W7: D2 Counterarguments

There are many times when people will attempt to refute with a counterargument, but will simply have a bad argument.  Chapter 7 discusses the counterarguments: ridicule and a strawman.

Ridicule is insignificant in an argument.   It doesn’t help or really do anything in a discussion but shows how immature and demeaning the speaker is.  A person will use ridicule when they are incapable of thinking of an appropriate response for a counterargument.  Ridicule is meant to make the other person upset and make them feel belittled.   An example of ridicule is:

Student: I think you made a mistake on the problem.

Teacher:  Do you think you are Albert Einstein now?  Did you not fail the last quiz?

Here the teacher chose to avoid facing the mistake that was brought his attention and instead chose to humiliate and belittle the student.

A Strawman is when a person makes a claim, and the other person refutes it by putting words in that person’s mouth.  An example of a Strawman is:

Bob: Cupcakes are unhealthy for you.

Betty: So are you saying that I’m fat?

Bob: I said nothing like that!

Betty’s claim is a strawman because she blatantly put words into Bob’s mouth.

W7: D1 Reasoning In A Chain & The Slippery Slope

Two things I learned from Chapter 6 are Reasoning In A Chain and The Slippery Slope. 

Reasoning in a chain is a chain of conditionals that go step by step.  An example of reasoning in a chain is:

      If I go to the Britney Spears concert tomorrow, then I won’t be home for dinner.

      If I’m not home for dinner, then my mom won’t have to set a plate for me.

      If my mom doesn’t have to set a plate for me, then she will have fewer dishes to wash.

      So if I go to the Britney Spears concert tomorrow, my mom will have fewer dishes to wash.

It can also be looked at like this:

      If A, then B.  If B, then C.  So if A, then C.              

If A is true, we can confidently conclude C.  This is a valid form of an argument; there is no possible way for its premises to be true and its conclusion false at the same time.

However, a bad form of the reasoning in a chain argument is the slippery slope. The slippery slope argument is a bad argument that also uses a chain of conditionals, but at least one of which is not true or doubtful.  An example of the slippery slope is:

       Don’t eat chocolate! If you do, you’ll get addicted.  Then you won’t be able to stop buying chocolate.     Then you’ll run out of money.  Then you’ll become a bum on the streets and be a disappointment to your whole family!

I find that the slippery slope is definitely not a good argument but it is a rather funny one.  I hear this type of argument all the time in movies and it is just used to exaggerate someone’s worries or thoughts. 

W6: D3 Inferring and Implying

When a person doesn’t clearly state a conclusion, he or she is implying the conclusion.  By implying something, a person usually wants the other person to figure out what they are trying to say on their own.  When a person concludes that an unstated claim is the conclusion, he or she is inferring that claim.  Both inferring and implying are risky because it is very easy to misinterpret and ultimately misunderstand. 

Example:

Bill is starving and his friend Bob is eating a big delicious burger.  Bill cries out “I am starving!!”  Bob might think that Bill is trying to imply that he wants to have some of his burger.  Bob will then infer that Bill wants him to share.  When in actuality, Bill is just sharing his feelings at the moment and has a pizza on the way.  

I think it is important to clearly offer conclusions and state what you really want so that people don’t have to assume or guess at what you are trying to say/imply. 

W6: D2 Advertisement

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moPZNg-2878

Nowadays, I can rarely sit down and watch television without a Proactiv commercial coming on with a new celebrity endorsing it.  This commercial shows Katy Perry supporting Proactiv.  She shared about her history with pimples and how Proactiv drastically cleared up her skin.  Being a fan of Katy Perry, I was more interested in watching this commercial and I was also more open to trusting its claim.  By using Katy Perry to promote this product and its claim, her fans like me, will typically accept this claim because they admire and trust her opinion.  However, I also want to reject this claim because I have multiple friends who have tried Proactiv and say that it did absolutely nothing for them, which contradicts everything that Katy Perry has said.  I cannot accept or reject Proactiv from my own personal experience because I have never tried it.  Luckily, I do not have a problem with acne so I don’t have to worry about having to acquire personal experience with Proactiv. 

W6: D1 Repairing Arguments

The Principle of Rational Discussion is when we assume that the person who’s argument we are reading:  
1.  Knows about the subject under discussion.
2.  Is able and willing to reason well.
3.  Is not lying.

To repair a faulty argument we can add a premise or conclusion that satisfies all of the following:
1.  The argument becomes stronger or valid.
2.  The premise is plausible and would seem plausible to the other person.
3.  The premise is more plausible than the conclusion.

If the argument is then valid or strong, we may remove a premise if doing so does not make the argument worse.

My example of an argument that needs repair:

Frank’s room is black.  Frank paints his room red.

Analysis:  There is something missing from this argument, an unstated premise that would help us to understand the connection between the premise and the conclusion.  We don’t know why Frank painted his room red out of all the colors of the rainbow and we don’t understand why it is significant.  If we were to add “Frank’s favorite color is red”, it would make the argument good.  This statement satisfies the guide to repairing arguments and is true.  Now the argument is much more understandable. 

W4: D3 Structural Fallacies

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. 

W4: D2 Content Fallacies

Bad appeal to authority

The bad appeal to authority is a fallacy that claims that whatever an authority figure says about anything is most likely to be true.  This fallacy exists because people tend to trust authority figures, however not everything they say is actually true.  For example, my mother has always told me that pulling out my white hairs from my head will cause me to have more and more.  I never questioned this because my mother has always told me that she is always right.  However, I have recently learned that it is actually not a scientific fact that pulling out white hairs will lead you to have more.  Bad appeal to authority is a fallacy because the authority is not always right.  It is important for people to respect their authority, but it is also good for people to come up with their own opinions and beliefs.