In Chapter 11, Epstein discusses structural fallacies. I found this concept to be very interesting. Structural fallacies are arguments that are bad because of their form, regardless of its content. Structural fallacies display that the person is quite confused and is not reasoning very well. An example of a structural fallacy would be if someone was to say, “All dogs shed. Bill sheds. Therefore, Bill is a dog”. This is a structural fallacy because the argument is weak and just not logical. Just because Bill sheds, does not mean we can automatically assume that he is a dog. The correct way to present this argument would be to say, “All dogs shed. Bill is a dog. Therefore, Bill sheds”. This argument is logical and shows a direct way of reasoning. I think structural fallacies are silly because they show that the person clearly does not understand what they are talking about.
Structural fallacies are silly! I think you're example definitely "sheds" some light on the fallacy. The example of the right form is very clear and easily comprehended. Mostly due to the fact that I love dogs...and the fact that this fallacy does not even incorporate content. It's all about how you say what you’re going to say. I think this is funny because this means if you were to act as the fallacy police you can point out someone’s flawed argument purely off the basis of the way they said it. So no matter what they said, they’re wrong! I feel like that’d be very satisfying.
ReplyDelete