The intellectual establishment takes itself quite seriously, often to a major fault.
I, for one, am terrifically good at pretending that I understand what someone else is saying and giving him or her the time of day when I really don’t even acknowledge what he or she thinks, believes or states.
It’s understandable that what a person says should be consistent with his or her actions, but far too commonly I disregard the argument someone makes. This, friends, is fallacy, the dreaded concept we pretend to avoid but still rush headlong into.
Why? Because we’d actually have to think about the other side in order to address it adequately.
I obtained much of the following information on fallacy definitions from a professor in the OU Department of Philosophy, Chris Swoyer, who wrote “Critical Reasoning: A User’s Manual,” which was used for my undergraduate critical reasoning course.
I learned the names of and ways which these fallacies are used then, but in watching the climate of campus and the highly-charged politics of Washington, D.C. these days, I thought re-reading and writing about them would be an excellent and worthwhile exercise for me now that I think of myself too highly as a graduate student.
Dictionary.com provides us with a useful definition of the term “fallacy” in philosophy, defining it as “any of various types of erroneous reasoning that render arguments logically unsound.”
The examples of these are plentiful, and I could spend much more than a short column describing each one.
The ones that linger in my mind that I fear most, both from my undergrad class and from observing the way people argue, are three: (1) Argument Against the Person (ad hominem); (2) Fallacy of Irrelevant Reasons (“Red Herring” or “non sequitur”); and (3) The Strawman Fallacy.
I’m really good at these, and perhaps you are, too.
So what do these mean?
First, the ad hominem. This means that in my argument or analysis of another’s, rather than addressing the topic or reasons given for a person’s position, I choose to attack the person in order to undermine his or her credibility.
A common illustration is that if my friend makes the historical argument for a Just War, I might respond “you just want to go to war because you hate people, wear ridiculous clothes, and you’re a conservative fundy.”
Conversely, if it’s someone who opposes war, I would say, “You’re simply a flaming liberal who wants to sit around, drink organic coffee and not shower.”
Rather than discussing what his or her reasons were, I attack the person.
Sadly, the blogosphere is full of these types of arguments. People like to belittle others in order to make themselves look good, and I’m often guilty of this. But what good does this do us?
Both sides do this politically, and both are dangerous.
Secondly, the more subtle Fallacy of Irrelevant Reasons. Also called the “Red Herring” or “non sequitur,” I’m trying to get the reader to believe my conclusion on the basis of premises completely unrelated to the conclusion.
For example, much of the current debate on health care in the U.S. centers upon a government-run public option, over which there is a fire storm of controversy. But if I wanted to defend the public option (while committing a dastardly Red Herring), I would say something like “we need to pass this legislation because people are dying for lack of health care, as well as because Europe has this system, and Europeans are really cool. I love British accents. They make people more funny.”
This is interesting, but completely unrelated to whether this legislation on health care reform should pass. Again, altogether too easy and far too common.
Third, and in my experience the one I’m best at, is the Strawman Fallacy. This one is defined by Swoyer as “when we distort or weaken someone else’s position or argument in an effort to discredit it.”
It’s an attempt to fill up the opponent’s position with straw in order to knock it down and smash it easily.
Again, examples are everywhere, but a common one I see in my experience is with people from many different religious backgrounds. We assume to understand a religion or set of beliefs without having ever gone to the source of those beliefs, which in most major religions is some sort of text, to discover whether these beliefs are actually consistent with the teachings.
I could say that Jewish or Muslim people hate pigs without going to their teachings about why they don’t eat pork. I could combine every group that names itself “Christian” without actually reading the Bible to find out what a Christian is.
This can happen in religion, politics, social commentary or anything else in which we make an assertion that might be considered controversial. Easy, but utterly worthless.
Ultimately, if I am going to strengthen my arguments, I need to understand the opposition well. I can’t just rely on a couple of out-of-context sound bites to get the full understanding of what they are saying or asserting. I have to do the difficult thing and think it through.
Some of the issues I am most passionate about are ones which are controversial, and those should be the ones that I focus on learning the strengths of the opposing side.
If we do that, then we might better examine our own set of beliefs to see if they measure up to reality.
The Oklahoma Daily is pleased to provide you the opportunity to share your thoughts about this article. We encourage lively debate on the issues of the day, but we ask you refrain from using profanity or other offensive speech, engaging in personal attacks or name-calling, posting advertising, or straying from the topic at hand. To comment, you must be a registered user of OUDaily.com. Thanks for taking the time to offer your thoughts.
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register
leimapapa 2 years, 5 months ago
Haters will always hate. Don't let them get you down. I honestly don't know what they expect from an opinion column in a school paper..
JJanowiak 2 years, 5 months ago
Please stop writing. Your few readers do not need a lecture that assumes that they stopped school at fifth grade. You are truly the epic worst columnist writing this semester.
dio 2 years, 5 months ago
Wait. YOU want to lecture people about logical fallacies after your abortion column!? Man, you really have no shame.
Cambrian 2 years, 5 months ago
Maybe Fixed News should read this column. It describes almost every commentator they have.
Also, I believe the fact that people are dying because they don't have healthcare is the most relevant of all the reasons for passing healthcare reform. If people had insurance they would be able to go to the doctor without going bankrupt or waiting until their condition gets so bad it becomes impossible to fix.
Finally, did no one at the Daily watch the President's speech last night? There were no columns on that this morning, and that seems much more important and significant an issue than some guy's rant on critical reasoning. Once again the Daily has failed at good journalism and slumped to the level of a blog.
ArchC 2 years, 5 months ago
"if I am going to strengthen my arguments, I need to understand the opposition well."
There are three reasons why a person should know well the argument of his opponent.
-In order to examine it for flaws in logic, science, history etc. Thus allowing you to form your counter-argument
-To know when your opponent says something that contradicts his own beliefs, conflicts with points he has made previously or with the party line of his own ideology.
-And most importantly, to find if out the opponent's argument has any merit and, therefore, may even be correct!
This last one requires the humility to admit to yourself that you do not know everything and can thus can truly be open to any change based on sound reasoning.
Unwillingness to listen to an opponent’s argument is a clear sign of shallowness and lack of confidence of conviction.
(as demonstrated by many of the poster here)
linzee 2 years, 5 months ago
"Unwillingness to listen to an opponent’s argument is a clear sign of shallowness and lack of confidence of conviction."
As demonstrated by the haters here you say? What argument are you speaking of? No one here is arguing that the column itself is bad. We all pretty well agree that you should try to understand others' perspectives. However, when the great Mr. Malone also says in his article...
"Ultimately, if I am going to strengthen my arguments, I need to understand the opposition well. I can’t just rely on a couple of out-of-context sound bites to get the full understanding of what they are saying or asserting. I have to do the difficult thing and think it through."
then it is pretty hypocritical to be putting forth this article at all. This whole piece speaks to the necessity of the author specifically to attempt engagement in a multiperspectivism that doesn't fall back on stereotypes of other people. Furthermore, it scolds people who specifically act like they have done this, and then secretly don't ever challenge their own perspective. But I am pretty sure that Jon Malone has never ONCE in his ENTIRE LIFE thought about any controversial issue divorced from his position as a white, male, middle class Christian. He has not, for example, ever thought about abortion from the perspective of a woman, as his articles are continuously riddled with the glorification of the fetus status and "moral" values drawn from the bible. That is a pretty narrow focus to engage issues on and certainly fails to live up to an objectivism that debating both sides could potentially make possible.
linzee 2 years, 5 months ago
@ Arch C
Way to not respond to a single one of my arguments. I am simply calling out Jon Malone on his own hypocrisy of writing an article that demands multiperspectivism, and then refusing to evaluate any issue from any position but his own.
Your comment literally makes no sense at all. My comment is not about stereotypes at all. It is not about name dropping to prove my credibility. It's about saying that one should not lecture on a criterion that he or she has not successfully fulfillied first. That's all.
I can't speak to the views of Michael Moore, Olberman, or any other media persona, because I get my information from more credible sources, not those tampered to attract mainstream, unenlightened minds such as your own. I read political blogs, news sites, and comprehensive studies on abortion issues on both sides. The idea that liberals do not evaluate both sides is not a legitimate stereotype, just as the stereotype that I must be in love with the liberal news media is also invalid. Why don't you stop acting as the mouthpiece of Jon Malone and start thinking for yourself as the rest of us have learned to do?
And I didn't even mention dio and co in my post. But way to essentialize our posts as a cohesive liberal view. That's certainly not entrenched in ANY refusal to see the other side as a multitude of difference, right?
ArchC 2 years, 5 months ago
linzee
You say dio and JJanowack's comments are in agreement?
But never mind, When I said "here" i wasn't just referring to this particular page but tho the almost universal practice of all liberals to avoid comming within earshot of an opposing view.
I addressed a particular sentiment in the article, one that liberal posters here on the Daily comment pages regularly reject
Stereotypes per se are not invalid. There are two types of stereotypes, fair and unfair. The blanket refusal to even listen to an opposing view is a fair stereotype of liberals as closed minded.
I've read Naomi Wolf, Carvel, even Michael Moore. I listen Oberman's nightly meltdown, (yes I'm that guy). I not afraid to hear the opposition even when it isn't just pure ridicule, which is rare.
Name for us some of the opposition's books that you have read. Ann Coulter? Michele Malkin? Laura Ingram? Christina Hoff Summers? That to name a few for the woman's perspective. Tell us exactly what Limbaugh, Beck and O'Rielly say that you disagree with. Exactly.
As for abortion from the view of the woman, negative testimony abounds. Did you see the interview two weeks ago with the abortion nurse who quit and became prolife after viewing an ultrasound of an abortion in progress? The sight of the fetus unsuccessfully fighting for its life is perhaps a perspective you need to consider. But then such scenes are exactly what your side demands never be shown.
Where is your courage?
dio 2 years, 5 months ago
@ArchC
"You say dio and JJanowack's comments are in agreement?"
Nice.
"the almost universal practice of all liberals to avoid comming within earshot of an opposing view."
I wonder what I am doing here...
"The sight of the fetus unsuccessfully fighting for its life is perhaps a perspective you need to consider."
Nice CG by the way.