Fallacies in Argumentation and Debate

FALLACIES

Fallacy of ignorantio elenchi is also called Irrelevant conclusion

This fallacy is committed when the disputant brushes aside or ignores the real question at

issue and attempts to prove something which has no bearing on the question under

discussion.

The following are under this fallacy:

Argumentum ad hominum (Argument To The Man):

Attacking the person, person’s character, personality or belief instead of attacking his

argument.

A common form is an attack on sincerity:

Example: How can you argue for vegetarianism when you wear leather shoes?

There may be a pretense that the attack isn't happening:

Example: In order to maintain a civil debate, I will not mention my opponent's drinking

problem.

Attack on the other person's intelligence:

Example: If you weren't so stupid you would have no problem seeing my point of view.

Ad Hominem is not fallacious if the attack goes to the credibility of the argument.

Argumentum as populum (Argument By Emotive Language - Appeal To The

People)

Using emotionally loaded words to sway the audience's sentiments instead of their

minds. Many emotions can be useful: anger, spite, envy, condescension, and so on.

Example:

A person on trial for a crime of theft pleaded for mercy on the ground that he had force

to steal to provide food for his starving family, instead of presenting evidence in his

defense.

Argumentum ad verecundiam (Appeal To False Authority)

This fallacy is committed when the debater contends that what he alleges is valid

because it is supported by a person who commands respect and reverence.

For example: Famous physicist John Taylor studied Uri Geller extensively and found no

evidence of trickery or fraud in his feats." Taylor was not qualified to detect trickery or

fraud of the kind used by stage magicians.Taylor later admitted Geller had tricked him,

but he apparently had not figured out how.

Argumentum ad judicium (Fallacy Of The General Rule)

Assuming that something true in general is true in every possible case. This fallacy is

committed when the debater ignores the real question and maintains that his contention

is valid because people in general believe it to be so.

Example:

All chairs have four legs. Except that rocking chairs don't have any legs, and what is a

one-legged "shooting stick" if it isn't a chair?

Argumentum ad bacculum (Appeal To Force)

Committed when a debater ignores the real question and appeals to force rather than

reason

Example:

The traditional religious threat is that one will burn in Hell

(Argumentum ad ignorantiam) Burden Of Proof:

The claim that whatever has not yet been proved false must be true (or vice versa).

Essentially the arguer claims that he should win by default if his opponent can't make a

strong enough case. It is a case of shifting of burden of proof.

Example:

I maintain that there are ghosts, because you cannot prove that there are no ghosts.

Fallacy of Quantity

This fallacy often arises from the confusion in the denotation of word all.

Example:

All is used collectively – All wrestlers in WWE weight 4000 pounds.

All is used individually – All wrestlers in WWE weight 200 plus pounds.

This fallacy could also be classified into:

Fallacy of composition

This fallacy sometimes called false synthesis, is a fallacy of quantity in which asserts that

what is true of a part taken singly is true of the whole taken collectively.

Example:

A car makes less pollution than a bus. Therefore, cars are less of a pollution problem

than buses.

Another example:

Atoms are colorless. Cats are made of atoms, so cats are colorless."

Fallacy Of Division:

This fallacy asserts that what is true of the whole taken collectively is true of a part taken

singly

Example:

Human beings are made of atoms, and human beings are conscious, so atoms must be

conscious.

Begging the Question

Reasoning in a circle. The thing to be proved is used as one of the assumptions. This fallacy

is often called petitio principii.

Example:

We must have a death penalty to discourage violent crime". (This assumes it discourages

crime.)

"The stock market fell because of a technical adjustment." (But is an "adjustment" just a

stock market fall?)

There are two types of this fallacy, one is Assumptio non-probata and the other one

is Circulus in probando.

Assumptio non-probata arises when the arguer uses the conclusion to be proved as

the means of proving the assumption.

Example:

All persons who have killed another must be sentenced to death.

(this premise has to be proved first)

Mr. A has killed another person.

(either Mr. A committed a crime or had killed only for self defense)

Therefore: Mr. A must be sentenced to death.

(self defense cannot be sentenced to death, therefore a Fallacy)

Circulus in probando arises when the arguer uses two unproved propositions, each to

establish the validity of the other.

Example:

Juan answer is correct, because it is the same as the answer of Pablo.

(The answer maybe both wrong)

Non Sequitur:

Something that just “does not follow”. The debater draws a conclusion from a premise

without showing a valid connection between the assumed or known truth in the premise and

the alleged truth in the conclusion.

There are two classes of non-sequitur. The simple non-sequitur and the false cause (post

hoc, ergo proper hoc).

Simple non sequitur

Arises when a debater draws a conclusion from a premise without any attempt to show

the connection between the cause and effect.

Example:

Pedro is the most clever student in the U-university; therefore, he should be the granted

basketball scholarship.

False Cause

This fallacy arises when the debater assumes that since one occurrence precedes

another in point of time, that event is the cause of the one that follows. (Sequence is not

causation.)

Example:

Before women got the vote, there were no nuclear weapons; or

Every time I will attend my music lessons, my basketball team sure to win.

The sun goes down because we've turned on the street lights.

Fallacy of amphiology

This fallacy arises on account of a faulty grammatical construction of the sentence which

give rise to miscomprehension.

Example:

The notorious criminal had been arrested by the policeman who robbed the bank.

Argument by Rhetorical Question

Asking a question in a way that leads to a particular answer.

Example:

When are we going to give the old citizens of this country the pension they deserve?" The

speaker is leading the audience to the answer "Right now." Alternatively, he could have said

"When will we be able to afford a major increase in old age pensions?" In that case, the

answer he is aiming at is almost certainly not "Right now."

Complex Question (Tying)

Unrelated points are treated as if they should be accepted or rejected together. In fact, each

point should be accepted or rejected on its own merits.

For example:

Do you support freedom and the right to bear arms?

This is only for research purposes; references are mostly from the book of Africa(argumentation and debate) and I

picked few samples from the wed aside from my own.

Posted by allan miel at 7:09 PM 2 comments: 

Labels: argumentation, fallacies

Monday, December 29, 2008

Charter Change, anyone?

Based on October 2008 SWS survey, populace seems to agree that GMA may finish her term of office, that is until June 2010, yet at around 65% of adult Filipino does not concur on extension, in whatever forms and means, of her term.

For whatever purpose, the administration pull out their best strategy formulated to date, a charter change! Yeah, it sounds familiar; this was being pushed by FVR on last year of his presidency, but to no avail. Could GMA and its allies pull the trigger this time? Or they would mess-up, and push the Filipino people to march and protest along the streets instead.

As to the opposition - the cons, charter change is a way of indirectly extending the term of GMA. For one, pros are pushing for parliamentary form of governance, -true enough that the president will step down the office upon expiration of her term, hence no extension of term as claimed by the pros, but the trick is, she has the possibility of becoming the prime minister, if and when she will seek for public office and win in her district, where she will be eligible to run under the proposed form of governance. That is, stepping down as president and stepping up as prime minister.

On the other hand, the pros claimed that cha-cha does not in anyway related to the same. Instead, the proposed change is for improvements on economic constitutional provisions that inherently limited as to its application and ambiguously draft in 1987 constitution. This is to address current economic difficultly that the Philippines is facing in international arena.

Further, the administration and its allies favored for constituent assembly (con-ass), instead of constitutional convention (con-con), as their first option as the mode of changing/amending the 1987 constitution, where any constitutional revision “may be proposed by the Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members.” Vote of Three-fourth of all its memberspose a critical question and yet to be resolved. As Congress is composed of two houses, -the House of Representatives and Senate, this is unclear on how the ¾ votes shall be arrived, whether: 1) all the members of both houses

convene jointly or convene separately? And how the votes should be treated/counted: 2) Houses shall vote jointly or separately? For cha-cha supporters, ¾ votes shall constitute the totality of all its members convene and vote jointly, however most senators do not agree on this view.

It is crystal clear that their arguments cannot be resolve among themselves, thus these questions shall be left to be answered by the Supreme Court. If the court holds that both Houses shall convene and vote separately, certainly cha-cha would not pass thru Senate, for they will not allow a change to abolish the senate itself. However, if the court favors joint votes on both houses, proposed change has a great possibility to be materialized.

It is also interesting to note that several new justices will be coming in 2009. A Supreme Court justice is a Presidential appointee, it follows that these new justices will be all GMA’s appointees, obviously, she will choose who in her perspective would support her plans. Let us cross our fingers that this virtually new Supreme Court upholds what is right and just, for this Court is the last battlefield for all the issues that would be put into rest and all decisions made that would eventually determine our futures.

Sure, Filipinos want for a change, it can be an economic or political change or both, so as long as it would lead the nation to the right direction. However, considering the political and economic turmoil that the nation is having presently, pushing for a charter change is not a sound option. Charter Change anyone? No, thank you! Character change, I may say, can be best served instead. We can have the “near” perfect constitution, but later. For now, sensing that our nation is politically and economically dying, definitely, constitutional provisions cannot heal this sick nation. Good character can be equated to a good action, and good action can lead to a good nation. This nation is in need for new, sincere, strong-willed leader who has a different perspective of building the nation toward political practices and economic improvements and stability.

Good bless Pilipinas!

Posted by allan miel at 5:37 PM No comments: 

Labels: anyone?, charter change

Tuesday, December 9, 2008

Argumentation and Its components

Argumentation theory or Argumentation

It embraces the arts and sciences of civil debate, dialogue, conversation, and persuasion;

studying rules of inference, logic, and procedural rules in both artificial and real world

settings. Argumentation is concerned primarily with reaching conclusions through logical

reasoning, that is, claims based on premises. Although including debate and negotiation

which are concerned with reaching mutually acceptable conclusions, argumentation theory

also encompasses eristic dialog, the branch of social debate in which victory over an

opponent is the primary goal. This art and science is often the means by which people

protect their beliefs or self-interests in rational dialogue, in common parlance, and during

the process of arguing. Argumentation is used in law, for example in trials, in preparing an

argument to be presented to a court, and in testing the validity of certain kinds of evidence.

Also, argumentation scholars study the post hoc rationalizations by which organizational

actors try to justify decisions they have made irrationally.

Key components of argumentation

* Understanding and identifying arguments, either explicit or implied, and the goals of the

participants in the different types of dialogue.

* Identifying the premises from which conclusions are derived

* Establishing the "burden of proof" — determining who made the initial claim and is thus

responsible for providing evidence why his/her position merits acceptance

* For the one carrying the "burden of proof", the advocate, to marshal evidence for his/her

position in order to convince or force the opponent's acceptance. The method by which this

is accomplished is producing valid, sound, and cogent arguments, devoid of weaknesses,

and not easily attacked.

* In a debate, fulfillment of the burden of proof creates a burden of rejoinder. One must try

to identify faulty reasoning in the opponent’s argument, to attack the reasons/premises of

the argument, to provide counterexamples if possible, to identify any logical fallacies, and to

show why a valid conclusion cannot be derived from the reasons provided for his/her

argument.

Components of Argument

1. Claim

Conclusions whose merit must be established. For example, if a person tries to

convince a listener that he is a British citizen, the claim would be “I am a British

citizen.” (1)

2. Data

The facts we appeal to as a foundation for the claim. For example, the person

introduced in 1 can support his claim with the supporting data “I was born

in Bermuda.” (2)

3. Warrant

The statement authorizing our movement from the data to the claim. In order to

move from the data established in 2, “I was born in Bermuda,” to the claim in 1, “I

am a British citizen,” the person must supply a warrant to bridge the gap between 1

& 2 with the statement “A man born in Bermuda will legally be a British Citizen.” (3)

4. Backing

Credentials designed to certify the statement expressed in the warrant; backing must

be introduced when the warrant itself is not convincing enough to the readers or the

listeners. For example, if the listener does not deem the warrant in 3 as credible, the

speaker will supply the legal provisions as backing statement to show that it is true

that “A man born in Bermuda will legally be a British Citizen.”

5. Rebuttal

Statements recognizing the restrictions to which the claim may legitimately be

applied. The rebuttal is exemplified as follows, “A man born in Bermuda will legally

be a British citizen, unless he has betrayed Britain and has become a spy of another

country.”

6. Qualifier

Words or phrases expressing the speaker’s degree of force or certainty concerning

the claim. Such words or phrases include “possible,” “probably,” “impossible,”

“certainly,” “presumably,” “as far as the evidence goes,” or “necessarily.” The claim

“I am definitely a British citizen” has a greater degree of force than the claim “I am a

British citizen, presumably.

Internal structure of arguments

Typically an argument has an internal structure, comprising of the following

1. a set of assumptions or premises

2. a method of reasoning or deduction and

3. a conclusion or point.

An argument must have at least one premise and one conclusion.

Often classical logic is used as the method of reasoning so that the conclusion follows

logically from the assumptions or support. One challenge is that if the set of

assumptions is inconsistent then anything can follow logically from inconsistency.

Therefore it is common to insist that the set of assumptions is consistent. It is also

good practice to require the set of assumptions to be the minimal set, with respect to

set inclusion, necessary to infer the consequent. Such arguments are called MINCON

arguments, short for minimal consistent. Such argumentation has been applied to the

fields of law and medicine. A second school of argumentation investigates abstract

arguments, where 'argument' is considered a primitive term, so no internal structure

of arguments is taken on account.

In its most common form, argumentation involves an individual and an interlocutor/or

opponent engaged in dialogue, each contending differing positions and trying to

persuade each other. Other types of dialogue in addition to persuasion are eristic,

information seeking, inquiry, negotiation, deliberation, and the dialectical method

(Douglas Walton). The dialectical method was made famous by Plato and his use of

Socrates critically questioning various characters and historical figures.

Kinds of argumentation:

1 Conversational argumentation

The study of naturally-occurring conversation arose from the field of sociolinguistics. It is

usually called conversational analysis. Inspired by ethnomethodology, it was developed in

the late 1960s and early 1970s principally by the sociologist Harvey Sacks and, among

others, his close associates Emanuel Schegloff and Gail Jefferson. Sacks died early in his

career, but his work was championed by others in his field, and CA has now become an

established force in sociology, anthropology, linguistics, speech-communication and

psychology.[13] It is particularly influential in interactional sociolinguistics, discourse analysis

and discursive psychology, as well as being a coherent discipline in its own right. Recently

CA techniques of sequential analysis have been employed by phoneticians to explore the

fine phonetic details of speech.

Empirical studies and theoretical formulations by Sally Jackson and Scott Jacobs, and several

generations of their students, have described argumentation as a form of managing

conversational disagreement within communication contexts and systems that naturally

prefer agreement.

2 Mathematical argumentation

The basis of mathematical truth has been the subject of long debate. Frege in particular

sought to demonstrate (see Gottlob Frege, The Foundations of Arithemetic, 1884, and

Logicism in Philosophy of mathematics) that arithmetical truths can be derived from purely

logical axioms and therefore are, in the end, logical truths. The project was developed by

Russell and Whitehead in their Principia Mathematica. If an argument can be cast in the form

of sentences in Symbolic Logic, then it can be tested by the application of accepted proof

procedures. This has been carried out for Arithmetic using Peano axioms. Be that as it may,

an argument in Mathematics, as in any other discipline, can be considered valid just in case

it can be shown to be of a form such that it cannot have true premises and a false

conclusion.

3 Scientific argumentation

Perhaps the most radical statement of the social grounds of scientific knowledge appears in

Alan G.Gross "The Rhetoric of Science." Cambridge:Harvard University Press, 1990. Gross

holds that science is rhetorical "without remainder," meaning that scientific knowledge itself

cannot be seen as an idealized ground of knowledge. Scientific knowledge is produced

rhetorically, meaning that it has special epistemic authority only insofar as its communal

methods of verification are trustworthy. This thinking represents an almost complete

rejection of the foundationalism on which argumentation was first based.

4 Legal argumentation

Legal arguments (or oral arguments) are spoken presentations to a judge or appellate court

by a lawyer (or parties when representing themselves) of the legal reasons why they should

prevail. Oral argument at the appellate level accompanies written briefs, which also advance

the argument of each party in the legal dispute. A closing argument (or summation) is the

concluding statement of each party's counsel (often called an attorney in the United States)

reiterating the important arguments for the trier of fact, often the jury, in a court case. A

closing argument occurs after the presentation of evidence.

Political argumentation

Political arguments are used by academics, media pundits, candidates for political office and

government officials. Political arguments are also used by citizens in ordinary interactions to

comment about and understand political events. The rationality of the public is a major

question in this line of research. A robust political science research tradition seems to prove

that the American public is largely irrational and ignorant of even the most basic knowledge

of national or world affairs. Political scientist S. Popkin coined the expression "low

information voters" to describe most voters who know very little about politics or the world

in general.

Some theorists have inferred from this that only comprehensively trained elites can debate

public issues. They point as additional proof to the practice of academic debate in the United

States, an activity almost exclusively involving children of the upper middle classes, future

lawyers and graduate students, and not ordinary citizens