I found the concept of "Violating the Principle of Rational Discussion"(Epstein, 2006) very interesting. My interest was piqued because it gave words to issues I've had with may polical statements and with commercial ads over the years. There are four violations listed:
> BEGGING THE QUESTION: Aimed at convincing the audience that you are speaking truth. In order to do this, you have to have fairly reasonable premises that lead to a conclusion not quite so reasonable. For example: 'I'm for clean air and water' (two things you support)- leading to the conclusion, you should vote for me in spite of the fact I'm also for eminent domain and weaponizing space (two things you don't support).
> STRAWMAN: Knocking down another argument by mis-stating what they said. What was actually said was "I cannot support libraries at the expense of public safety" could be stated as "My opponent does not support public libraries."
> SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF: It's easier to ask for a disproof of a claim than to prove them yourself. "Man is descended from extra-terrestrials. You don't believe me? Prove I'm wrong." This one is really difficult. Unlikely as it may seem, how could you prove it wrong?
> RELEVANCE: Arguments that don't relate to the conclusion - "I worked all day, I skipped lunch, so we should go to the movies."???? There is no reply to this type of argument. It makes no sense, at least in the way it's stated. It's possible there are some unspoken relevant points, but as the receiver, you have no way of knowing what they are.
Hey! I wrote about the same thing too! It’s mainly crazy because of how common these violations are, especially in commercial ads and political announcements. Your examples for each of these violations are very simple and understandable. I especially enjoyed the Strawman portion because of how likely it is to hear these kind of fallacies in political discussion--it’s almost pathetic. In argument, especially when it comes to politics and heated debates, the Strawman violation is used purposely to counter the opponent in an abrupt way, and turn an innocent truth into a false finger-pointing. It’s a way to catch the opponent off guard. At least now I can fully grasp violation of rational discussion when voting time comes around.
ReplyDeleteHey, my family was just talking about primaries election too. What you said was very interesting and true on how a majority of these politician can take these statements and turn them around to mislead a person. I don't like this idea greatly, but the competitive nature of our society has lead us to this. I thought that the strawman example exemplified these types of arguments the greatest. It just shows that people need to be more aware of everything and not what just they hear. That a person should find out about everything before making a valid decision especially in these types of elections.
ReplyDelete