy” is when a debater uses a scenario of a fearful outcome in order to persuade his/her audience into agreement.
Example: “There is only one course of action against them: to defeat them abroad before they attack us at home.” I obtained this quote on the Whitehouse website titled President Addresses Nation, Discusses Iraq, War on Terror, Fort Bragg, North Carolina http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/06/20050628-7.html
Since I'm the only one so far on this blog, I just wanted to make a comment about Chapter 10.
The entire time I was reading Chapter 10 this morning, I could not stop laughing about all they different types of fallacies. I must admit I am guilty of using probably all of them at one time or another. I thought about when Mayfield indicated that we need to avoid using fallacies and being influenced by them. I really had to laugh because I couldn’t wrap my mind around not using anyone of those tactics in an argument. This chapter is going to be a very interesting discussion. I'm glad Ms. Wanzo is going to spend some time on this one.
Happy 4th of July!
After reading chapter ten of Mayfield's book,I was able to distingish kinds of fallacies.Though,I appriciate it more as I was doing on line research on possible fallacies used in some discussions.
In my research, I noticed two kinds of fallacies used: The first one is Misleading Euphemism.It is the delibrate and tactful use of words in an argument so as to achieve a polite meaning that would maintain smooth social gathering or discusion.
Presideent Bush's public address in W.Va committed this form of fallacy when he said,"American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are battling tyranny to defend the freedom that Americans celebrate on Independence Day,it's vital and just mission." Here, we notice that his speech avoided harsh or aggresive words that supose to be common terms used in such argument, which certainly would have created ugly picture in his argument.
The second type is Red Herring. Is defined as,a resoning in an argument which lacks suficient or sound prove in a conclusion as result,it directs attention to issues that are out of context. The President also used this type of fallacy while responding to questions on question regards to troops'withdrawal.He stated that, "the war requires more service,sacrifice and patiece." on the war.Instead being specific to the question,he diverted to commentries that weren't the target of such question.
For more information ,visithtpp:/news.yahoo.com/s/ap/Bush
Also in Olberman's special coment, I noticed Personal attack.This occures in an argument when slanted words are used with the intent of causing damage on person's character or credibilty.Here Olberman stated that, "I accuse you of handling part of the Republic over to a Vice president who is without conscience,and letting him run roughshod over it."Certainly,such accusation is targeted to distroy the President and his Vice's credibility.
There was Fallacy of prejudicial language too.It occures in an argument when the language in the argumen empolys dirogative words to cause bias.Here Olberman said, "we of this time-and our leaders in congress,of both parties-must now live up to those standards which echo through our history:pressure,negotiate,impeach-get you,Mr.Bush,and Mr.Cheney,two men who are now pericous to our Democracy,away from its helm."
Magnus,
Excellent response.
Kash,
I'm glad you found it funny. We all use fallacies at some point or another. I think it only gets worse once we master them.
Yes,Kash you made a point.Eveeryone is guilty of using fallacious statements.I think we use them consciously and unconsciously, but it's somthing inevitable when one's interest is at stake in an argument or discusion.That is the only tool one can easly employ for defence instead conceding an opposition.
There are many types of fallacies are going on today in the whole world that describe by Mayfield so I notice two different types of fallacies: the first one is “appeal to fear” is a type of persuasion that targets people's insecurities and survival instincts. Fear appeal is usually used to discourage recipients of a message from acting or thinking in a certain way, instead of trying to provoke a certain behavior or thought process.
For example: appeal to fear is often used by politicians to discourage votes for their opponents. This tactic is used in place of a strong argument by a politician in favor of him/herself. Political fear appeals often turn into flame wars, where the candidates stress their opponents' faults instead of their own strengths, however, I found this in listening to Olbermann who utilized” appeal to fear” thereby asserted “George W. Bush took our assent, and reconfigured it, and honed it, and shaped it to a razor sharp point and stabbed this nation in the back with it.”
The other fallacies is “Appeal to Pity” appealing to a sense of pity by drawing attention to pathetic conditions in an attempt to get an audience to accept an idea. For example: Olbermann stated that “Mr. Bush, you broke that fundamental compact between yourself and the majority of this nation’s citizens the ones who did not cast votes for you, and you ceased to be the President of the United States as well as you became merely the President of a rabid and irresponsible corner of the Republican Party”
There are many fallacies described in Olbermann speech particularly the one I do believe is “prejudicial language” tactics was in placed through out his speech to create a strong argument so as to favor and support his point of view.
-Ms. Wanzo,
Sorry for posting this portion of the assignment separately. At first, I thought the link to watch Olbermann was the picture and it wasn't working. Well today, I thought to click the title "Locating Fallacies" and, I was able to watch Keith Olbermann. Please be patient while I become more familiar with this blogging thing.
Olbermann’s “special comment,” was intense! If I weren't at work, I would have stood up and clapped. That was a serious and well deserved tongue lashing, Olbermann gave Bush and Cheney.
Although, the speech was excellent and I agreed with every word and felt every sentence sting my ears, to be honest and fair, there were a number of fallacies presented. One that stands out is referred to as “Prejudice Language,” which is described as using loaded words to persuade an audience to take the arguers word as truth. During Olbermann’s comments he stated, “..And George W. Bush took our assent, and re-configured it, and honed it, and shaped it to a razor-sharp point and stabbed this nation in the back with it.” Although this may be a widely agreed upon opinion, none-the-less it is an opinion and a very graphically worded one at that.
To be very honest this particular chapter was extremely overwhelming, I have fallacies swirling in my head and honestly it is not that I cannot understand them it just seems that there are so many and seem so subjective and criss-cross borders of definitions, it is frankly a bit daunting. But I going to give this my best shot.
One example of a topic that crosses several fallacies is the Iraq War and President Bush’s statements and behavior toward it. First, after 911 we were told that Hussein along with Al Qaida were involved with the attack. This could be construed as a fallacy with the intent to manipulate through fear and false authority. It would have been an unwarranted assumption, if I believed the parties involved did not know all of the information or were working with faulty information.
What turned out to be an unconscious assumption was how long Bush assumed the war would last.
This was a perfect example of the red herring fallacy, because Bush used the 911 attack to start the war, without proper investigation into who did it and why. He already had preconceived notions on what plan of action was needed and proceeded to carry them through with and or without support of his constituents.
One excellent of prejudicial language was the Katrina disaster. The media began referring to the displaced residents as “refugees”. I believed it was, of course, because there were black and underprivileged. I did not see any upper or middle class people in the streets or stadium. It was very unnerving each time I would hear it and believe me I sent an e-mail or two and let my councilmen/women know how degrading and insensitive the term refugee is to a person who is an American Citizen.
In using the term “refugee” I believe it was loaded language and an undercover slur to the poor and unfortunate, that barely escaped this tragedy with their lives.
http://urbanlegends.about.com/b/a/200931.htm. In this website I found it had one of the most stereotypical statements, I have publicly heard in a long, long time. The former ex-first lady, Barbara Bush had said, about Hurricane Katrina victims, “that most of the people were underprivileged, and this stadium temporary housing was working out quite well.”
When watching the Keith Olbermann video, I thought he talked a good game, but unfortunately I could not verify all of his facts. He was quite passionate in the tirade and I gave it an appeal to fear. To be scarred that President Bush is following in Nixon’s footsteps and he may get away with it. Overall I thought the point was a crime was committed and this guy was getting off because of what he knew and could possibly share with the world. I believe his task was to manipulate the public to his point of view with emotions and distractions. I really enjoyed his speech, he was as I said before full of emotion, he seemed quite familiar with the information and it seemed plausible and probable.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html
This page on fallacies is super interesting because the search information is on atheism and when you get to the beginning of the page it looks very official and inconspicuous, when really they are trying to persuade you to accept their
This statement on the previous page was an error.
Greetings Magnus,
I read your blog and my first response was a big smile, because I think that President Bush is an example of almost all of the fallacies we have read about in this chapter. I totally agree with you. See you in the blogsphere.
Sandye- I agree with you 100% regarding Bush and all his fallacious tactics.
However, I'm glad you brought up the issue about the Katrina victims. I have had so many heated conversations about the term "refugee." For the life of me, I could not understand why all of a sudden an American citizen could not be one. I must be missing something, because I felt like I was the only black person on earth that didn't feel strongly against it.
Immediately after Katrina, it seems as though everyone was talking about the term "refugee" as a bad word. So, me being me would always jump in and start an argument about what refugee means and why it was an appropriate term for those who were fleeing their homes to safety. Maybe someone can actually help me see why that term was so bad. I actually had one female get so upset because she couldn't understand why I couldn't understand the term was inappropriate she said, and very loudly I might add that I was a White Person Wanna Be. But, she couldn't explain to me why it was so terrible. She was using the Circle Reasoning fallacy tactic and the only support she had was that everybody else thought it was bad so it must be. I guess I couldn’t be persuaded under that bandwagon fallacy tactic either. I stopped using the term because it apparently offended others. I understand that “Refugee” is usually described as someone fleeing another country to avoid terrible consequences but in actuality they were running for safety, I thought that would qualify as a refugee too.
I was in New Orleans during that time and evacuated the day before Katrina hit. We (my friend and I) had planned on leaving the day after, but there were warnings about the hurricane and the hotel suggested that we end our stay early. Now, the natives on the other hand were talking about the evacuation as if it were nothing at all. The majority of them had no intentions on leaving. Had we listen to those that had been there their entire lives we too would be refugees. I have no problem with that. So, I still don’t understand it, I truly want to be convinced that it was the wrong term to use. I started to get upset because I first thought that blacks were being oversensitive. Don’t get me wrong I still believe how they were treated was definitely racially and socioeconomically motivated, but the media using refugee rather than victim, displaced residents, or other I just didn’t get the hype.
If the majority of those people were white middle class, do you truly believe the media would have used a different term from the beginning? And why?
Please anyone respond, I’m very curious to know what you all think.
Below is the definition of "REFUGE" as shown on Dictionary.com:
ref•uge noun, verb, -uged, -ug•ing.
–noun
1. shelter or protection from danger, trouble, etc.: to take refuge from a storm.
2. a place of shelter, protection, or safety.
3. anything to which one has recourse for aid, relief, or escape.
–verb (used with object) 4. Archaic. to afford refuge to.
–verb (used without object) 5. Archaic. to take refuge.
Hi Kash,
The word you have in your definition is refuge, please review the word refugee. I think you made a little typo.
I searched and found two different entries on the MSNBC website. The first is a Newsweek article entitled: "Politics of the Altar", written by a woman named Debra Rosenberg.
The article discusses the issue of gay marriage, and the outspoken outrage of Pastor Alec Rowlands who resides in Seattle, Washington.
The public argument took place in 2004 in Seattle when Pastor Rowlands learned that gay couples in Massachusetts were going to various churches and courthouses to legally get married. He is greatly concerned that the same legal right will be granted to gays in his own state of Washington. There is a law in Massachusetts that only allows for those who reside there to legally marry. However, in Washington there is no limitation with respect to whether those wanting to marry live in the state or not. In other words, if gay marriage is approved, gay couples could legally marry in the state of Washington.
Pastor Rowlands was quite upset at the prospect of gays (possibly) being granted the legal right to marry in his home state when he said: "We will become the Las Vegas for same-sex marriage. I believe he is using "word ambiguity" as a way to make himself heard, and further his case by not speaking to the issue directly. I believe he wants to win the argument by being unclear about what he is really saying.
In my opinion, Pastor Rowland's is filled with homophobia and fear. One element I disdain about homophobia is that it is often hidden under other kinds of language, and disguised with various kinds of mistreatment toward others. To me the above is all about "word ambiguity."
The second piece I found is an article about the actor/comedian, Robin Williams. He was talking with Meredith Vieira, a co-host on the TODAY show regarding comments he had made earlier in the week during an appearance on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno. Initially, he was on the Tonight show to talk about his recent movie role, "License to Wed", somehow he managed to make pointed jokes about the connection between priests and pedophiles.
Bill Donahue, president of the Catholic League was the first to respond by saying, "Isaiah Washington lashes out at one gay person in private, and he is banished from 'Grey's Anatomy.' Robin Williams lashes out against all priests in public, and he suffers no consequence." In my view this language is "pointing to another wrong." In order for Donahue to make his point, he does so by turning the attention from one individual's comment about a specific group of people or person, and that of another entirely. In additon, these two topics have nothing to do with each other at all.
In my view, whether or not these comments Donahue mentions are wrong is immaterial. It is the manner in which he makes his assertion that I feel is worth looking at right now. Pointing the finger at one (un-related) issue with the sole intention of shining a light on another is an ineffective way to make an argument.
The author of the article mentioned above, Mike Celizik uses "personal attack" when he says, "Many years ago, Williams underwent rehab for cocaine usage." I think Celizik uses this as a way to undermine Williams, or perhaps question his credibility as it has nothing to do with the basis for the article whatsoever.
I did read Olbermann's article, and I found it refreshing and empowering. I appreciate anyone with strong opinions and an intelligent voice to bring them in. I did not initially find any fallacies that stood out immediatley. I will go back and re-read and see if I respond differently.
The address for the Williams artice: www.msn.com/id/19484807 and the other, type in "gay marriage" and hit search. You will find some good stuff there.
Hi Kash,
I would love to dialogue with you regarding your first post. I also read comments made by James Dobson. Last year, he met with republicans Frist, Dennis Hastert and John Boehner to discuss the issues of marriage. In particular, I believe he hopes that Bush will place a ban on gay marriage. In his meeting with the republicans he said, "If you forget about us, we will forget about you."
I believe the language he uses is that of an "appeal to fear." I think he was threatening that if those gathered refuse to take a definitive stand on the issue of marriage, they will not back him either.
What exactly are you saying with your example of the "red herring" and the issues you discussed in your post?
Best,
Lisa
sandye- no, no typo. In the Webster's II New Riverside Dictionary the definition of "Refugee" is: "One who flees for refuge, as from danger." Hence, I choose to include the root word "Refuge,” to support my point of view.
A prejudicial fallacy is one that attacks the character of a person, and makes an assumption based on personal opinion. I found this type of fallacy when I watched the comments Don Imus made. His reference to black women in that manner attacked there character, and conveyed a bias. Not all black women have nappy hair. Some have straight hair, some have curly hair. His words were loaded with hatred, and racism.
Misleading euphemisms is defined as throwing a smoke screen over a topic by using words that make the topic seem positive. An example of this type of fallacy is when Bush adressed the U.S. on why we should go to war in Iraq. He claimed that Iraq threatened us and that we need to find their weapons. In reality, Bush had a hidden agenda, and he used the weapons as a screen to make going to war acceptable. However, Bush just wanted the oil.
Wow, after listening to Olbermann’s “special comment,” I was really shocked to hear all the fallacies he used. Don't get me wrong, I thought it was an excellent argument and it really had me intrigued to see what he was going to say next, but at the same time I kept being very critical about his comments because I realized he was using many fallacies in his argument. This is the result of reading Chapter 10 in the book “Thinking for Yourself,” written by Marlys Mayfield because before reading this chapter, I never paid attention to fallacies, or even realized that there existed so many fallacies. Olbermann, in his “special comment,” used “misleading euphemisms,” “appeal to bandwagon,” and in smaller effects used “red herring fallacies.”
In my research, it was not hard to find someone who used a lot of fallacies in their speech; President George W. Bush is guilty of that in almost all of his speeches. For example, I found a speech he gave in April 2007 about the “Iraq War Supplemental” and noticed that he used many fallacies in that speech. The first one was the “appeal to fear,” which means one who persuades others to agree by arousing fear in them. In his speech he claimed that “America is not going to be safe until the terrorist threat has been defeated. If we do not defeat the terrorists and extremists in Iraq, they won't leave us alone -- they will follow us to the United States of America.” Clearly we can see that this is just a tactic he uses to frighten Americans to think that the Iraq war is necessary.
Another fallacy Bush used in his speech was “red herring,” which is defined as instead of proving one’s point, they redirect the attention to other issues. He said, “I sent Congress an emergency war spending bill that would provide the vital funds our troops urgently need. But instead of approving this funding, Democrats in Congress have spent the past 70 days pushing legislation that would undercut our troops. They passed bills in the House and the Senate that would impose restrictions on our military commanders. They set an arbitrary date for withdrawal from Iraq. And they spend billions of dollars on domestic projects that have nothing to do with the war. After passing these unacceptable bills, House and Senate leaders then chose to leave town for spring recess, without resolving their differences or sending any legislation to my desk.” Here we can see that Bush is more concerned about making sure we knew what the congress is doing instead of proving his point on why exactly should the Iraq War get more unrestricted supplementation.
Here is the link where I found these fallacies: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/04/20070416.html
Kash, I agree with you regarding the Katrina incident. The only reason they refered to all of those people as refugees is because they were black. If they were white, or any other color, then different terms would have been used to describe the inhabitants. Katrina was a devestation, and I feel that it should have been handeled differently.
The blog environment was excellent this week. The topics were interesting, and the responses made me think a lot.
Hey Kash,
I also found the reading of Chapter 10 really interesting because I too have used these fallacies in an argument at one point or another. It is actually making me double guess myself in everything that I'm writing now :)
It is funny how we read or hear something like Olbermann's "special comment" and think that it was a great argument, yet we fail to recognize that most of his argument was based on fallacies. Anyway, it was still a good argument because I agree with his point of view, but I imagine that for those who disagree with his opinion about Bush and Cheney would really critique his argument and say that it was fallacious.
Therefore, it is good to know about these fallacies because now we can do our best to avoid them in our writings.
alestri- I tried to figure out what was the best type of fallacy to describe that far fetched idiotic excuse Dobson gave to keep the ban on same-sex marriage. I thought it was a red herring fallacy for him to conclude that by allowing same-sex marriage we would destroy the most precious and important existence of American life; our children; our future. So, I took that as him jumping off on a whole different topic. He‘s basically saying the LGBT community will ruin the fabric of America if we (society) accepts them. Do you have any suggestions on a type of fallacy that will describe his fallacious reasoning?
Thanks,
Kash
Hi Kash,
Thank you for going into greater detail regarding Dobson. I have to say now that I understand where you were coming from, I agree with you. After I read your respone, the word that came to me immediately in answer to your question; ignorance. However, I know that is not expressing a particular fallacy. Let me think on it a while longer and if I have time, I will look into more on Dobson.
I appreciate your looking at the same-sex marriage issue. A few people I know have said they believe one reason the issue is on the table right now is an effort to divert attention from the war in Iraq.
For myself, I don't particularly care about the right to marry. I just want the same rights as everyone else. I believe the fight for equality will always be an area in which some of us will be up in arms for years to come.
Thanks again,
Lisa
Hi Kash, Sandye and Jonathan,
I wanted to comment on the word ‘Refugee’. I agree with you, Kash. The word refugee is not a bad word. As for the Hurricane Katrina victims, I think the word was appropriate based on the word definition. The people who lost their home and the only homeland they knew (their city) are refugees. The word refugee knows no color. The people of Vietnam who were caught in the middle of north vs. the south war were also called refugees. They are not black. They lost their homes and towns/cities during the Vietnam War. Therefore, I don’t agree with Sandye’s statement regarding ‘One excellent of prejudicial language was the Katrina disaster. The media began referring to the displaced residents as refugees’.
Chapter 10 is a very interesting chapter and I found that many things (writing and people) use fallacies. In fact, I really wasn't aware of these fallacies until now. Learning is such a wonderful thing. Now I start to read with a slightly different mind set. But sometimes, I found myself blending the different fallacies. There are times where I am unable to distinctly determine which fallacy is used. I can't wait for class on Monday when we start discussing this chapter.
This is an example of the Fallacy of Word Ambiguity - 'Anytime the lunar orb makes a favorable link to the largest planet in the solar system, golden opportunities are knocking.' Fallacy of word ambiguity is when the definition of the words is not clear and can take on different meanings. In this case, the words 'golden opportunities' could mean almost anything from winning the lottery to a free cup of coffee from a vendor.
In Astrology, the fallacy found here is Fallacies that Manipulate Emotions.
This type of fallacy (in Astrology) plays upon a person feeling, mood and emotion into tricking them into what the day will bring. Here's an example: 'Scarlett O'Hara used to say, 'I'll think about it tomorrow.' It's tempting to take up the same philosophy, but it might not really be in your best interests. The best time to think about tomorrow is today.' This statement is advising the person to think about it today versus waiting to see what tomorrow brings.
A fallacy not listed in the chapter is Faulty Causation, also known as Fallacy of the Single Cause or Oversimplification. An example of this fallacy is 'Unemployment would cease to be a major problem if we got rid of illegal aliens'. In this fallacy, the intent is to simply the statement to a point where it results in misunderstanding or error.
Keith Oberman's argument was good. The fallacies he used were a great persuasion tactic. The first fallacy I noticed was the "Band wagon" fallacy. He repeatedly stated "those who didn't vote for him" appealing directly to the opposing and the non voters as a whole. He used John Wayne's quote numerous times to drive his point home with familiarity. Another one was the pointing at other wrongs fallacy. Oberman made sure to bring up the Nixon scandal, one of the biggest in history and suggest that president Bush take the same action president Nixon took. He went on to support his claim by naming all the things wrong in the world such as war and poverty. He furhter exploits the listeners fears and pity by citing death tolls and calling slain soldiers brothers, sisters, and friends. Over all I think the speach was very persuasive, using alomst all of the fallacies listed in chapter ten. After all that's what it was written to do. Almost everyone in the political arena uses every fallacy. They say anything they think voters may want to hear just to get in office. Bush is the prime example because he's at the top of the political food chain.
Red herring fallacy is "instead of proving a claim, diverts attention into other issues" And my own definition is one which distracts the audience from the issue in question through the introduction of some irrelevancy. For example, basketball player named Kobe James just retired, his average 3.1 points 1.8 rebound and 0.8 assist in his 881 games career. Also, he's such a nice guy, and he gives a lot of money to all sorts of charities. Therefore, he will end up in the Hall of Fame. Since his friendliness and charity are not qualifications for induction into the Hall of Fame. However, in this case it's diverts attention into other issues by irrelevancy to the audience.
Word ambiguity fallacy is "seeks to gain an advantage in an argument by using vague or undefined words" And my own definition is failed to give a clear statement, and no single, clear meaning is available. For example, the drunk driver should have been impeached only if the driver had drunk. The driver did not get drunk. Therefore, the driver should not have been impeached.
Hello- Jonathan D. Ivory
Jonathan, you have a really great example as your statement " when Bush adressed the U.S. on why we should go to war in Iraq. He claimed that Iraq threatened us and that we need to find their weapons. In reality, Bush had a hidden agenda, and he used the weapons as a screen to make going to war acceptable. However, Bush just wanted the oil." His misleading euphemisms make the congress passed the law to give him a permission to have war with Iraq. In our society, misleading euphemisms is one of the new weapon that can harm us.
It is really a challenge for me to reading those different kinds of fallacies in chapter 10. After reading the text book, I realized that there were many fallacies around our life. It is very easy to find the fallacies that are existed in media, in politic statement, even in family and friend conversation.
Fallacy that appeals to fear is the one I understand clearly. “Appeals to fear” means that it provide the images about bad result, high risk and danger situation before it give idea or propose that designated to persuade the audients. For example, it is an insurance commercial advertisement that picture of a woman is crying and handing with a little kid at home; then a woman says “My hundred was dead only at 35 years old. How can I pay house loan and raise our children without him.” That is very afraid and sad situation everybody doesn’t expect happening in our life. Then, the woman says “Fortunately, we bought xxx life insurance, I am able to have new life because helping from the insurance.” We would see the big title of insurance company display at the end of advertisement. There is a fallacy that manipulates fear to affect audients emotion first; further convincing audient to accept the idea.
Certainly, there are many fallacies combine in the “Special Comment, Bush, Cheney should resign” by Keith Olbermann. However, I realize that the fallacy of prejudicial language is the most observable in his speech. The fallacy of prejudicial language is a purpose that uses the words that can collect and attract more people for supporting the argument or opinion. For example, he says that “George W. Bush took our assent, and reconfigured it, and honed it, and shaped it to a razor –sharp point and stabbed this nation in the back with it…” Those are very strong words that can attract a lot of audients who have same opinion to Bush, as well as impact on the audients who haven’t. The prejudicial word and make speech and statement more attractive and powerful sometime.
Hello Maria,
Thank your for posting the White House website. I did read the statement “ President Bush Discusses Iraq War Supplemental”. I agree that your comment that President Bush is more concerned about direct us to focus on what the congress is doing rather than his point of Iraq War. In addition, I find the “misleading euphemisms” fallacy in his speech. As he says, that “That’s their right. But it is wrong for our troops and it’s wrong for our country. To accept the bill proposed by the Democratic leadership would be to accept a policy that directly contradicts the judgment of our military commanders. I strongly believe that the Democrats’ proposal would undermine our troops and threaten the safely of the American people here at home.” In here, we can see President Bush is misleading us the all the responsibilities have to be taken by Democrat leadership if they don’t accept the bill.
One fallacy I selected that Mayfield discussed was under Manipulation Thruogh Emotion. The fallacy I chose was Appeal to False Authority. False Authority is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. An example on line I found was the classic example of a television commercial which began: "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV." The actor then proceeded to recommend a brand of medicine. I found this at site Appeal to Misleading Authority at http://www.fallacyfiles.org/authorit.html.
Another fallacy I selected was also under Manipulation Through Emotion. The fallacy I selected was Appeal to bandwagon. The Bandwagon is a fallacy in which a threat of rejection by one's peers, or “peer pressure” is substituted for evidence in an argument. An example I found on line was at www.cyh.com/HealthTopics/HealthTopicDetailsKids.
“If someone is asking you to do something that is good and won't lead to trouble for someone, they will not say things like...”Everyone does it, No one will know, You’re chicken, Who’s going to find out? Don’t be a wuss and Go on I dare you.”
When Olbermann describes the Bush-Chenney effect I found the appeal tofear when he says “The protection of the environment is turned over to those of one political party, who will financially benefit from the rape of the environment. The protections of the Constitution are turned over to those of one political party, who believe those protections unnecessary and extravagant and quaint.
I also found personal attack when Olbermann says “Would that you could say that, Mr. Bush. And that you could say it for Mr. Cheney. You both crossed the Rubicon yesterday. Which one of you chose the route, no longer matters. Which is the ventriloquist, and which the dummy, is irrelevant.”
I agree with Sandye Curry when she said, “To be very honest this particular chapter was extremely overwhelming.” It was hard to choose a fallacy that I wanted to define. There were so many of them. When I started researching there were a lot more. I learned a lot in this chapter.
Appeal to fear is to pull fear into people .An example is when the author state to �Did so even before the appeals process was complete; did so without as much as a courtesy consultation with the Department of Justice; did so despite what James Madison�at the Constitutional Convention�said about impeaching any president who pardoned or sheltered those who had committed crimes �advised by� that president; did so without the slightest concern that even the most detached of citizens must look at the chain of events and wonder: To what degree was Mr. Libby told: break the law however you wish�the President will keep you out of prison?� That scary because it makes think you it he got with breaking the law. What will stop someone in the government from killing just because they can and get a way with it.
Poisoning the Well � is you use one side information to get across your point and you start of with a comparing .For example The man who said those 17 words�improbably enough�was the actor John Wayne. And Wayne, an ultra-conservative, said them, when he learned of the hair�s-breadth election of John F. Kennedy instead of his personal favorite, Richard Nixon in 1960.
�I didn�t vote for him but he�s my president, and I hope he does a good job.�
One of the fallacies that I recognized as something currently being used is “appealing to fear”. Now that this country is involved with war, this fallicy is being used quite often to get more people to support the war and the direction that this administration is headed. Things like “if you don’t support the war, the terrorists have won” and other things that can convey a false sense of contribution to the opposing side. Another example of this that is currently being used is the Terror Alert System. This color-coded warning system is used to provoke fear on American society. The higher the level, the more scared we have to be that the probability of “something bad happening” will occur. I have been checking the terror alert status for the past 3 days and it has stayed at “Yellow: significant risk of terror attack”. All of the words being used are meant to scare. Terror, attack, risk are all words that have fear interlaced into them. A society that is scared will always be at the mercy of oppression.
http://www.terror-alert.com/
Hip Bong Lee, I was interested how you used the qualifications of an athlete to show a red herring fallacy. I think that it can be used a lot in the world of sports as well as the obvious world of politics. A couple of weeks ago, there was a heated debate in class about some football player’s behavior in a club and your example reminded me of this. I don’t know anything about this guy, but things in his personal life were being discussed almost as if it was directly involved with his professional life. Does fighting at a club make an athlete not as good of an athlete on the field? It just seems to defer the attention away from specific details and mixes both sides of a person’s life together. It's a good example of a red herring fallacy.
My first fallacy refers to an article from msnbc "Bush Statement on Libby Order" where the president uses an appeal to pity which is to persuade his audience by making them feel sorrry for Mr.Libby. The president states that he made his decision because Mr.Libby and his family have already suffered and that while some of the sentencing fits the crime, like the fine and the probation, other parts,like the jail time, doesn't.
Ironically my second fallacy comes from the same article in that I feel that he is appealing to false authority, which would be persuation by saying that it is more appropriate for one person to make a decision than another. My thinking is who he to make moral judgement about what sentence should fit the crime after Mr. Libby has been tried, convicted, and sentenced by his peers. I think that there should be laws governing the president being able to pick and chose who the law is appropriate for.
After reading this chapter, I find myself really bad in writing. I use fallacies all the time in my essays. It seems to me that it is almost impossible to avoid all the fallacies in writing and in our daily life. However, learning to recognize those fallacies and try to avoid their influence is a must to become a smart reader.
Here is an example of fallacy that I always hear: circular reasoning. It means that you use your thesis to draw conclusion. Then you use that conclusion to support your thesis. But what you shout really do is to use some examples or details to support the thesis instead of that conclusion you make by the thesis. In another words, you say, “Because of A, one should do B.” then you continue, “therefore, because of B, you should do A.” here, we miss evidence C, D or F to support A. B can not be evidence because it is a conclusion. In fact, we use his fallacy every day. My mother always says, “Son, you should eat more vegetables since it make your body become healthier.” She asked, “Do you want a healthier body? If you do, then you should eat more vegetables.” This is circular reasoning. My mother should explain to me that vegetables contain lots of vitamins and vitamins make our body function properly. And that is why I should eat more vegetables.
Another fallacy—pointing to another wrong is a fallacy that we use quite often. It means that you say you are right because some body else does it too. But the problem is that you don’t mention or you don’t know that “some body” is wrong. Here is an example. When a kid is punished for not going to school, he says, “Why punish me? The other kids do the same thing too.”
Sure, Bush used lots of fallacies to support him and his War with Iraq. Here is how he use circular reasoning, according to website
http://bizknowledge.blogspot.com/2004/08/bush-on-circular-reasoning.html
he once said, “The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and Al Qaeda' is 'because there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda.' "
hi, ting liu
I think we both agree that there are many fallacies around out life. As you said, “it is very easy to find the fallacies that are existed in media, in politic statement, and in family and friend conversation.” I also think that lots of people use fallacies purposely. For example, in advertisement, we will find them a lot. Most of women or men will be convinced when they hear, “Is it too expensive to spend two months’ salary for something that last forever?(diamond advertising)”. Here is a fallacy that manipulates emotions.
The first type of fallacy i chose to cover was the "appeal to fear." When this is done fear is used to as a tool to make someone feel uncomfortable and gain a sense of disequilibrium, which leads to them giving in and allowing certain beliefs and values to be manipulated. The first example that comes to mind would be as Michael Moore pointed out in Fahrenheit 9/11 how the current administration used, and continues to use, fear as a tool to manipulate the American people and give up some of their beliefs and civil liberties, without question.
The second of the fallacies i chose to analyze was that of misleading euphemisms. This is when one deliberately turns something normally viewed as bad, untasteful or offensive into something more upbeat and socially acceptable, through arrangement and choice of words. Another reason why a bigger vocabulary can help one learn more. I found an example at http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jlynch/boonin.html.
The author states that an example of a misleading euphemism would be when animals are euthanized. He pointes out that the word euthanasia comes from Greek decent, meaning death and good. In proper usage it would refer to more along the lines of Jack Kevorkian, in that he would help people who were painfully and terminally ill. The author futhers goes on to argue that in many instances pets are euthanized for the sake of humans, not themselves.
I agree with rosemary, one of the more common fallacies used to is the appeal to pity. The appeal to pity is often used to make one side of a story look less offensive, or in the case of Don Imus he used an appeal to pity to make his comments seem less controversial, when in the end it backfired. Fallacies surround us and it is our job to differentiate between what information is true and what information is given to us in order to bolster a claim.
Lisa,
I agree with your friends that say that the gay marriage issue is being exposed to the degree it is now to divert attention from the war because honestly, this is not a new issue it's been in the politicl conversations for years. I also agree that the fight for equality still has a long way to go because while there are those naked-to-the-eye inequaities there are also many other ones that are less seen or paid attention to.
I agree with both Sandy Curry and Satcher boi this chapter was a bit lengthy and slightly difficult to choose a fallacy to focus on. I will also agree with Magnus and Kash, I too do believe that everyone uses fallacies in there everyday speech, and morality. I also believe that sometimes fallacies are not created with the intention to mislead but to help support and give evidence to a claim.
In reading Chapter 10 there are many interesting fallacies to choose from. Appeal to false authority seeks to persuade by citing a fake or inappropriate authority (page 276) this occurred when Bush lied to Congress and us about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction as an excuse to invade. Fake documents were used as evidence by Bush to support this. Bush has since admitted he was wrong. Websites used for information is http://www.impeachbush.tv/args/iraqlies.html and http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1307530,00.html. The fake inappropriate authority here was Bush lying and stating false information about weapons in Iraq. Thus getting congress to agree and ok his plan to invade Iraq. I define it as to lie and get others to sympathize with you eventually agreeing. Some blogs are people agreeing that Bush lied about weapons and others who think he was telling the truth.
Another fallacy is red herring which instead of proving a claim diverts attention into other issues (page 276). A recent event was when Mark McGwire testified to congress about his steroid use. Congress asked McGwire if he had used steroids. McGwire answered, “I am not here to talk of my past and only make a positive influence.” Website info used for information is http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/03/17/steroids.baseball/ . This clearly shows McGwire diverting and avoiding the steroid issue. He could have easily answered yes or no but instead chose to answer indirectly. McGwire’s actions also shot him in the foot this year when he was not elected into the Hall of Fame. I personally define red herring as when asked a question you would not want to answer, change the subject quickly about something else. There are very many blogs for McGwires steroid scandal. Some of them contain people who agree he is guilty of steroids and others who think he did not take them.
From watching Oldermann’s video he uses the appeal to prejudice-personal attack and poisoning the well. Oldermann states all of Bush’s wrong actions and explains each of them. Another one I found was appeal to bandwagon. In return he is trying to get you to agree with him that the president should resign. By agreeing, joining most of America on the bandwagon that Bush should be impeached
Hi Sandye Curry
I agree with you on how the stereotypical comment of Barbara Bush. I believe that those were racist comments made about the victims. To me this is an example of appeal to prejudice personal attack. How the media didn’t question her response or raise the issue is beyond me. I remember hearing her comments on the radio and I was just shocked at how someone could say that at a time like this.
After careful reading Chapter 10 of Mayfield's book, I was able to point of 2 types of fallacies that I found particularly interesting. I found that the appeal to pity is often used as a tool to mislead people. For example President Bush often uses fallacious remarks when trying to divert attention away from the war. He will often recount the effects of 9/11 as way of drawing pity and gaining support. An example another brief example an appeal to pity fallacious remark is :
"I really deserve a raise. Unless I make more money I will lose my car and possibly even my house."
That statement can be taken as an appeal to draw sympathy from another individual.
Another fallacy which I found to be particularly interesting was the "appeal to fear". Which is a fallacy in which a person attempts to create support for his idea by increasing fear. For example in Al Gore's campaign against global warming he often paints vivid pictures of destruction, chaos and mishaps if no action is taken against global warming.
In my opinion fallacies are often used as a tool to con or persuade individuals into believing a side of an argument or as a way to show evidence to support a claim
Maria's post with the White House website made me think of the White House number. Call and let them know how you feel, but don't be a terrorist. (202) 456-1414.
Sandye, i appreciate your reference to Katrina and people being referred to as refugees, as if they didn't live in this country already. When one thinks of a refugee it's usually from another (underdeveloped) country that has emigrated to America, or another country. Still, i have yet to see a European referred to as a refugee.
There was also a posting on Yahoo.com right after the hurricane where they described a young black man, arguably a child still, as a 'looter' whereas nearly the same picture with white people was described as as them 'finding' the food.
here's a link: http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.notinourname.net/graphics/looters-finders.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.notinourname.net/war/katrina-exp-5sep05.htm&h=832&w=250&sz=58&hl=en&start=6&um=1&tbnid=YuaBTBsEUp6pMM:&tbnh=144&tbnw=43&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dkatrina%2Byahoo%2Blooter%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den
Fallacious remarks are often made in order to help persuade us into believing a certain ideal is correct. In chapter 10, Mayfield presents many forms of fallacies, and each form seems to be intriguing and it allows to further analyze statements and test their validity. Two or three forms of fallacies caught my eye. The first of which is the "appeal to emotion", this a fallacy in which manipulation of the recipient's emotions, rather than valid logic is used a tool for persuasion. An example of an appeal to emotion is making a statement like:
"this is being done for the good of mankind"
In this statement the individual giving off the information is trying to appeal to peoples emotions and the ideals of what people believe are right and wrong.
Another fallacy that caught my eyes was the "appeal to pity" in which pity is used as a tool to help persuade people. In my opinion politicians and sales man often use "appeals to pity" in order to persuade people.
Fallacious remarks are often made in order to help persuade us into believing a certain ideal is correct. In chapter 10, Mayfield presents many forms of fallacies, and each form seems to be intriguing and it allows to further analyze statements and test their validity. Two or three forms of fallacies caught my eye. The first of which is the "appeal to emotion", this a fallacy in which manipulation of the recipient's emotions, rather than valid logic is used a tool for persuasion. An example of an appeal to emotion is making a statement like:
"this is being done for the good of mankind"
In this statement the individual giving off the information is trying to appeal to peoples emotions and the ideals of what people believe are right and wrong.
Another fallacy that caught my eyes was the "appeal to pity" in which pity is used as a tool to help persuade people. In my opinion politicians and sales man often use "appeals to pity" in order to persuade people. For example saying " hey man if you dont buy this car, im going to get fired"
This is an appeal to pity in order to get someone to buy a car, in hopes of possibly saving the salesman's job. In my opinion all forms of fallacies are made with the intention to mislead and hurt us.
Satcher boi this chapter was too complicated and seems to be difficult which fallacy to focus on. I do believe that everyone uses fallacies in there everyday speech, and I also believe that sometimes fallacies are not shaped with the intention to mislead but to help support and give evidence to a claim.
Custom [url=http://sacguessboutique.webnode.fr]guess france[/url] possess the the majority of stylish designs and impressive. [url=http://sacslongchampfrance4.webnode.fr]sacs longchamp[/url] era we have come across many cycles that the curiosity toward designer purses is very regular. In our day-to-day life|it has turned into a [url=http://longchampsacs2013.webnode.fr]sac longchamp prix[/url] to appear attractive as well as fashionable|which wish is actually generating. To be certain [url=http://longchampsoldes2013.devhub.com]longchamp pliage[/url]. For individuals who wear know Givenchy [url=http://sacguesssoldes2013.webnode.fr]sac guess femme[/url] electric outlet for keeping your general appear.
A lady offer you a good type of the best high quality designer [url=http://longchamppascherpliage.weebly.com]longchamp pas cher pliage[/url] as well as luxurious [url=http://isabellemarantsneakersimitation.weebly.com]isabelle marant sneakers[/url] We're happy to advise you concerning the trustworthy on the internet knock away purses shops on the planet. [url=http://sacmichaelkorssoldes.weebly.com]sac michael kors soldes[/url] lots of woman possess the right to sparkle whilst strolling along the street with their replica chanel [url=http://sacguessbymarciano.weebly.com]sac guess collection[/url] or look and feel the best quality [url=http://longchampsacssoldes2013.weebly.com]longchamp soldes[/url] replicas
The E [url=http://burberry-tote-cher-soldes.webnode.fr/]burberry pas cher[/url] dwEdl QxtNcz U crawl [url=http://longchamp-sacs-2013-solde.webnode.fr/]longchamp solde[/url] Dash board gadget lbGkj VnnYcmWnkXcl [url=http://isabel-marant-sneakers-soldes.webnode.fr/]isabel marant pas cher[/url] DmrPrhD qiAla [url=http://longchamppliagebags.weebly.com/]longchamp bags uk[/url] HgtUakE wkRrm EwdJtk [url=http://basketisabelmarantsoldes.webnode.fr/]isabel marant sneakers[/url] AorV PhcTkn [url=http://burberryca.weebly.com/]burberry canada[/url] FzcV QepQ
YdjTps [url=http://korsmichael.weebly.com]michael by michael kors[/url] HnsBuh JuhLvo [url=http://longchamppliagehobofr.weebly.com]sac à main longchamp[/url] XryOwj XvrZip Customers Seemed to [url=http://sacslongchampsolde.tripod.com]sacs longchamp[/url] YwmEwb PnpScs But This Time We laugh at all of them [url=http://isabellemarantchaussures.weebly.com]isabelle marant sneakers[/url] XbrKxx DpxAzk [url=http://sacguessnoir2013.weebly.com]sacs guess pas cher[/url] BuqRav QboKvq
Post a Comment